Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 19; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the DOD authorization conference report as under the previous order. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 256, H.R. 395, a bill to designate a U.S. Courthouse and Federal building in Reno, NV; that the bill be deemed read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and further, that any statements relating thereto be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this past Friday I made some pretty strong comments with respect to President Clinton's--maybe it was Mr. Panetta's--proposal which we saw. There was great anticipation, if the President will recall, that last Friday there was going to be a new, serious proposal to balance the budget that President Clinton was going to bring to the table. I felt, and I think expressed in pretty strong language, that it was a phony attempt. In fact, I thought it was an insult to the Congress, frankly, that the President would come forward with that proposal. But something significant has happened since Friday. We may in fact have a new player in this budget debate. We may in fact have a new player to the debate which over the last 30 days or so has been between the White House, the President, on one hand and the Congress on the other. The third party who I think has now come to the debate is the financial markets of our country. For those who have not been observing what has occurred today in the stock markets and the bond markets, you may be surprised to learn that the stock market fell just over 100 points today. And interest rates begin to climb, the long-term bond went from just over 6 percent to about 6.2 percent. This is the first shot across the bow that the financial markets have fired, which I think are really directed at the President. The markets have had the opportunity over the weekend to analyze the President's proposal. And they have concluded that there really is no truth to the President's statement that he wants to balance the budget. It has been 1 month or it will be 1 month tomorrow since the President signed the statute saying that ``I will commit myself to balancing the budget over 7 years using real numbers.'' I concluded last Friday that he absolutely failed to do that; that, in fact, his proposal was an insult. There was absolutely no value to what he did last week except political. Mr. President, I would claim that the markets have in fact reacted the same way. They analyzed the President's proposal over the weekend and they also concluded that it is a phony proposal. It will not get us to a balanced budget. In fact, it really pretty much leaves us where the Congressional Budget Office said we were prior to this last proposal put forward by the President; and that is, in the seventh year there would be a deficit of $116 billion. I believe this is the fourth plan that the President has put forward, maybe the third. There have been so many different ideas the President has come up with to avoid offering a balanced budget proposal that I have forgotten which one this is. The President has just completely attempted to stay away from balancing the budget. He says he wants to do it, but when you look at the actions of the President of the United States he has failed. So, Mr. President, again I think one thing that my colleagues in the Senate on the other side of the aisle ought to understand is that there is a new player now. And that is the financial markets of this country. And that should be no surprise. On November 8, 1994, the day of the last election for the U.S. House of Representatives, the day the Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate, was the specific day that interest rates in this Nation peaked, at a little bit over 8 percent. Since November 8, 1994, those interest rates have been steadily coming down, down to the point of just barely above 6 percent. We had some analysts from the Wall Street area come down to Washington several weeks ago when we got into a debate about just how strongly the Congress should position itself with respect to the debt ceiling and other means of leverage to try and get the President to move to a balanced budget. And during that discussion I remember one of the analysts commenting that if there is a failure to balance the budget, if no agreement is reached, the markets will crash. I also recognize that my friend, the Speaker of the House, made reference to that point, and was chastised, I believe, for using harsh rhetoric. Some said the Speaker of the House should not use that kind of language. I must say to you that when I heard the analyst make this comment with respect a crash, I think most of us have this tendency to think of what occurred in 1929 as being the definition of a market crash. So I asked them what did they mean, to them what would be a crash in the market? Their response was that interest rates would go back up, about 2 points, and we would probably see the stock market fall somewhere between 200 and 300 points, if I recall. The interesting thing, again, is that in 1 day we have seen a decline of 100 points in the stock market. And I believe that that has occurred because of the President's failure to come forward with a balanced budget alternative and the markets are beginning to get nervous about whether we will make it or not. Moreover, I also think the President's failure to submit a serious budget may affect the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board will be making the decision tomorrow about what to do about interest rates. I suspect that they were extremely disappointed in the President's proposal as well, and the markets are concluding that since the President is not serious about balancing the budget that it would be a mistake for them tomorrow to lower interest rates any further. That is a decision they will have to make, but I think that is a fair scenario to place on the table. So, again, the reaction that we have seen in the last day with respect to the President's proposal has already had an effect on the stock market and the bond market, and I am suggesting another impact very well could be on the decision by the Federal Reserve tomorrow. I talked to those financial experts about the benefits of balancing the budget. I talked to them about the importance of bringing down interest rates, and during those same meetings, they told us the interest rate probably could come down even further; that if we were to come to an agreement over balancing the budget, we could see long-term interest rates in this country decline to the 5\1/4\ range. I must say to you, Mr. President, having been a former banker, I can remember making those first loans on a single piece of paper--but that is another story of what has happened to our country as a result of the bureaucracy and the redtape which has been created. It was on a single piece of paper, and the interest rate was at 6 percent. I must say to you that over the years I had lost hope that we would see long-term interest rates return to a level of below 6 percent. But, frankly, I believe that this is within our grasp today. If the President were serious about coming forward and giving us at least his alternative--we are not telling him he has to agree with ours, but at least put his alternative on the table telling us how he would balance the budget in 7 years with CBO numbers--then we could sit down and negotiate. If he would do that and we could reach an agreement, and I believe that we would see long-term interest rates come down to the 5\1/2\ and 5\1/4\ range. What does that mean? To the families of America, to those young families who are trying to get a start, let me tell you something, there is a big, big difference in obtaining a mortgage at 5\1/4\ percent versus 8\1/4\ percent. It not only will affect the mortgage payments that they will make, it will affect the cost of the automobile loan, it will affect and reduce the cost of a student loan. There are lots of things that the average American is going to feel as a result of what happens with interest rates. The shot today which the markets have fired is basically one that said, if you don't come to an agreement, the reduction of interest rates you have seen in this last year are going to disappear and the rates are going to go back up and America's future will not be as bright. The other day on the floor of the Senate, I said, and I am going to repeat it again today, that the President ought to come forward with his alternative. He made the commitment to do that almost 30 days ago. It was in legislation that he signed. It was negotiated by representatives from his White House. I am going to say it once again, but I am going to read it to make sure I am very clear: This President has proven once again that his commitment to principle is nonexistent. He gave his word. He broke his word. It is a habit he does not seem able to break. