Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1494, which I was pleased to cosponsor with Senators D'Amato and Bond. This legislation extends certain critical HUD and USDA housing programs whose authorizations have expired. It also makes certain other changes in housing policy to reflect priorities of the Congress as well as the administration. When S. 1494 originally passed the Senate on January 24, 1996, it was limited in scope to only those provisions that needed affirmative legislative authority to continue to operate, such as the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Demonstration program for the elderly (HECM), the CDBG home ownership program, the FHA multifamily risk-sharing demonstration, and the Section 515 rural rental housing program. The other body passed S. 1494 as amended on February 27, and the House-passed version contains changes that were negotiated between the House and the Senate. The amended bill we are considering today thus contains some positive additions to the bill the Senate initially approved. Most notably, S. 1494 now includes provisions that make it easier to evict from public housing tenants who are engaged in criminal activities or who have a pattern of alcohol or drug abuse, and it gives public housing authorities access to criminal records for the screening and eviction of public housing tenants. These provisions aid in the implementation of what the President calls a ``one strike and you're out'' policy for public housing, and they were part of S. 1260, the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act, which this body approved on January 10, and which is awaiting action in the other body. The bill also streamlines procedures for public housing authorities to designate public housing facilities as ``elderly only,'' ``disabled only,'' or ``elderly and disabled families only.'' S. 1494 provides the authority to evict from these designated facilities those whose pattern of drug or alcohol abuse would jeopardize the safety and security of the elderly and disabled residents. These provisions reflect concerns raised by advocates for the elderly about the mixing of elderly and disabled populations, but they provide a balanced policy that will help provide access to affordable housing for both of these special needs populations. Again, these provisions are similar to those contained in the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act. S. 1494 also extends the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Demonstration for the elderly through September 30, 2000, instead of the 1-year extension originally passed by the Senate. The bill provides authority for the HUD Secretary to operate the low- income housing preservation program passed by Congress in the vetoed fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriation bill. These provisions are necessary to prevent large-scale mortgage prepayments of FHA-insured mortgages and thus preserve the existing supply of affordable low- income housing. In addition, S. 1494 creates a self-help housing program under which HUD will provide grants to capable nonprofit organizations, like Habitat for Humanity. Grand funds must be used for the payment of land acquisition and infrastructure costs. These funds will supplement donations and contributions of products, volunteer labor and sweat equity, on which groups like Habitat now depend. Finally, S. 1494 authorizes only through September 30, 1996, the section 515 rural rental housing program administered by USDA's Rural Housing Service [RHS]. Before the program is authorized beyond the current fiscal year, oversight hearings should be held and reforms implemented to guard against waste, abuse, and misuse of funds. The RHS has taken significant steps to correct problems in the section 515 program which have been identified by the USDA IG and the GAO. However, legislative action is required to assure that program funds are allocated properly and that the program is not abused by developers, owners, or tenants. The Banking Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development, which I chair, will hold hearings on the section 515 program early this spring.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, we are here today primarily because the White House has not been dealing with the special committee in good faith. I know that there are those who would accuse this committee of conducting a political witch hunt in an election year. But I submit that there are legitimate and powerful reasons to be investigating Whitewater Development Corp. and all of the related matters. At the outset, it should be made clear that the main reason this committee needs additional time is the abject failure of this administration to cooperate. Contrary to all of their public statements, I believe the White House has been actively engaged in a coverup. They have repeatedly refused to turn over relevant evidence and have often failed to remember key facts under oath. To give just one example, Bruce Lindsey was asked on numerous occasions whether he had produced all relevant documents to the committee, and he insisted under oath that he had. In particular, the committee asked about any notes he might have taken during the November 5, 1994, meeting of the Whitewater defense team. That is the same meeting where William Kennedy took notes, and we almost had to go to court to obtain them. Last Friday--that is the very date the special committee's funding was set to expire--he turned over his clearly marked notes of the November 5 Whitewater defense team meeting. The American people deserve better than that. Again, this is only one example--where Bruce Lindsey was asked over and over again whether he had taken notes during that November 5 meeting, and we were told over and over again that he had not. On the day this committee's funding expired, they turned over these notes of the meeting. In my opinion, the White House has done everything in its power to hide the truth. That is why we are here asking for additional funds to continue the committee's work. Mr. President, I suspect that over the next several hours we obviously will hear from both sides of the aisle on this. But on our side of the aisle, I expect that most of our Members who participated in these hearings will probably do as I have done; that is, to focus my attention on some specific areas where I focused my attention during the committee hearings. So my comments now will be somewhat focused on the behavior of the White House officials immediately after Vincent Foster's death. The death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., on July 20, 1993, marked the first time since Secretary of Defense James Forrestal died in 1949 that such a high-ranking U.S. official took his own life. Mr. Foster was a close friend of both the President and Mrs. Clinton, and provided legal counsel to them on a number of sensitive personal matters, including Whitewater. Given Mr. Foster's sensitive position within the administration and his close personal friendship with the Clinton's, there were legitimate questions to be asked about the way he died. The reason I raise this is because I have a feeling that those who may have just casually been observing or watching these hearings may have asked the question, What is all the concern about how the White House handled the review of documents in Vince Foster's office? I have already indicated that he was a personal friend of the Clintons, but there are questions that would be raised about any suicide of an individual in this kind of position. Questions, for example, could be: Was there blackmail involved? Was he a victim of a crime that had something to do with his position? Could he have been the subject of extortion? Was our national security compromised in any way? Officials would certainly be concerned with finding out the answers to these questions as soon as possible. In the days following his death, White House officials--in particular, members of the White House counsel's office--searched the contents of Mr. Foster's office and at the same time prevented law enforcement officials from conducting a similar search. In doing this and later covering it up, they have come to look like the guiltiest bunch of people I have ever seen. Section (1)(b)(1) of Senate Resolution 120 authorizes the committee to inquire ``whether improper conduct occurred regarding the way in which White House officials handled documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster following his death.'' Pursuant to this directive, the committee conducted 69 depositions and held 17 days of public hearings to investigate the actions of White House officials in the week following Mr. Foster's death. The committee's investigation revealed, among other things, the following facts. Fact: Foster's office was never sealed the night of his death despite four separate official requests. Fact: High-ranking White House officials searched it without supervision. Fact: Maggie Williams was seen by an unbiased witness carrying a stack of documents out of Foster's office. Fact: Nussbaum made an agreement for Justice Department officials to conduct a search of Foster's office. Fact: Nussbaum told Stephen Neuwirth that