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Defense authorization conference report at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 19, that there be 3 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, with the Democratic time in the morning divided as follows: Senator Nunn, 45 minutes; Senator Byrd, 15 minutes; Senator Glenn, 30 minutes; Senator Bryan, 15 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m., on Tuesday, there be time for the following Senators: Senator Dorgan, 10 minutes; Senator Exon, 15 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes; Senator Levin, 10 minutes; Senator Daschle, 10 minutes; Senator Thurmond or his designee, 1 hour. I further ask that following the disposition of, or yielding back of time, the following Senators have 20 minutes under their control: Senator Leahy, Senator Thurmond, Senator Nunn, Senator Warner. Further, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote, without any intervening action, on adoption of the conference report.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, about 26 days ago, when we were in similar circumstances, there were negotiations between the White House and the House and the Senate about what to do to solve the impasse. An agreement was reached with a continuing resolution, signed into law by the President of the United States, with language included which said that he committed himself to a balanced budget in the first session of the 104th Congress--a balanced budget scored by CBO. As the majority leader indicated a moment ago, it has been 26 days, and there has not been one single proposal made by the President of the United States that complies with that commitment. I must tell you that those of us who thought that 26 days ago, that there may have been an opportunity to move forward with a balanced budget proposal, we were hopeful that there would be an opportunity in these last 3\1/2\ weeks. In fact, we anticipated that this Friday, today, we would see, for the first time, a true proposal from the President of the United States to balance the budget. The minority leader referred to the number of plans that were sent here by the President of the United States. I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you had an opportunity to vote on one of those plans, and every single one of you, as far as I can recall, turned your backs on the President because you knew it was a phony budget. And every proposal he has sent to us since then has been phony. It has been an absolute positive phony. We come here this evening with a sense of utter disappointment because we are serious in this effort to balance the budget. We feel like you are playing games with us, you are playing games with the American people, and you are playing games with the future of this country and our children and our grandchildren. And, yes, we are a little bit angry and upset. We feel betrayed. Let me be real plain about how I feel about this President. The President of the United States has, once again, proven that his commitment to principle is nonexistent. He gave his word; he broke his word. It is a habit he does not seem able to break. It is unfortunate to have to say that, but that is an accurate statement about this President. To imply that the offer made today was a serious offer is an insult to us. To come down here with a proposal that virtually does nothing with respect to making additional reductions in spending is an insult to the Congress of the United States and an insult to the people of this country. If you look over this proposal, in the year 2002, they put on the table a suggestion that they were going to eliminate the deficit in the seventh year to the tune of $121 billion. And the reason they came up with that number is because the Congressional Budget Office scored the last proposal that the President sent down here. It was a proposal that he said would balance the budget. After all, all we are doing is using the Congressional Budget Office, which, if you will recall, in January of 1993, the President of the United States reminded all of us that it was important to use the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate budget plans, because he did not want to be accused of estimating his way out of the problem. Well, I say again, very plainly, it is pretty obvious to me and pretty obvious, I think, to the American people, that the only thing this President wants to do is estimate his way out of the problem. When you look at the proposal they sent down to us today, out of that $121 billion, $54 billion is in economic baseline differences--estimating your way out of the problem. And $21 billion more, a proposed resolution of scoring differences--estimating your way out of the problem. And then another $23 billion, which I will say is a tax increase. What it says, in essence, is if you get to the 7th year and you are not in the balanced budget range, then you eliminate the tax cuts he has in his budget, which amounts to $23 billion. He has, in this proposal, about $98 billion out of $121 billion, which is estimating his way out, and the other is raising taxes. That is an absolute phony proposal. I must say, I admire Senator Domenici for his willingness to go back into the meeting for the second time today after this phony piece of paper was put on the table. Madam President, I agree with the minority leader that we do have legitimate differences. But you do not have the guts to put those legitimate differences on the table. The reason for the last 26 days that you have avoided coming down here and putting a proposal on the table is because you will not tell the American people what you are willing to do. You will not make the tough decisions. You just refuse to put a legitimate offer on the table. And then you have the gall to come to us and tell us that we ought to put another proposal on the table. So, Madam President, this President of the United States vetoed a balanced budget proposal. It was a proposal that would have balanced the budget, and it was the first time in decades that I know of where a President of the United States received a plan that would balance the budget--and this President vetoed it. This is the same President who is opposed to the balanced budget amendment. This is the same President who has been opposed to every plan that has been put forward to balance the budget. When he vetoed it, he took on the responsibility of providing a legitimate alternative. He has, in fact, refused to do that. I think it is very, very clear to the American people that, in fact, he has broken his word once again. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the role of the United States in the world is unique. America has played a historic role in opposing tyranny, and giving hope to people denied their freedom. Similarly, our military has played a central and unparalleled role in the world. Only the U.S. Armed Forces combine the ability to achieve enormous and complicated military objectives with the commitment to use this force in pursuit of the values that made our Nation great--freedom, justice, democracy, and the protection of basic human rights. Despite a great deal of theorizing about the so-called new world order, our role in the world should remain the same as it was throughout the cold war. Certainly, our interests remain the same. Even when not pitted against the Soviet Union and its Communist expansionism we can identify our interests clearly. In Bosnia, they were deterrence of aggression, support for the right of self defense, abhorrence of ethnic cleansing, and support for multi- ethnic democracy. President Clinton's 1992 campaign emphasized all of these issues. His policy as President has reflected none of them. Since early on in the conflict, I supported lifting the embargo on the Bosnian Government and helping the Bosnian people to defend themselves. In my view this was required on moral grounds. It was also the strategically and militarily sound course. But most of all, it was based on the right of individuals and nations to defend their freedom. The embargo condemned the people of Bosnia to a slow death, carried out not only by military engagements but also by savage attacks on civilians. Serbia came to the war with a massive advantage in arms and throughout the war was able to acquire the arms it needed from other sources. The Bosnian Government's forces were at an extreme disadvantage. Aligning the United States with the embargo and the denial of Bosnia's right of self-defense was a disgrace. If this administration had pursued a policy of lifting the arms embargo and allowing the Bosnians to defend themselves, negotiations would have been conducted from a position of strength and U.S. troops would not have been required. Instead, this administration favored negotiation, compromise, and concession even when it was painfully obvious that only the threat of force and the willingness to use it by the Bosnians would allow any hope of democracy and freedom in Bosnia. Ironically, the President now has found a use for force, not to promote freedom, but to try to enforce an unjust agreement. President Clinton has committed U.S. troops and credibility to implement an agreement which, as this resolution says, ``ratifies the results of ethnic cleansing and territorial aggression.'' This agreement is the inevitable result of the administration's policy of refusing to allow the Bosnian Government to defend itself and--let's be frank--its sentences the people of Bosnia to a peace of subservience and domination. Peace has many forms. There is the so-called peace of the former Soviet bloc where the ever present threat of force subjugated the nations of Eastern and Central Europe. Bosnia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia were supposed to have escaped that domination. Instead, another venal and dangerous threat arose. In the former Yugoslavia, the threat was complicated by historical rivalries and ethnic and religious differences. The administration seized on the complexity of the situation and used it as an excuse to do nothing. ``There are no good guys,'' the administration said. Or ``it's a civil war.'' The peace being imposed on the people of Bosnia is the peace of domination and fear. Unless the Bosnian Government is given the means to defend itself now, we can expect that the war will continue. We should not be in this position. It was avoidable. However, the decision to commit U.S. troops and prestige has been made by the President in his constitutionally prescribed role as Commander-in- Chief. The Congressional role in providing funds for military operations is also set forth in the Constitution. Congress could exercise its constitutional power to deny the funds to carry out this or any other military mission. The President would certainly veto such a measure. Without the votes to override, ultimately, he would prevail. Nothing would be served by undercutting the men and women of our Armed Forces at this late date. U.S. troops have already begun arriving and more are on the way. A strong vote against the deployment would demoralize our troops and embolden those who would like to see the Dayton settlement collapse. Congress must back our troops unconditionally and work to make certain they have everything they need to carry out their mission. If we learned anything from Somalia, it is that no corners can be cut where our troops are concerned. Their rules of engagement, their equipment, their training, everything about their mission, must be designed to remove all unnecessary risk. We can and we must achieve this for the young men and women serving their country. This resolution allows the President to fulfill his commitment to deploy U.S. forces to implement the General Framework Agreement so long as the mission of the United States forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina is limited to enforcement of the military provisions of the Dayton Agreement, that the exit strategy includes establishment of a military balance enabling the government of Bosnia to defend itself, and that the U.S. will lead an immediate international effort to provide equipment, arms, training and related logistics assistance of the highest possible quality to the Bosnian government. These determinations are essential. In the last few weeks, the administration has made contradictory statements about U.S. intentions to help equip and train the Bosnian Government. On the one hand, the administration said it will help train and equip the Bosnian side. On the other hand, officials have said arming the Bosnian Government forces would not be necessary because provisions in the Dayton Agreement call for negotiated arms limitation agreements. That sends exactly the wrong signal. This war was made possible by the inability of the Bosnian Government to defend itself. Late yesterday, the President made the commitment to lead the effort to arm and train the Bosnian Government forces. In light of the administration's recent ambivalence about arming and training the Bosnian Government forces, I expect that the administration will show, starting today, concrete steps toward fulfilling this commitment to the United States Congress and to the Bosnian Government, including getting a commitment of support from our allies. The Congress expects that commitment to be kept as a condition for passing the Dole-McCain resolution. There is very little satisfying about the peace agreement reached at Dayton. As President Izetbegovic of Bosnia said, ``this may not be a just agreement but it is more just than the continuation of war.'' That is little to go on for the people of Bosnia, but it will have to do. Our role in brokering this settlement makes it incumbent upon us to help enforce it. Our role in the world, and the unique role our military has played as a force for freedom requires that we work to establish a military balance which will protect Bosnia from future aggression. Therefore I support our troops as they endeavor to carry out the United States military mission in Bosnia.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. In light of this agreement, there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate and any votes ordered with respect to amendments and the final vote will occur beginning at 2:17 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 1995.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be the only amendments in order to Senate Joint Resolution 31, and they must be offered and debated during Monday's session of the Senate: McConnell, relevant substitute; Hatch, two relevant amendments; Biden, relevant; Feinstein, relevant; Hollings, two relevant amendments. I further ask that at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, December 12, there be 1 hour 40 minutes for closing debate, to be equally divided in the usual form, and the votes occur on or in relation to the amendments beginning at 2:17 p.m., with the first vote limited to the standard 15 minutes and all remaining stacked votes limited to 10 minutes in length, with 2 minutes for debate prior to the votes for explanation to be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the amendments, the joint resolution be read for a third time and a final vote occur immediately without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I appreciate this clarification. Indeed, considering that the House language eliminated funding for the entire Codes and Standards program, the intent is clear that the House aimed to institute this 1-year time out on Department of Energy's activities in the standards arena as well as in standards which are part of the codes as well as the standards arena. I think it is important that, since the House agreed to recede to Senate language on this issue, which restored the funds cut by the House, that the Senate ensure that the spirit of the House language be carried out.

Mr. MACK. I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. Activities funded under the Department of Energy's Codes and Standards Program are primarily concentrated in two sub-programs known as Lighting and Appliances and Building Standards and Guidelines. However, as is clear in the Department of Energy's budget, its activities within these two programs extend to areas outside of that which might be assumed under their titles. This would include setting standards for commercial equipment electric motors, as well as the advocacy of minimum energy codes for residential buildings. Therefore, it was my understanding that the intent of the amendment to H.R. 1977 that placed a 1-year time-out on Department of Energy's use of funds to propose, issue, or prescribe any new or amended standard would extend to Department of Energy's activities in advocating changes to minimum codes for residential energy use.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, this is a moment, frankly, for which I have been waiting since I made the decision to run for Congress in October 1981 just over 14 years ago. I left a career in the financial market to become a member of Congress. I came here with the idea that we absolutely had to get control of the growth of Federal Government and its spending. So, to me, this is a historic moment. Now I want to respond to Senator Pell's comment a moment ago about the shrill partisanship --and I know that from time to [[Page S 17280]] time there are some extreme expressions of feeling with respect to what we are doing--but I would just like to remind each of us in the Senate that the reason there may be shrillness in this debate, is because we are finally at the moment when we are debating what fundamentally divides us. Those on the left absolutely believe that the answers to America's problems come from more Government. And frankly, Republicans reject that. We think that America's future is based on the individual, that the our limitation is the one we place on our own imagination. And the Government, in fact, is a great player in that limitation. So the reason that we are having such a strong debate is because we are arguing over the principles that divide us. And, frankly, I am thankful that this moment finally has arrived. Maybe it is because my son called me the other night and told me that he just got engaged. Twenty-eight years old, and I could not be prouder of a son. But, I think about the future in which Connie will live, and I think about my daughter, who is in her thirties, with three grandsons--the cutest little guys in the world--I think about their futures. And so, I ask you to excuse me if I become passionate about what I have to say and the things I believe, because I honestly believe that the direction we have been headed will destroy this Nation. And that is why I feel so passionately about the items that we have been discussing. There is something fundamental that has happened over the last few days, though. And I think it is important for people to recognize it. For 3 years journalists, writers, and TV commentators have been trying to figure out just who is Bill Clinton. What does he stand for? When is he going to stand up and fight for what he believes in? And, I find it interesting that Bill Clinton has chosen this time and this issue to finally draw the line in the sand. You know what Bill Clinton is saying, ``I am opposed to balancing the budget in the next 7 years.'' I am glad that he finally has made this statement and made this stand. Bill Clinton has now finally told the people in this country what he stands for, what he believes in. It is more Government, more taxes, and more Federal spending. He has drawn the line in the sand and he has told the people of this country, through his actions in the last few days, that he is in opposition to balancing the budget in the next 7 years. The second point I would like to raise has to do with a very fundamental part of what we are doing. And, yes, we are cutting the rate on capital gains. And you know why we are doing it? Because we believe that growth will take place as a result of this cut. And as a result of that growth, those little grandchildren that I talked about and my son are going to have a greater opportunity in the future, and with opportunity comes hope. That is what we are trying to do for the American people. That is why we are making this commitment. Do you know today that there is over $1.5 trillion locked up in the stock market because of high capital gains tax rates? It is time to unlock that capital. It is time to allow that capital to flow into the new technologies that will develop America's future. Oh, it is very popular to take the position of going after the wealthy. If you look at the record, you will find that when the wealthy invest America, everyone is better off. The other issue my friends on the other side of the aisle like to mention is Medicare. In fact, I heard one of the earlier speakers refer to the Medicare issue by saying the budget provision was going to rip the heart out of Medicare. Well, frankly, I am at a loss over how you can rip the heart out of Medicare while allowing it to grow from $4,800 a year to $6,700 a year. Mr. President, I yield back my time. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the death of Yitzhak Rabin was many things-- the loss of a hero, a blow to the momentum of the peace process, a vile act of political terror. Israel, whose people are accustomed to tragedy and unspeakable inhumanity, has been confronted with something unexpectedly sinister. An attack from within. While Israel has taught the rest of the free world to bear the burden of terrorism and fight back, it has never had to cope with the assassination of a leader by a fellow citizen. Something has changed forever with the death of Yitzhak Rabin. But much more remains the same. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Israelis poured out into the streets, lighting candles and keeping an all night vigil of prayer. The next day, as Yitzhak Rabin lay in state at the Knesset, a million mourners--a quarter of Israel's population--paid their respects. Israelis of all political viewpoints united to mourn their prime minister. In a unique and historic tribute, leaders of Arab countries, including King Hussein of Jordan and President Mubarak of Egypt, and a Palestinian delegation, attended the funeral alongside mourners from all over the world. Finally, Israel's leader in war and peace was laid to rest at Mount Herzl, Jerusalem's military cemetery, near graves of other soldiers who died defending Israel. Just before the funeral began, a siren sounded across Israel, signaling Israelis everywhere to observe a moment of silence. Every year, on Israel's Memorial Day, this siren signals Israelis to stop whatever they are doing to honor the nation's fallen soldiers. On Monday, heads of state and royalty from all over the world paid tribute to Yitzhak Rabin. Yet it is the image of Israel's people, making pilgrimages to his home in Jerusalem, lining the route of the funeral procession, and standing silently during the siren that epitomizes for me the death of a hero. Time and time again, Israel has endured crises and tragedies. Time and time again the Israeli people have grown stronger and more committed to their Zionist mission. The people of Israel have, in a short time, accomplished many dramatic successes. They have farmed the desert. They have welcomed hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants from diverse backgrounds, not to mention refugees from Vietnam, and Bosnia. They have fought wars, and repelled terrorist attacks, while establishing a democratic Jewish state, based on the rule of law. I have been to Israel and met with its leaders and ordinary citizens. Now, as Israel faces yet another difficult challenge, I have faith that the Israeli people will come together in their grief to carry on Israel's role as the strongest democracy and United States ally in the Middle East. [[Page S 16727]] It is very difficult to imagine Israel without Yitzhak Rabin. His life and career tracked the dramatic events of Israel's founding. He oversaw the development of its army, commanding it at one of its most perilous moments, the 1967 Six-Day War, and overseeing Israel's defense during the difficult period of the Intifada. He worked to strengthen the United States-Israel alliance as Israel's Ambassador to Washington. As Prime Minister, he worked for peace while safeguarding Israel's security. Finally, let no one forget, he gave his life for peace. There is a Hebrew saying invoked in times of mourning, ``May his memory be a blessing.'' Yitzhak Rabin's life was a blessing to Israel, and to the world. His memory will serve as an inspiration to all of us in the difficult days ahead.