the First Lady and Susan Thomases was concerned with the Justice officials having unfettered access to Foster's office. Fact: A flurry of phone calls occurred at critical times--17 separate contacts in a 48-hour period among Hillary Clinton, Maggie Williams, Susan Thomases, and Nussbaum. Fact: After those calls, Nussbaum reneged on the deal with the Department of Justice investigators. He insisted on searching the office himself. Fact: Once the investigators left the scene, a real search occurred with Maggie Williams' help, and afterwards she took documents to the residence. Mr. President, I am going to go back through those various facts that I have raised, and again I am focusing on a very, very small portion and limited area of this whole debate. The area that I will be focusing on again is the night of Foster's death and the few days following that death. Seven different persons recalled four separate requests to White House officials to seal Vincent Foster's office on the evening of his death. This was not done until the next morning. Hillary Rodham Clinton called Maggie Williams, her chief of staff, at 10:13 p.m. immediately upon hearing of Mr. Foster's death on July 20, 1993. Right after talking with Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Williams proceeded to the White House to Mr. Foster's office. White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum and Deputy Director of the White House Office of Administration, Patsy Thomasson, met her there and conducted a late-night search of Mr. Foster's office without law enforcement supervision. Mrs. Clinton then called Susan Thomases, a close personal friend, in New York at 11:19 p.m. Secret Service officer Henry O'Neill testified that on the night of Mr. Foster's death, he saw Ms. Williams remove file folders 3 to 5 inches thick from the White House counsel's suite and place them in her office. Now, why would this Secret Service individual lie about that? This could constitute obstruction of justice, particularly if the billing records were in those files. If this is true, there could be two possible separate counts, the first against Maggie Williams for knowingly taking relevant documents out of Foster's office with the intent to hide them from investigators, and the second for turning them over to someone else, possibly the Clintons, who then intentionally withheld them from us in violation of numerous document requests and subpoenas. This is one of the central questions which the committee must resolve. After searching Mr. Foster's office on the night of his death, Ms. Williams called Mrs. Clinton in Little Rock at 12:56 a.m. on July 21, 1993, and talked with her for 11 minutes. Again, this is 12:56 a.m., middle of the night. Once that call was concluded, only 3 minutes later, at 1:10 a.m., after her conversation with Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Williams called Ms. Thomases in New York and they talked for 20 minutes. I wish to note here that when we first spoke to Ms. Williams, she categorically denied talking to Ms. Thomases that night. Imagine, that was a 20-minute conversation that took place at 1:10 in the morning and Ms. Williams categorically denied talking to Ms. Thomases. When the committee asked her for her phone records to prove her claim, she and her lawyer stated they were not available from the phone company. We asked the phone company for the records and, voila, 1 week later, we had them. Susan Thomases, a New York lawyer, is a close personal friend of President and Mrs. Clinton. She has known the President for 25 years and Mrs. Clinton for almost 20 years. She was an adviser to the Clinton 1992 Presidential campaign and remained in the close circle of confidants to the Clintons after the election. One article referred to Ms. Thomases as the ``blunt force instrument'' of enforcement for the First Lady. She was the one who got things done in a crunch. As my colleague, Senator Bennett, described her during the hearings, she was the ``go-to'' guy on the Clinton team. If the First Lady wanted to make sure that her people got to Foster's files before outside law enforcement, Susan Thomases was just the person to get the job done. Department of Justice officials testified that they agreed with Mr. Nussbaum on July 21, 1993, that they would jointly review documents in Mr. Foster's office. Let me just say that again. There was an agreement between the Justice Department and Bernie Nussbaum as to how the documents in Mr. Foster's office would be reviewed. Then there is a flurry of phone calls that occurs at what I would call critical times. We then begin a period of time in which a multitude of calls took place involving Thomases, Williams, and the First Lady. I believe the purpose of these calls might have been to make sure that the agreement Bernie Nussbaum had made with the Justice Department concerning the search of Foster's office was not kept. Call No. 1. At 6:44 a.m.--fairly early in the morning. I am trying to think about how many phone calls I have actually placed at 6:44 a.m. Anyway, 6:44 a.m. Arkansas time on July 22, Maggie Williams called Mrs. Clinton--this is the day following--called Mrs. Clinton at her mother's house in Little Rock, and they talked for 7 minutes. Ms. Williams initially did not tell the special committee about her early-morning phone call to the Rodham residence. After obtaining her residential telephone records documenting the call, the special committee voted unanimously to call Ms. Williams back for further testimony. When presented with these records, Ms. Williams testified, ``If I was calling the residence, it is likely that I was trying to reach Mrs. Clinton. If it was 6:44 in Arkansas, there's a possibility that she was not up. I don't remember who I talked to, but I don't find it unusual that the chief of staff to the First Lady might want to call her early in the morning for a number of reasons.'' Maggie Williams said, ``I don't recall'' or ``I don't remember'' so many times I lost count. According to one New York paper, as of last month, all of the Whitewater witnesses combined said this a total of 797 times during the hearings alone. Call No. 2. This is a call that takes place now 6 minutes after the call that Maggie Williams forgot or just did not mention to the committee until we had records of the call. But 6 minutes after she apparently was willing to wake up the First Lady 6:44 Arkansas time, 6 minutes later Mrs. Clinton called the Mansion on O Street, a small hotel where Susan Thomases stayed in Washington, DC. The call lasted 3 minutes. Oddly enough, Ms. Thomases did not remember this call again until after the committee was provided with her phone records. Call No. 3. Upon ending her conversation with Mrs. Clinton, Susan Thomases immediately paged Bernie Nussbaum at the White House, leaving her number at the Mansion on O Street. When Mr. Nussbaum answered the page, they talked about the upcoming review of documents in Mr. Foster's office. Ms. Thomases actually told the committee that these two phone calls had nothing to do with one another. After obtaining records documenting that she talked with Mrs. Clinton for 3 minutes immediately prior to paging Mr. Nussbaum, the special committee voted unanimously to call Ms. Thomases back for further testimony. She maintained, however, that she called Nussbaum, because again, ``I was worried about my friend Bernie, and I was just about to go into a very, very busy day in my work, and I wanted to make sure that I got to talk to Bernie that day since I had not been lucky enough to speak with him the day before.'' I will come back to the busy day she was having later. At this point I will say that she was busy all right, but not with her private law practice. Mr. Nussbaum has a different recollection of his conversations with Ms. Thomases. On July 22 he testified that Ms. Thomases initiated the discussion about the procedures that he intended to employ in reviewing documents in Mr. Foster's office. ``The conversation on the 22d''--this is a quote now-- ``The conversation on the 22d was that she asked me what was going on with respect to the examination of Mr. Foster's office.'' ``She said * * * people were concerned or disagreeing * * * whether a correct procedure was being followed, * * * whether it was proper to give people access to the office at all.'' According to Mr. Nussbaum, Ms. Thomases did not specify who these ``people'' were to whom she was referring, nor did Mr. Nussbaum understand who they were. Mr. Nussbaum testified he resisted Ms. Thomases' overture, but he said, ``Susan * * * I'm having discussions with various people,'' which, by the way, we determined those various people were Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Maggie Williams. Again quoting--``Susan * * * I'm having discussions with various people. As far as the White House is concerned, I will make a decision as to how this is going to be conducted.'' He did decide to renege on his deal with the Department of Justice, but only after more phone calls from Maggie Williams and Susan Thomases. We have independent corroboration from Steve Neuwirth. Steve Neuwirth, a member of the White House counsel staff, testified under oath that Bernie Nussbaum told him Susan Thomases and the First Lady were concerned about giving the officials from Justice ``unfettered access'' to Foster's office. While the Justice Department officials were kept waiting outside, Nussbaum continued his discussions, as more phone calls ensued, presumably about how to search the office. Call No. 4. We are back again to this series of phone calls I was describing a little earlier. This is the fourth phone call. This is 8:25 in the morning of July 22. Thomases called the Rodham residence and spoke for 4 minutes. Call No. 5. At 9 a.m., Thomases called Maggie Williams and left the message ``call when you get in the office.'' Call No. 6. 10:48 a.m., Thomases calls Chief of Staff McLarty's offices, spoke with someone for 3 minutes. A meeting involving numerous members of the White House staff was going on in McLarty's office at this time to decide how to handle the search of Foster's office. In the meantime, the officials from the Justice Department, Park Police, and other agencies were waiting around for the search to begin. Call No. 7. 11:04 a.m., Thomases called Maggie Williams, spoke for 6 minutes. Call No. 8. This is occurring 1 minute after the conclusion of the previous call--Thomases calls Chief of Staff McLarty's office, spoke with someone for 3 minutes. Call No. 9, just a couple minutes later, Thomases calls Chief of Staff McLarty's office again; spoke with someone for 1 minute. Call No. 10. 11:37 a.m., Thomases called Maggie Williams, spoke for 11 minutes. Three minutes after that call was completed, Thomases called Maggie Williams and spoke for 4 minutes. Do not forget, this is all taking place during the time that Ms. Thomases said she was going to be very, very busy on conference calls related to her private legal practice. When we asked Ms. Williams about all these calls to her office from Susan Thomases, she denied talking to her, and told us it could have been anybody else in her office, could have been an intern, a volunteer, or another staffer. Her refusal to take responsibility for the calls resulted in 32 different staffers having to be interviewed about who might have spoken to Susan Thomases that day, and all said they do not remember talking to her. By doing this, Maggie Williams asked the committee to believe that Susan Thomases regularly calls unpaid interns at the White House just to chat. Her testimony to the committee was frankly typical of her whole approach to the process. In my opinion, both Maggie Williams and Susan Thomases are openly contemptuous of the committee's work. Their attitude toward this inquiry has never been one of cooperation, but rather blatant hostility. Their behavior, coupled with the documentary evidence we have acquired, lead me to no other reasonable conclusion than that Maggie Williams and Susan Thomases were involved or influenced the decision to breach the agreement with the Department of Justice. Their behavior, and what I believe to be the reasons behind it, are frankly an insult, not just to us, but to the credibility and integrity of the Presidency. Call No. 12. At 12:47 p.m., Capricia, an individual who is Hillary Clinton's personal assistant, paged Maggie Williams from the Rodham residence. Call No. 13. 12:55 p.m., Maggie Williams called the Rodham residence and spoke for 1 minute. The pressure on Nussbaum must have been too great. He broke his agreement with the Justice Department and conducted the search essentially unsupervised. After learning of Nussbaum's reversal, David Margolis, one of the seasoned DOJ officials sent over for the search, told Nussbaum, that he was making a big mistake. Once he heard this news, Philip Heymann, the Deputy Attorney General, later asked, ``Bernie, are you hiding something?" Call No. 14. At 1:25 p.m., the White House phone call to Rodham residence. Conversation for 6 minutes. Was this to tell Mrs. Clinton the deal with the Justice Department had been reneged upon? Then we move to the search which takes place in Foster's office from approximately 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The Department of Justice officials again are kept at bay. Call No. 15. 3:05 p.m., Bill Burton, McLarty's deputy, called Maggie Williams and left a message. He had been asked by Nussbaum, after the review of Foster's office, to locate Maggie Williams. This signals the attempt by Nussbaum, through his deputy, to get the real search of the office underway, but only with Ms. Williams' help. Call No. 16. 3:08 p.m., Thomases called Maggie Williams. Spoke for 10 minutes. Call No. 17. 3:25 p.m., Steve Neuwirth called Ms. Williams and left a message. They are still trying to find Ms. Williams. Call No. 18. It occurred somewhere between 4 and 4:30 p.m. Bernie Nussbaum personally called Maggie Williams to summon her to Foster's office. They searched the office for about half an hour. Call No. 19. Somewhere between 4:30 and 5 p.m. Maggie Williams phoned Hillary Clinton. Call No. 20. 5:13 p.m., Thomases called Maggie Williams. Spoke for 9 minutes, 30 seconds. Then Maggie Williams takes the documents to the residence. Although the public was initially told by the White House spokesperson that all the Clintons personal documents were immediately turned over to their lawyers after Foster's death, once again, we later learned this was simply untrue. Tom Castleton, a White House employee, spoke against his own interest and told us Maggie Williams asked him to take boxes of documents from Foster's office to the residence on July 22, 1993, so the First Lady and the President could review them. I want to go back to this point again. This is Maggie Williams who again says that this did not occur. We have got testimony under oath from Tom Castleton that when he and Maggie Williams were taking these documents to the third floor of the White House, that Maggie Williams told Tom Castleton that the reason they were doing this is so that the First Lady and the President could review them. What I see is a day that begins and ends with Maggie Williams, Susan Thomases and Hillary Clinton conversing. I think Maggie Williams started the day at 6:44 talking with the First Lady about the need to keep law enforcement out of Foster's office and to get certain documents into a safe place. She ended the day with a conversation with Thomases and a conversation with Hillary Clinton to let them know--mission accomplished. Bernie Nussbaum was able to control the document review. Nothing was divulged to the Department of Justice investigators. The sensitive documents of the First Lady were whisked away to the private quarters where months later Carolyn Huber discovered critical billing records which had Foster's handwriting all over them. Hubbell even told us he had last seen them in Foster's possession. I believe those records may have been among the files Maggie Williams took out of Foster's office. The first time we talked to Ms. Williams and Ms. Thomases, we only had a record of 12 of these phone calls. They denied talking to each other, except maybe once or twice, during this period. We received the phone records in three separate installments and, in the end, we see their testimony was nothing but deception. There were 17 separate contacts in a 48-hour period among Hillary Clinton, Maggie Williams, Susan Thomases and Bernie Nussbaum, which I believe were related to how to handle the documents in Foster's office. Thomases was on the phone to the White House for 28 out of 58 minutes when Nussbaum was trying to decide how to handle the search of Foster's office. Again, this was on the day that, in her own words, again I quote, ``I was just about to go into a very, very busy day in my own work.'' It now appears that her work was, in fact, the First Lady's work. But that is not all. There is more deception about the suicide note and the documents removed from Foster's office. I want to reiterate, I have picked out one small segment of the investigation of the testimony that we reviewed, and it certainly ought to become obvious to people, as they listen to this, the lack of cooperation that we received from the witnesses, the lack of cooperation that we received from the White House. As I said earlier, I believe that the White House was actively involved in trying to cover up. I am moving now to July 27, 1993. It is an important day. This is the day that the suicide note was turned over. Vince Foster's suicide note had been found the previous day. It was only turned over to the Park Police after a meeting with Janet Reno where she instructed the White House to do so. Attorney General Reno was very strong and decisive in her direction to the White House. I am paraphrasing, but basically the impression she left was, ``Why did you waste my time? Why did I have to come to the White House to tell you to turn these documents over?" I raise the question, Why were the documents not turned over the same day they were found? If you think about it for a moment, what possible reason could the White House have for keeping that note overnight, 30 hours? Why? In retrospect, it is stunning that the White House did not turn it over to the Park Police right away. Obviously, as we can see by their handling of the note, they had no real intention of cooperating. Prior to the note being turned