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, death and taxes may be the only two things in life that are unavoidable, and the Federal Government has even found a way to combine them. Federal estate--death--and gift taxation represents punitive double taxation and unfairly transfers income from families to the Government. They tax money that has already been taxed once, if not twice. The steep 55 percent top estate tax rate frequently forces many families to liquidate or sell their businesses or farms just to pay the tax collector rather than being able to pass those belongings onto their next generation--often wiping out a lifetime of hard work. Unfortunately, many taxpayers are punished even when they play by the rules. Because of the complexity of the Tax Code, many unsuspecting taxpayers get caught up in a situation in which they have to capitulate to the demands of the IRS or have to spend huge sums of money in the hopes of a fair tax court decision. Federal estate and gift taxation creates some of the most egregious cases. For example, hypertechnical IRS interpretation of the interplay between Code sections 2034 and 2038 have transcended any intent of Congress. Unforeseen technical traps in the Tax Code were not meant to be revenue raisers for the Federal Government at the expense of unsuspecting taxpayers. Our complex and punitive Federal tax system is in need of a complete overhaul. Americans now waste some $190 billion and 6 billion man-hours just complying with our onerous Tax Code each year. That's the equivalent to the man-hours it takes to produce all the cars, trucks, and airplanes in this country each year. Tax reform is critical to simplifying the Tax Code and enhancing our Nation's long-term economic growth. And, as always, this will likely take several years to accomplish. In the meantime, taxpayers must always be treated with fairness and respect by the IRS as they comply with our current complex system.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to support the effort that the Senator from Pennsylvania has put to the Senate but would encourage my colleagues to vote against the resolution. The resolution calls for the adoption, as I understand it, of the President's budget as submitted June 13 of this year. When the vote is called, I hope that my colleagues would vote against the resolution. Again, I want to support the effort that the Senator from Pennsylvania is making. What he is really giving us is an opportunity to discuss--and I suspect maybe some do not want to discuss it--the President's budget, because there is the impression that has been created that with this proposal that the President made in June, that there is an alternative to what Republicans have proposed. In the next few days we will be voting on the reconciliation package. That, combined with other actions of the Senate--the appropriations bill, the passage of the budget resolution earlier this year--will lead us to a balanced budget, according to CBO. There is a proposal, again, that will come to the floor of the Senate tomorrow, and we should have a vote on final passage before we conclude our work this week, that will, in fact, over a period of 7 years, balance the budget. If my memory is correct, that will be the first time that the budget will have been balanced since 1969. I again want to take the opportunity here to talk about the President's budget, but I cannot help but think that there are times maybe for a little levity. Over the weekend, through some clandestine activity, we were able to come up with an instrument that allows us to understand how the President comes to conclusions about certain tax policies. This instrument is the key. This is spun, apparently, and where it stops is an indication of what the President's policy with respect to taxes should be. Again, just to quote some of the various options here that the President has to pick from, in January 1992 the President said, ``I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut is central * * *'' to what he is trying to accomplish. Then, in March 1992, just a few months later, I am quoting the President again, he says, ``but to say that this middle-class tax is the center of anybody's economic package is just wrong.'' Then, on June 8, the President went on to say, ``I would emphasize to you that the press and my opponents always made more of the middle- class tax cut than I did.'' We all are familiar with the President's comments with respect to taxes raised in 1993. He has been quoted rather extensively, I think, now, over the last week or so, in essence admitting that he went too far in raising taxes. What is ironic about that, in the same breath he really said it was not his fault, that the Congress--the fact that he had to work within the Democratic Party--he was forced to raise taxes and he now admits it was a mistake and in essence he apologized for having raised those taxes. Interestingly enough, you could use this instrument for just about any policy decisions in the White House that you wanted. You could take the issue of budget resolutions. If you go to candidate Clinton in 1992, I believe he said on the ``Larry King Show'' that he believed that a budget could be balanced in a 5-year period. Then, the first budget that the President submitted to the Congress did not call for a balanced budget at all. That was in 1993, even after raising taxes to the point I think many have said was the largest single tax increase in the history of the country. Certainly a large one. So here we are in the President's first year, presenting to the Congress a budget that in fact does not call for balance. Then, earlier this year the President proposed to the Congress his budget for fiscal year 1996. Interestingly enough, there was no effort to balance the budget in that particular proposal. In fact, I think this is the one that was voted on. It was voted down 99 to zero. There was no support whatsoever in the Senate for the President's first proposal this year. That called for balancing the budget in a 10-year period. When it was reestimated by CBO, it was indicated we would see deficits out, well, forever--of $200 billion-plus per year. The President has been quoted, too, as saying he now favors a program that would balance the budget in 7 years--at least that was the implication. I should be careful about that. That was the implication-- that the President in fact supported the concept of balancing the budget in 7 years. So I thought it was an interesting find over the weekend to have found this instrument that really has turned out to be the key to the President's policy decisionmaking process. That has been, I think, very helpful. Also, since we have the opportunity to talk about the President's budget, it has been some time since we have had an opportunity to focus on this. The Joint Economic Committee, as the Chair recognizes, held a hearing to review the President's supposed balanced budget proposal over 10 years. Mind you, over 10 years. He claimed to have balanced the budget in 10 years. This chart indicates, again according to CBO, what would be necessary in order to balance the budget over a 7-year period. We would have to reduce Federal expenditures, that is the anticipated Federal expenditures, over that 7-year