over to the Justice Department or Park Police, Hillary Clinton and a horde of other White House officials saw it. From what it sounded like, there were a large number of people--again, what I am referring to is from the testimony. The note was found, taken to Nussbaum's office, and people were coming in and reviewing this note. The people who, in fact, had seen the note were asked to testify about that note and who else was in the room, who else saw the note. Oddly enough, everyone who was later interviewed by the FBI about the circumstances of finding the note forgot about the First Lady having seen it. Only during our second round of hearings did we learn about this important fact. As for the documents that Tom Castleton and Maggie Williams took up to the residence on the 22d, they were turned over to Bob Barnett, the Clinton's personal attorney, on this day, on the 27th. Susan Thomases has testified she did not recall seeing Mrs. Clinton on July 27 and that she was not involved in Ms. Williams' transfer of Whitewater files from the White House residence to Clinton's personal lawyer, Mr. Bob Barnett, this despite records showing that Susan Thomases entered the residence at the same time as Mr. Barnett. Thomases spent 6 hours there, yet she does not remember anything about being in the White House that day. I mean, they are really asking us to stretch our willingness to understand how this could happen. I want to go over that point again because I find this really--6 hours she was in the White House. It would be one thing if somehow or another she just happened to either bump into Maggie Williams or bump into Bob Barnett and forgot it, but to, in essence, have forgotten anything about the 6 hours at the White House, I just find that very, very, very hard to believe. As recently as January 9, 1996, we received another phone record of a message from Mrs. Clinton to Susan Thomases from July 27, 1993 at 1:30 p.m., asking Thomases to please call Hillary. Ms. Thomases was in Washington, DC on that day when she would not normally have been in town, and she had received a message from Mrs. Clinton's scheduler the day before. This is also the first time Ms. Thomases saw the First Lady after Vince Foster committed suicide. So that is two personal requests by the First Lady to speak to her, but Thomases has no memory of the occasion. Ironically enough, she was able to tell the committee in some detail the specific reasons why she happened to be in Washington on Tuesday instead of on Wednesday but has absolutely no memory of a White House visit when there. This type of memory loss is, first, unbelievable and, second, I believe a purposeful attempt to avoid giving the committee information that it is entitled to. What I have gone over is just, again, one small portion of the body of evidence this committee has uncovered. Here are some other items which form my view of the situation and explain why I have arrived at the conclusion that this White House has engaged in an attempt to completely stonewall the committee and the American public. Unethical Treasury/White House contacts led to the resignation of Altman and Hanson and Steiner, saying he lied to his diary. You may recall that from earlier hearings we had. These contacts were a systematic effort to gain confidential information from Government sources and ultimately influence the criminal and civil investigations of Madison. The President's refusal to turn over vital notes under the guise of attorney-client privilege--this kind of coordination among White House staff and personal lawyers resulted in a multimember Clinton defense team at taxpayers' expense. Now we understand why they did not want to turn over those notes, because they contain phrases such as ``vacuum Rose law files.'' The coverup has now reached the third floor of the White House residence. It is difficult to construct a scenario where whoever left billing records on that table is not guilty of a felony. It is the most secure room in the world. Are we supposed to believe, as my colleague from North Carolina indicated during the hearing, that the butler did it? Hillary Clinton has publicly floated the possibility that construction workers may have placed those billing records in the book room. After committee investigation, we now know that workers are under constant Secret Service supervision and they would be fired if they moved anything around. The White House has seriously delayed document production from key White House players in the Whitewater legal defense team: Gearan, Ickes and Waldman--and, as I said earlier, just last week, Lindsey. Even when documents were turned over, there were redactions which were just plain wrong. The notes Mr. Gearan produced to us of a series of meetings of the Whitewater legal defense team were so heavily redacted that the committee insisted on a review of the complete notes. As it turns out, the White House chose to redact highly relevant statements. For example, one redacted portion--and I guess maybe I ought to stop for a minute, because some people may not understand what ``redaction'' means. It would be, for example, if I were to take this page and make the determination that there were some things on here that were not relevant; I would just white them out and white out everything on the page I thought was irrelevant, leaving only, let us say, a note on here that says, ``Quality, not quantity of evidence'' that is important. So, for example, one of the redactions said that ``the First Lady was adamantly opposed to the appointment of a special counsel.'' What I am saying to you is, when we first got the document, a lot of information that we believed was relevant was whited out, redacted. We could not see it. It was only after we demanded to see it, after they said to us, ``Do not worry, there is nothing else of any relevance on this document to what you are investigating.'' This one redacted portion said, ``The First Lady was adamantly opposed to the appointment of a special counsel.'' I think that is relevant and it is another example of the White House's efforts to keep us from moving forward. I know that the White House, as well as Members on the other side of the aisle, keep hammering on the fact that over 40,000 pages of documents have been produced. But it is not the quantity of documents that matter. They could produce a million pages but deliberately withhold one key page. By telling us to be satisfied with what they have already given us, it is like telling us we can have everything but the 18-minute gap in the 4,000 plus hours of Watergate tapes. Plain and simple, in my opinion, this amounts to contempt of the Senate and obstruction of justice. We in the Senate have a serious responsibility to investigate abuses of power in the executive branch. It is one of our constitutional obligations and is a responsibility which the people of Florida expect me to carry out. The obligation of the legislative branch to hold the executive branch accountable goes back to the beginning of our American heritage. The Founding Fathers had this very role in mind when they debated ratification of the Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison explained the need for checks and balances among the branches of Government. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. The special committee's work is an attempt to ensure that we are controlling government in the way our Founding Fathers envisioned. We owe it to the American people. This is their Government, and we are accountable to them. Now, the failure of Madison Guaranty cost the taxpayers $60 million. I have attended hearings day after day and heard some amazing incidences of wrongdoing, only to turn around and hear administration apologists proclaim, ``So what.'' This is my reaction to the ``so what'' response. In other words, what they are saying is, ``You have not proved anybody guilty of anything. There is no smoking gun. So what.'' It is like saying that if somebody takes a gun and shoots at somebody and misses, no harm was done. I think, in fact, there is harm that has been done; and it has, in fact, been uncovered. To those who insist that nothing wrong was done, I suggest you look to the results obtained so far from the independent counsel's work: Nine guilty pleas and indictments against seven others. That tells me that the issues we are pursuing are important. In fact, in the most recent round of indictments, the President's 1990 gubernatorial campaign is specifically mentioned as the direct beneficiary of criminal behavior. It is also interesting to note that the work of this committee has helped, not hindered or duplicated, the work of the independent counsel. The Albany Times Union observed that without the public demand in our hearings for the First Lady's billing records, the special prosecutor might still be waiting for them. The public has a right to know the truth about this administration. On February 25, the Washington Post ran an editorial favoring an extension of the special committee. The main reason stated for needing additional time was the failure of the White House to cooperate. This is what the Washington Post said: ``Clinton officials have done their share to extend the committee's life.'' A January 25 editorial in the New York Times said, ``Given the White House's failure to address many unanswered questions, there is . . . a strong public interest in keeping the committee alive.'' One Florida newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times said, ``Forget election year politics. The American people deserve to know whether the Clinton administration is guilty of misusing its power and orchestrating a coverup. For that reason--and that reason alone--the Senate Whitewater hearings should go on.'' Further, they cited the most important and most democratic reason to continue these hearings was, ``Ordinary citizens need to learn what all this Whitewater talk is about. Americans deserve a President they can trust, someone who embraces questions about integrity instead of running from them. If the answers make Clinton's campaigning more difficult, so be it.'' Wrongdoing should not go unpunished just because it was discovered during an election year. ``The search for answers cannot stop now.'' I agree wholeheartedly with the St. Petersburg Times. This committee's work must continue in order to preserve the future integrity of the office of the President. The Presidency of the United States is an office which should be looked to as a beacon of trust. Our President should be honest and forthright, and so should his staff. Our duty is to ensure that the President upholds this basic standard, abides by the laws of the land, and avoids any abuse of his sacred office. Apologists for the administration's behavior have complained this investigation is costing taxpayers too much money. I agree with my colleague, again, from North Carolina, who said, ``You cannot put a price tag on the integrity of the Presidency.'' For those of my colleagues who may still be deciding how to vote on this matter, I suggest they ask themselves a few basic questions. Have all the White House staffers been forthcoming, candid, helpful, and informative in their testimony and conduct? Did the career employees of key agencies who contradicted White House staff lie when they told us of White House interference? Has the President fulfilled his pledge to cooperate fully with the committee? If you answer one or more of these questions with a no, do as I will, and support the resolution so that we might finally learn the truth. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, H.R. 927. I am proud that I was an original cosponsor of this bill and to have worked in support of its passage. I commend my colleagues, particularly Senator Helms and Congressmen Burton, Diaz-Balart, and Menendez, and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for their efforts. This bill reflects the heartfelt desire of many Americans to see the end of the tyranny and decades-long repression Castro has inflicted on his people. Make no mistake: The killing of the four Brothers to the Rescue was not out of character for Fidel Castro. The Cuban Government's heinous conduct reminded the world of Fidel Castro's true colors. I might just say to those who take the opportunity to read about Fidel Castro's history, you will find that those words I just mentioned about not being out of character are quite accurate. The Cuban Government's heinous conduct, as I said a moment ago, reminded the world of his true colors. The brutal murder of unarmed Brothers to the Rescue occurred on a weekend when a prodemocracy and human rights group was to conduct an organizational meeting before Castro stopped it. Scores of Cubans affiliated with the group have been arrested, detained and harassed. In 1994, a tugboat with freedom-seeking Cubans was rammed by Cuban Government ships until it sank. Year after year, Cuba has had one of the world's worst human rights records. It is time for tough talk to give way to tough actions. Guided by the principle that freedom is the core of all human progress, the bill contains provisions designed to isolate Fidel Castro, squeeze him from power and usher in an era of democracy and freedom. In the best spirit of the American people, this legislation holds out the prospect of United States aid to transition and democratic governments in Cuba. America will be there as soon as we can but not a moment before the long nightmare of the Castro regime is ended. So long as Fidel Castro is in power, United States hard currency, financing and other kinds of support will not go to the Cuban regime. We know that Castro uses the hard currency he gets from foreign investment to support the instruments of power and repression, and that must stop. President Clinton last week finally agreed so support the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. His support for the bill is welcome, if overdue. I am sorry it took the tragic murder of four pilots to focus the administration's mind on this bill. Castro's efforts to intimidate the United States through onslaughts of refugees and now through the brutal and calculated shooting down of civilian humanitarian planes have come during Democratic administrations when Cuban policy has been weakened. It was incumbent upon President Clinton to stop delaying the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Anything less would have been a travesty and dishonored the lives of the Brothers to the Rescue who lost their lives. With the President's agreement and with his call to congressional Democrats to support the legislation, America's long history of bipartisan opposition to tyranny in Cuba has been restored. The bill that passed the House-Senate conference is even stronger than the bill that first passed the House. It contains the extremely important provisions of title III which deny Castro the ability to profit from illegally confiscated properties of Americans. It also contains title IV's powerful provisions denying U.S. visas to individuals who traffic in confiscated property. Although the bill gives waiver authority to the President, President Clinton will be hard pressed to find conditions that merit waiving the title III provisions. It took tremendous pressure from the Congress to make the President accept title III. He will face the same pressure again should he attempt to delay the effect of title III's right to sue. The bill also provides that all provisions of the United States embargo against Cuba will be codified in law, ensuring that the embargo will be preserved until a democratic transition is underway in Cuba. All existing Cuban embargo Executive orders and regulations will now be signed into law. This is a major victory for the opponents of the Castro regime. No longer can President Clinton react unilaterally to a supposed reform in Cuba and lift a sanction here or there. No longer can administration wavering on the embargo threaten the historic policy of isolating the repressive Cuban regime. When President Clinton announced measures in reaction to the shooting down of American citizens, he said they were a first step, and they had better be. While Ambassador Albright's performance at the United Nations was commendable, the administration must do more to convince our allies to impose an international embargo against Cuba and treat Fidel Castro as an outcast. His record deserves nothing less. The fight must be taken up in every capital around the world. I believe our allies would respond to a sincere and concerted effort to win our cooperation in the embargo. Our Government must make the case that foreign investment perpetuates a dictatorship bent on brutality and repression, and it must stop. I thank the President's support of the Libertad bill. Now he must take our Cuba policy to another level--to make it a priority with our allies to stop foreign investment in Cuba for the life of the Castro regime. I promise you, without that foreign investment, Castro's regime of repression cannot stand. It will be all that much sooner when the Cuban people can create a new society of freedom, justice, democracy and the protection of basic human rights. I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, late last year, a broad spectrum of Cuban opposition groups came together in an effort to form Concilio Cubano. Concilio Cubano, or Cuban Council, is a group that seeks to unite an unprecedented number of human rights, professional, political, and other organizations behind a common platform that includes amnesty for political prisoners, free and multiparty elections, and human rights. The Castro regime's response has been sickeningly familiar. Members of Concilio Cubano have been subjected to lengthy interrogations, violent harassment, and a disinformation campaign. The Miami Herald in a recent editorial likened Concilio Cubano to Charter 77, the Czech group that bravely opposed the Czech Communist dictatorship. Referring to former dissident, now President, Vaclav Havel, one of the leaders of the group told the Herald, ``We have more Havels than they had.'' Concilio Cubano plans to meet in late February. In Cuba, that's no simple matter. In the weeks leading up to this meeting, supporters of freedom, democracy, and human rights in Cuba must watch closely and speak out against any continued attempts to intimidate these democratic activists. Also recently, the Cuban regime has stepped up persecution of journalists affiliated with independent news organizations. The campaign of harassment has included detentions and interrogations. To my knowledge, the Clinton administration has been silent on the recent harassment of Concilio Cubano's members and independent journalists. The U.S. press has been fairly silent as well. I urge the administration to denounce these violations of the right of free expression and free association and strongly align itself with the supporters of democracy and freedom in Cuba. And I call upon the American press to report on the persecution of their fellow journalists and on Cuba's newest, broadest coalition of democratic activists. Cuba's people have been subjected to virtually every form of subjugation. Their mildest form of opposition is met with repression. The United States and the American people are their closest friends. I call upon my colleagues in the Congress, and my fellow citizens to support the Cuban peoples efforts to exercise their inherent rights of free speech and association. The Cuban people have been resisting the Castro dictatorship for over 30 years. For as long as it takes, we must stand alongside them and let them know we support their struggle.