period by $1.257 trillion. In fact, that is the proposal that the Republicans have put before the Senate, both as a budget resolution and now the combination of appropriations bills and reconciliation bill. So we are going to meet this goal. The President's proposal does not come anywhere near that. As you begin to review--not my analysis of the President's budget, but the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the President's budget--and you might be asking yourself why does the Senator keep referring to the Congressional Budget Office, known as CBO? The reason I do is because I remember, I think as most of the Members of the Senate do, that in January 1993, when we were all assembled at a joint [[Page S 15550]] session of the Congress to hear the President's State of the Union Message, he really challenged the Congress. Maybe that is really not the way to say it. I think what he was saying to the Congress is he recognized in the past, that previous administrations and previous Congresses, frankly, had used smoke and mirrors to put budget resolutions together. When things got tough and tough decisions were going to have to be made, the Congress somehow or another decided they would accept rosier economic assumptions. Because by accepting rosier economic assumptions, fewer cuts had to be made. This is what the President said, back in January 1993. He said that he would use ``the independent numbers of the Congressional Budget Office, so we could argue about priorities with the same set of numbers. I did this so no one could say I was estimating my way out of this difficulty.'' Guess what, here is another flip-flop. If I had that other chart back up maybe we could spin the wheel one more time and see if the President would conclude he should respond to this kind of question. The President has decided not to use the Congressional Budget Office numbers. He has decided to use OMB. As a result of using OMB, guess what, they are using rosier economic assumptions--economic assumptions about the level of economic growth; economic assumptions about interest rates; economic assumptions about inflation and so forth. The end result was that the President has, in fact, estimated his way out of the problem. This portion of the reduction does in fact come about as a result of changing economic assumptions and using lower interest rates, assuming there will be lower interest rates in the future. I say to my colleagues as we have an opportunity to both vote on this resolution and on reconciliation, it is obvious. It does not get to zero. Over half of the deficit reduction the President has proposed comes from estimating his way out of the problem, using higher growth numbers, lower interest rates, and so forth. That program just will not do it. This is exactly what created the problem we are in today. It is because, in the past, every administration and every Congress decided to blink. All I am saying is you cannot get there with the plan the President has proposed and that is why I encourage Members to vote against the resolution that is on the floor. Sometimes people get lost with charts in this discussion of economics and statistics and numbers. If you think about it, in essence what CBO has said is that deficits are growing at this rate. This line represents the deficits out in the future if we do not do anything. Here is what we would have to do--that is this line here represents zero. We have to get rid of this gap. We have to fill that gap, rather, in order to solve the deficit problem. The President has figured he will address the problem with over half of that gap being filled by phony economic assumptions. That has happened year after year after year. That is why we have seen the debt build up year after year. Mr. President, I want to address maybe two other areas related to this. The first is, what does this mean to individuals? What is important about doing this? Clearly one could make the economic argument that this is important because it is going to get us to a balanced budget. Plenty of other people have made those arguments and I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the floor refer to what our proposal might do to people in the country. I ask them to think about what is going to happen to those individuals if we do not do something. Take Medicare, briefly. What if we do not act on Medicare? How are they going to answer the people 7 years from now when there is no money in the trust fund to make those benefit payments? What are they going to say to their moms, dads, and grandparents? What are they going to say to those individuals who are suffering from all types of diseases that come as a result of aging? Are they just going to say we did not have the courage back in 1995 to solve the problem; we felt it would be better to do whatever Congress has done before that? That is, flinch; fuzzy up the issue; change the economic assumptions; avoid the tough decisions? That is what they are saying. Oh, they will not admit that. But that is exactly what they are saying. What about those people, those young families in America where mom and dad get up at 4:30, 5 o'clock in the morning and commute to work, and by the time they get back home in the evening it is already dark? They feel, and I think accurately so, that the Federal Government is sucking money away from them to pay for programs that have been proven to fail. It would be another thing if, in fact, programs were working. But almost everyone in America today understands that they have failed. They have failed, and it is fundamentally wrong to say to those hard- working men and women of this Nation trying to raise their families, trying to provide the necessary dollars for education, for food, for health care, and so forth, ``Oh, no. We are going to take more of your money away from you and we are going to give it to those guys in Washington, DC, to continue to spend on programs that have proven to be a failure.'' What about the young couple where the father works all week, in fact has two jobs? He comes home for the weekend, and he takes care of the children, and his wife works for the weekend to make just a little bit more money so they can make ends meet. What about them? What about those individuals that we have been taking money away from to transfer it to someone else that they feel, frankly, is not worthy of it, because they hear the stories about the programs that have failed. In fact, that has happened as we have gone from this dream that was created in the early 1960's to the nightmare of the programs that have been developed over the years, and the poverty that people are living in today, and the dependency that people are living in today as a result of those programs. So I ask my colleagues to think about those men and women who are working hard day-in and day-out. What about them? What about their future? What about their opportunity? They will not have one--not at the level that we have experienced over the years, if we continue the kind of Federal spending and the Federal programs that have been going on for these last 25 years or so. The last point I would make is I think that the decision we are making here, the decision to reject the President's alternative which does not get us anywhere near a balanced budget and the reconciliation package that we will have an opportunity to vote on in just a few days, I think the opportunity is much greater than the simple reaching of a balanced budget. We have a Nation that for generations and for centuries has been dedicated to the principles of freedom, independence, justice, democracy, human rights, free markets, free enterprise, and capitalism. And I believe that our country is the only one in the world today that has the interest or the concern or the desire to see that those principles are exported around the world. But if we do not get our fiscal house in order, we will not have an opportunity to do that. America will not be the center of influence in the 21st century, and America will not have the opportunity to expand and pursue those ideas around the world. So this is much larger than just this simple debate today about whether we are going to support the President's plan or whether we are going to support our plan. We are talking about America's future. The President has failed to provide us with leadership. He has failed to provide us with a plan and, therefore, he has failed to provide us with an alternative. There is no choice. Reject this resolution that has been proposed, and in a few days vote for the reconciliation package. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1332, a bill to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. I have long supported placing the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. It is time that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by placing our Embassy there. Such recognition is long overdue--47 years overdue. Over time, the location of the Embassy in Tel Aviv has taken on a significance that is at odds with our strong and unwavering support for Israel and Jerusalem as its undivided capital. The United States failure to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has only served to embolden the enemies of Israel, leading them to think perhaps the United States, Israel's closest ally, was ambivalent about the status of Jerusalem. We are not. And it is long past time for us to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to an undivided Jerusalem as the historic, governmental, and spiritual capital of Israel. Much of the discussion on this bill has addressed concerns that relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would have a detrimental effect on the peace process. The opposite is true. An essential part of the peace process involves a clear understanding between the parties on a number of issues, an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is one. PLO compliance is another. On both counts, I want to be absolutely clear: both are essential to a lasting peace in the Middle East. Both are good for Israel and both are good for the Palestinian people. Both are fundamental prerequisites for moving forward into a phase of good relations between Israel and its neighbors. Both are necessary for stability, economic development, good government, and the rule of law for the Palestinian people.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act and encourage my colleagues to vote for cloture when that time arrives. This is a bill which would seek increased international pressure on Fidel Castro, hold out the promise of assistance to transition and democratic governments in Cuba, and provide a powerful disincentive to those who would use illegally expropriated property belonging to United States citizens to prop up the Castro regime and its instruments of repression. Despite the diligent efforts of the Clinton administration and apologists for Castro to misrepresent this bill, this bill is an effective, and thoughtful program for maintaining economic pressure on Castro, supporting democratic forces inside Cuba, and planning for future transition and democratic governments. Fidel Castro has been in power for 36 years. That is longer than Mao and Joseph Stalin. That is mindboggling. As happened with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, much of the world has denied, ignored, and become inured to the litany of human rights abuses emanating from Cuba. Now, with the cold war over, there is even less interest. Ramming tugs full of refugees, arbitrary arrests, made-up crimes and lengthy imprisonment in squalid prisons and psychiatric hospitals apparently do not raise an eyebrow anymore. The final step in the process of accommodation, normalization of commercial and other ties, is taking place now as many countries look for commercial opportunities in Cuba. Before I go on to explain why foreign investment in Cuba will prolong, not end, the tyranny of Fidel Castro, let me address the state of human rights in Cuba today. I would like to read an excerpt from the 1994-95 Freedom in the World Report, compiled by Freedom House. With the possible exception of South Africa, Indonesia and China, Cuba under Castro has had more political prisoners per capita for longer periods than any other country. Since 1992 Cuba's community of human rights activists and dissidents has been subject to particularly severe crackdowns. Hundreds of human rights activists have been jailed or placed under house arrest. In the extended crackdown that began in August 1994, over thirty dissidents were detained and beaten while in custody. Dissidents are frequently assaulted in the streets and in their homes by plainclothes police and the `rapid action brigades,' mobs organized by state security, often through the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs). There is continued evidence of torture and killings in prisons and psychiatric institutions, where a number of the dissidents arrested in recent years have been incarcerated. Since 1990, the International Committee of the Red Cross has been denied access to prisoners. Freedom of movement and freedom to choose one's residence, education or job are restricted. Attempting to leave the island without permission is a punishable offense and crackdowns have been severe since 1993, except during the month-long exodus in 1994. The punishment for illegal exit-- -- I would like just to make a point here. The idea that you would live in a country that would have a law that would make it illegal for you to leave, and the punishment for that would be 3 years in prison is unconscionable. At the present time, there are some 1,000 individuals, it is estimated, in prison for that particular crime of wanting to leave the country.

Mr. MACK. Certainly. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. MACK. Unfortunately, the world has become so conditioned to Castro's [[Page S 15022]] abuses that the suffering of the Cuban people sometimes becomes a footnote in debates over maintaining the embargo, or Castro's efforts to revive Cuba's nuclear and military capabilities. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity over the years to have been somewhat involved in the issues of human rights violations in Cuba having had the opportunity to talk with Cubans who have one way or another left the island of Cuba. I have also been in Geneva during the debate surrounding the issue of human rights violations in Cuba. While I can understand how, over a period of time, people seem to be able to just brush aside the human aspects of this debate and focus on the legal constitutional issues, the reality of what we are talking about here today is not economics and it is not constitutional law. It is what is happening to individuals on a day-to-day basis. I would say to you again that in my conversations with people who have left Cuba and who have left recently, their reaction to our backing away or backing down on the economic sanctions, or the embargo that is in place, they say that would be the wrong thing to do even though they are going through tremendous suffering. They say it would be the wrong thing to do. It is the only message they hear from around the world that says that someone is concerned about their future. It would be a terrible mistake for the Senate to reject this legislation. I would like to turn the debate briefly away from the human rights aspect of it and talk a little bit about the embargo and maintaining economic pressure on Castro. Foreign investors in Cuba often purport to be responding to changes in the regime. In fact, there have been no significant economic changes, let alone political ones. Castro controls sectors of the economy that attract most foreign investment such as mining and petroleum, telecommunications, agriculture, and tourism. An index of foreign investment in Cuba lists over a dozen democracies. Foreign companies must make partnerships with the regime. Increasingly this means Cuba's military, which like China's, is getting more and more involved in the economy. Tourism is the military's cash cow, especially foreigners-only restaurants and resorts which have created what Cubans call tourism apartheid. The argument that foreign investment makes private citizens independent of state control by enabling them to support a free press, political parties, religious groups and labor and