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Arthur M. Wood, Jr., who will be awarded the Institute of Human Relations Award on February 20, 1996 by the southwest Florida chapter of the American Jewish Committee. The award is given annually to a member of the community who best exemplifies what the institute stands for--building mutual respect and understanding among America's diverse population groups. Arthur M. Wood, Jr. was born in Chicago on October 11, 1950. After growing up in northern Illinois and southern California, he graduated from Princeton University with a B.A. degree in English in 1972. In 1975, he received his master's degree from Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management with a concentration in finance, marketing, and organizational behavior. Art was appointed president of Northern Trust Bank in 1987. Since that time he and his wife Peggy, a former vice president of J. Walter Thompson Co., helped raise millions of dollars for philanthropies in the Sarasota area. Art's continuous involvement in the community has included philanthropies and civic causes of all sizes and scope. He chairs the Van Wezel Foundation and is a former treasurer. He is chairman of New College Foundation; and a member of the Asolo Center's board of directors. He is past chairman of the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Century Foundation and the past president of the United Way of Sarasota. He is chairman of the Out-of-Door Academy and a former board member of Florida West Coast Symphony, the Salvation Army, and the Education Foundation. He was chairman of the 1990-91 United Way Campaign and has served on the advisory boards of Sarasota Ballet and Girl's Inc. He also cochaired the 1991 French Film Festival with his wife Peggy. In addition to his individual efforts, he has participated in and supported Peggy in her many charitable endeavors, which include, but are not limited to, the following: chair of the 1995 New College Auction, chair of the 1994 Circus Gala at Ringling Museum, chair of the 1994 Sarasota Opera's Youth Festival, chair of the 1992 Memorial Hospital Cartoon Classic, chair of the 1991 New College Library Association Mistletoe Ball, chair of the 1990 Family Counseling Center's benefit, and chair of the 1989 Orchid Ball. Mr. President, as you can see Art has not limited his benevolence to specific organizations, instead his influence is felt across the entire Sarasota community. He has done more charitable work in 10 years than most of us could hope to do in a lifetime. The great State of Florida is a better place because of Art Wood's commitment to his community. Mr. President, I will conclude by commending the southwest Florida chapter of the American Jewish Committee, especially the committee's president Robert Rosenthal and director Harriet Abraham, for their dedication in recognizing this year's recipient of the 1996 Human Relations Award, Arthur M. Wood, Jr.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1260, the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of 1995. S. 1260 represents a major revision of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 to reform and consolidate the public and assisted housing programs of the United States and redirect primary responsibility for those programs away from Federal bureaucracy toward the States and localities. This bill represents an important first step toward a complete overhaul of Federal housing programs to address the needs of low-income families more efficiently and effectively. This legislation addresses a growing crisis in the Nation's public housing system. Over the years, micro management by both Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] have saddled housing authorities with rules and regulations that make it difficult for even the best of them to operate efficiently and effectively. Even more important has been the destructive impact these rules have had on the ability of families to move up and out of public housing and become economically self-sufficient. In far too many places, public housing, which was intended to provide a housing platform from which lower income families could achieve their own aspirations of economic independence, have become warehouses of poverty that rob poor families of their hope and dignity. Compounding the structural problems of public housing are the dual concerns of budget and HUD capacity. Public housing agencies are facing a significant decline in Federal resources. Given these limited resources, housing authorities need the increased flexibility to use their funds in a manner that helps to maintain decent, safe, and affordable housing for their residents. In addition, HUD itself potentially faces a significant reduction in overall staffing over the next 5 years. The prospect of diminishing staff resources means that HUD will lack the capacity to maintain the same degree of oversight and control that it has exercised over the public housing system in recent decades. S. 1260 addresses the crisis in public housing by consolidating public housing funding into two flexible block grants and transferring greater responsibility over the operation and management of public housing from HUD to local housing agencies. In addition, it creates a new streamlined voucher program that is more market-friendly and provides greater housing choices for low-income families. The bill also ends Federal requirements that have prevented housing authorities from demolishing their obsolete housing stock, concentrated and isolated the poorest of poor, and created disincentives for public housing residents to work and improve their lives. While allowing well-run housing authorities much more discretion, S. 1260 also cracks down on those housing authorities that are troubled. Although small in number, these authorities with severe management problems control almost 15 percent of the Nation's public housing stock. HUD would be required to take over or appoint a receiver for housing authorities that are unable to make significant improvements in their operations. The legislation would also give HUD expanded powers to break up or reconfigure troubled authorities, dispose of their assets, or abrogate contracts that impede correction of the housing authority's problems. I would like to express my deep appreciation to Senators D'Amato and Bond, who cosponsored this bill, for their keen interest and active support of this legislation. I also wish to express my appreciation for the cooperation and support from Senators Sarbanes and Kerry. This bill truly reflects bipartisan cooperation, and it specifically addresses many of the concerns that have been raised by the minority. Finally, I also want to thank Secretary Cisneros for HUD's participation in the development of this bill. We have endeavored to accommodate the Department's concerns to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1260, the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of 1995. S. 1260 represents a major revision of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to reform and consolidate the public and assisted housing programs of the United States and redirect primary responsibility for those programs away from Federal bureaucracy toward the States and localities. This bill represents an important first step towards a complete overhaul of Federal housing programs to address the needs of low-income families more efficiently and effectively. This legislation addresses a growing crisis in the Nation's public housing system. Over the years, micromanagement by both Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] have saddled housing authorities with rules and regulations that make it difficult for even the best of them to operate efficiently and effectively. Even more important has been the destructive impact these rules have had on the ability of families to move up and out of public housing and become economically self-sufficient. In far too many places, public housing, which was intended to provide a housing platform from which lower income families could achieve their own aspirations of economic independence, have become warehouses of poverty that rob poor families of their hope and dignity. Compounding the structural problems of public housing are the dual concerns of budget and HUD capacity. Public housing agencies are facing a significant decline in Federal resources. Given these limited resources, housing authorities need the increased flexibility to use their funds in a manner that helps to maintain decent, safe and affordable housing for their residents. In addition, HUD itself potentially faces a significant reduction in overall staffing over the next 5 years. The prospect of diminishing staff resources means that HUD will lack the capacity to maintain the same degree of oversight and control that it has exercised over the public housing system in recent decades. S. 1260 addresses the crisis in public housing by consolidating public housing funding into two flexible block grants and transferring greater responsibility over the operation and management of public housing from HUD to local housing agencies. In addition, it creates a new streamlined voucher program that is more market-friendly and provides greater housing choices for low-income families. The bill also ends Federal requirements that have prevented housing authorities from demolishing their obsolete housing stock, concentrated, and isolated the poorest of poor, and created disincentives for public housing residents to work and improve their lives. While allowing well-run housing authorities much more discretion, S. 1260 also cracks down on those housing authorities that are troubled. Although small in number, these authorities with severe management problems control almost 15 percent of the Nation's public housing stock. HUD would be required to take over or appoint a receiver for housing authorities that are unable to make significant improvements in their operations. The legislation would also give HUD expanded powers to break up or reconfigure troubled authorities, dispose of their assets, or abrogate contracts that impede correction of the housing authority's problems. I would like to express my deep appreciation to Senators D'Amato and Bond, who cosponsored this bill, for their keen interest and active support of this legislation. I also wish to express my appreciation for the cooperation and support from Senators Sarbanes and Kerry. This bill truly reflects bipartisan cooperation, and it specifically addresses many of the concerns that have been raised by minority. Finally, I also want to thank Secretary Cisneros for HUD's participation in the development of this bill. We have endeavored to accommodate the Department's concerns to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the night before last there was an effort to bring this resolution to the floor of the Senate for debate and vote under a unanimous-consent request. There was objection to that request. My understanding is that those who objected did so because the full text of the previous language from the continuing resolution that was passed 30 days ago was not included. The resolution only contained language dealing with the the requirement that the President submit to the concept of a 7-year balanced budget using real numbers as generated by the Congressional Budget Office. That was the resolution. As I understand it, there will be an effort this morning to add additional language to the resolution. Frankly, I have no objection to this proposal. The additional language provides for the protection of various programs, including: ensuring Medicare solvency, something that we have all been working toward; reforming welfare, which clearly I think we are on the verge of accomplishing; and the adoption of tax policies that help working families and stimulate economic growth. So I suspect there will be strong support for this resolution. But it is unfortunate that the Senate has to spend its time this morning on this issue. It is unfortunate that the Congress has to take this time to remind the President of the commitment which he made over 30 days ago. There is a real question as to why the President of the United States has not submitted a 7-year balanced budget plan. The President has submitted a number of budget proposals this year. I think it is three. I could be wrong about that. Some indicate that the President has submitted four. However, not a single one of those four budget proposals has eliminated the deficit in the seventh year. The President's budget plans still accumulates a tremendous amount of debt. They maintain many wasteful liberal programs that have failed--that people throughout the country recognize as having failed, but not one single budget proposal that the President has submitted reaches a balance by the year 2002. There are many people who would expect me, a Republican Senator, to say these kinds of things. But I think there is evidence to indicate that Senators on both sides of this aisle--and clearly the Members in the other body--have rejected the President's proposals because, frankly, they do not meet the test of a balanced budget as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I do not remember the date or the exact vote in the Senate, but I remember bringing the President's first budget proposal to the Senate for a vote. As I recall, not a single--well, maybe there was one Senator who voted for the President's proposal. But it was soundly rejected by both sides of the aisle. And the reason that it was rejected was because it did not reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. Just a few days ago the other body brought the most recent of the President's proposals to the floor of the House and it was also soundly defeated. In fact, I believe there was absolutely no support, again, on either side of the aisle for the President's budget proposal. Let me give a little explanation as to what that budget proposal was. The fourth submission by the President which the administration claimed to be in balance was finally scored by the Congressional Budget Office and was, in fact, $116 billion short in the seventh year. Again, the administration wants to create the impression that it is for a balanced budget but continues to fail to come forward with a plan that balances the budget in 7 years with CBO numbers. Now, I am under the impression, or I have been given information which indicates that the minority leader has a proposal now that would, according to their numbers which we have been told are based on CBO assumptions reach a balance in the budget by the year 2002. I think this is a helpful first step. But again, the President just absolutely refuses to come forward with a plan that balances the budget. Let me give you my perspective as to why he will not do it. He simply does not want to tell the people in the country those things that he supports. He does not want to choose those Federal programs which he thinks are so important that they need to be protected. Oh, clearly he has made his statement with respect to Medicare and Medicaid, but he has not talked about any other programs in the Federal Government that he wants to continue in force. Because in order for the President to keep those programs in force, to keep them growing, to keep them as part of the Federal budget, he has to indicate what other programs he is willing to cut. And he does not want anybody to know what programs he is willing to cut or eliminate. It is time. The country is waiting. The country is committed to a balanced budget in 7 years. Eventually, the polling data is going to indicate that. Eventually, the President is going to get the message. There is one other indicator that I think will get the President's attention as well. I do not know whether this is a record, and my colleague, Senator Exon, may be aware of whether it is a record or not. But I understand that yesterday while the President was announcing that there would not be a meeting between himself and the leaders of the House and the Senate, the market fell 50 points in somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes. I have been told that that is a record. I have a feeling that what is happening in the markets, a decline of 100 points 2 days ago, or 3 days ago and a decline yesterday of an additional 50 points, probably has the President's attention. I say this because the point which we have been making on this side is that one of the benefits derived from a balanced budget is lower interest rates. This means lower mortgage payments. This means more affordable student loans. This means lower taxes for American families. Everybody benefits from a balanced budget. But when the market heard that the President was not going to meet with the leaders of the House and the Senate, the market dropped 50 points in about 15 minutes. I would suggest to the President it is time now to get serious about balancing the budget, doing it with real numbers, using CBO, and getting it done over a 7-year period. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. MACK. The time remaining, please.

Mr. MACK. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MACK. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. MACK. I suggest to my colleague that we just, since there seems to be some interest in this issue, since we are going to have the vote at 11, that we now just continue the debate with time equally divided.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, again I state it is my intention to conclude the debate. I believe we are extending the time for the vote to accommodate Members of the Senate, but I do not see any need to continue the debate. Mr. President, let me close then with my remarks in asking the Senate to support the resolution that is before us. As I said a moment ago, it is unfortunate the Senate would have to spend this time to remind the President of a commitment that he made over 30 days ago. I can remember the excitement that occurred when there was an agreement on the part of the President to a 7-year balanced budget scored by the Congressional Budget Office, thinking that that really set us on the road toward an agreement. We have now seen, again, over 30 days go by and the administration has failed to put forward a budget that balances in 7 years. Several speakers on the other side spoke about the failure to have a continuing resolution. Frankly, I believe the House has failed to provide a continuing resolution because they have looked at the actions on the part of the administration and, based on what they perceived their promises to be over 30 days ago, they in fact feel that they were fooled. One of the things that people have learned over the years is, if you get fooled one time, you do not fall for the same trick a second time. So the House has said they want to see a balanced budget before they extend Government activities. There is, in fact, a fundamental difference between our approach and that of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Our first objective is getting a balanced budget. Then Government will proceed. Their first concern is getting Government to move forward and then we will discuss a balanced budget. To us, the No. 1 concern is balancing the budget. The reason we are concerned is because we think that as a result of that balanced budget, everyone in America will have greater opportunities--greater opportunities for jobs, there will be more businesses created, we will see interest rates come down, we will see lower payments on mortgages, on automobile loans, on student loans and so forth. America's opportunity will be tremendous if we can just get to the point where we agree that we should not spend more than we are taking in, that we ought to let hard working men and women keep more of their earned income. There were some remarks made with respect to corporate welfare. It is interesting, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the moneys earned by individuals and corporations as if it were the Government's and we were going to decide how much they get to keep of their money, as opposed to the other way around. I yield whatever time I have.

Mr. MACK. I was under the impression what we were going to do was to have the vote at 11 o'clock; we were not extending the time on the debate.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote occur on adoption of House Joint Resolution 132 at 11 a.m.

Mr. MACK. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. MACK. I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. MACK. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. MACK. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator D'Amato as a cosponsor of this bill to extend for 1 year a number of housing activities under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. The fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD-Independent agencies appropriation bill extended the authority for a number of expired HUD programs and activities for 1 year to give the authorizing committee time to consider needed reforms in those programs and deal with them more permanently. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the appropriation bill, and these programs are in immediate jeopardy. This legislation is necessary to continue authorizations for activities that have broad support. I stress to my colleagues that this is emergency legislation that contains no programmatic reforms. First, and foremost, this bill would allow HUD to renew expiring section 8 rental assistance contracts at current rents for 1 year. HUD has taken the position that it currently has no authority for fiscal year 1996 to renew expiring section 8 contracts at above fair market rent [FMR]. Without language to allow contract renewals at above FMR, a large number of FHA-insured multifamily housing projects could face default this year. This extension will give the authorizing committee time to develop an orderly ``mark-to-market'' strategy to restructure the debt on these projects, end payments of excessive rental subsidies, and help bring HUD's budget under control. This bill also extends the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage insurance program Home Equity Conversion Mortgages. This popular demonstration program has allowed more than 14,000 elderly homeowners to tap into the equity in their homes, but mortgage authority for the program expired at the end of fiscal 1995. This extension will give us the time needed to pass legislation extending the program for another 5 years and to enact reforms that will make the program more effective. The legislation extends the FHA section 515 rural rental housing loan program. This is the only program extension included that is not under the jurisdiction of the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittee. However, this is an important housing development program under the Banking Committee's jurisdiction, and there is currently a significant backlog of preapproved applications for section 515 loans. I am, however, concerned by reports issued by the General Accounting Office and others indicating that structural and financial management problems exist in the section 515 program. As chairman of the Housing Opportunity and Community Development Subcommittee, I intend to hold hearings on this and other rural housing programs early next year and to propose program reforms where needed. No further extensions of the section 515 program should be approved until the program has been thoroughly reviewed by the Banking Committee.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator D'Amato as a cosponsor of this bill to extend for 1 year a number of housing activities under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. The fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD-Independent agencies appropriation bill extended the authority for a number of expired HUD programs and activities for 1 year to give the authorizing committee time to consider needed reforms in those programs and deal with them more permanently. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the appropriation bill, and these programs are in immediate jeopardy. This legislation is necessary to continue authorizations for activities that have broad support. I stress to my colleagues that this is emergency legislation that contains no programmatic reforms. First, and foremost, this bill would allow HUD to renew expiring section 8 rental assistance contracts at current rents for 1 year. HUD has taken the position that it currently has no authority for fiscal year 1996 to renew expiring section 8 contracts at above fair market rent [FMR]. Without language to allow contract renewals at above FMR, a large number of FHA-insured multifamily housing projects could face default this year. This extension will give the authorizing committee time to develop an orderly ``mark-to-market'' strategy to restructure the debt on these projects, end payments of excessive rental subsidies, and help bring HUD's budget under control. This bill also extends the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage insurance program Home Equity Conversion Mortgages. This popular demonstration program has allowed more than 14,000 elderly homeowners to tap into the equity in their homes, but mortgage authority for the program expired at the end of fiscal 1995. This extension will give us the time needed to pass legislation extending the program for another 5 years and to enact reforms that will make the program more effective. The legislation extends the FHA section 515 rural rental housing loan program. This is the only program extension included that is not under the jurisdiction of the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittee. However, this is an important housing development program under the Banking Committee's jurisdiction, and there is currently a significant backlog of preapproved applications for section 515 loans. I am, however, concerned by reports issued by the General Accounting Office and others indicating that structural and financial management problems exist in the section 515 program. As chairman of the Housing Opportunity and Community Development Subcommittee, I intend to hold hearings on this and other rural housing programs early next year and to propose program reforms where needed. No further extensions of the section 515 program should be approved until the program has been thoroughly reviewed by the Banking Committee.