professional organizations simply does not apply to Cuba where there is no such thing as a right to private property, let alone free speech, association or assembly. European, Canadian, and Mexican investors have been providing crucial support to Castro for years yet there is no benefit to ordinary Cubans. The constitution requires state ownership of the fundamental means of production. Foreign companies may not contract with workers. Instead, companies pay the Government. Again, I want to stress this point. If you do business in Cuba today, the impression is created that these reforms are somehow or another dramatically changing what is happening in Cuba. If you are doing business in Cuba today and you hire a number of Cubans, you do not pay directly your work force. You pay the money to the Cuban Government, say, 300 United States dollars a month for each employee. That employee receives $4 to $5 a month in pesos from the Cuban Government. The balance of that money stays with Fidel Castro's government. In fact, it enhances Fidel Castro's ability to control the island. So this idea, this notion that somehow or other if we were to liberalize our approach in dealing with Fidel Castro that the people of Cuba will benefit is just hogwash. The individual who will benefit will be Fidel Castro. And anyone who has done any serious reading about Fidel Castro knows that his only motive is his own private power, his ability to remain in place as the leader. His interests are not, in fact, the Cuban people. Decree Law No. 149 directs agents to search out and seize cash or property of Cubans deemed unduly wealthy. Deemed unduly wealthy, interesting concept, is it not, that the government would define and determine who in the country is unduly wealthy. Individuals discovered with a motorbike or extra clothes can be charged with illegal enrichment and face lengthy prison terms. Sometimes foreign investments involve the $1.8 billion in U.S. properties seized in 1960 without compensation. Despite misleading representations to prospective investors, Cuba has never settled a single claim for these properties. Castro encourages and courts this investment, even inventing a cosmetic law that purports to protect the assets of foreign investors. Our State Department asks our allies to discourage their citizens from investing in such properties, with mixed success. Somehow transactions that businessmen would not touch with a 10-foot pole in their own countries seem all right in Cuba, where fraudulent transactions involving the government are above the law. This bill provides a powerful disincentive to those who knowingly invest in expropriated U.S. properties by providing another forum for legal action by U.S. citizens. However, neither this bill nor longstanding United States policy towards Cuba is inspired by the economic injuries suffered by our citizens. We simply refuse to prop up the Castro regime and its instruments of repression. A recent report of the AFL-CIO's American Institute for Free Labor Development explained Castro's strategy to substitute hard currency for real change. And I quote: ``[r]eforms'' are not seen as ends in themselves but as temporary mechanisms for gaining enough foreign currency and trade to ensure the survival of the communist system. ``Privatization'' is not an open-ended invitation to foreign entrepreneurs, but a tightly controlled partnership between investors and government agencies, for the purpose of strengthening those very agencies. The Clinton administration's changeable Cuba policy may have led our allies to believe sentiment in the United States is divided over Cuba. It is not. Worse still, administration wavering may have caused Cubans to doubt United States resolve and take to rafts and innertubes in numbers greater than any time since the Mariel exodus. Some of our allies have criticized the bill on the grounds that the United States has no right to tell its allies not to do business in Cuba. We are doing no such thing. This legislation is directed at Fidel Castro and his government. Insofar as this bill has a message for our allies, it is that we attach the greatest importance to ending the decades-long nightmare of the Cuban people. Foreign investment on Castro's terms prolongs that nightmare. Other provisions of this bill would deny Cuba the money and legitimacy that comes from being a member of international financial and other institutions, like the Inter-American Development Bank and the Organization of American States. This bill tells the States of the former Soviet Union they may not blithely restart their predecessor's close relations with Fidel Castro and expect the United States not to care. We will not subsidize Russia's assistance to Cuba so long as it supports Castro's destabilizing ambitions in the hemisphere and keeps the Cuban people under the thumb of corrupt and inefficient Socialist economic policies. We will however plan for the day, the moment, that the United States can help the people of Cuba make a transition to democracy. This bill holds out the promise of aid to transition and democratic governments in Cuba and allows the President great flexibility in extending the help and support of the United States. Americans right now are already the largest donors of humanitarian aid to Cuba. We will do more. But we won't prolong the Castro nightmare 1 minute longer than necessary by relaxing pressure on Castro or helping him attract foreign investment. Mr. President, not too long ago I saw a movie called ``Braveheart.'' It is about the struggle for human freedom. And this movie was about the effort on the part of the Scottish people to secure their freedom. There was a scene in this movie in the midst of a battle in [[Page S 15023]] which the hero of the movie had spoken with the nobles in the country asking for their support. And at the crucial moment in the battle, I remember again the hero turning to someone for support from these nobles, and at this crucial moment, the nobles turned their backs on freedom. They turned their backs on freedom for one reason: for their self-interest, for their need to continue the existing system because they profited from it. I know that the motivation, frankly, behind those who are in disagreement with what we are trying to accomplish is the desire to profit from the markets that will be available someday in Cuba. I understand that. I am disappointed that people react that way. We will never change that attitude. It has been in existence as long as man has been on the surface of this Earth. But I think we ought to recognize it for what it is. People want to do business in China today for exactly the same reason. For a few brief moments the Nation focused on Harry Wu. But now he is back, and everyone has forgotten. The same kind of thing is happening in Cuba. Day in and day out innocent people who want the same things out of life that you and I enjoy, and those are the basic principles and the freedoms that we enjoy--the freedom of assembly, the freedom of religion, the freedom to pursue your own livelihood--and yet we are, in essence, not willing to stand up and fight for those individuals because of the commercial interest that exists throughout the world. I understand it. I reject it. I wish it was not there. But I think we ought to recognize it because that is what is driving a lot of this debate. I would hope that just occasionally there would be an opportunity for the nobles of the world to say just once in this one case, ``I am willing to give up the opportunity for profit, the opportunity for growth in my company, give up those opportunities so that other individuals that we do not know, never will meet, but who have struggled for the same kinds of freedom and liberty that we enjoy today.'' And I certainly would hope that this Congress will pass this legislation so that we can provide a message of hope to the people of Cuba. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the fiscal year 1996 intelligence authorization bill. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been involved in reviewing U.S. intelligence requirements and programs. While most of the programs authorized by this legislation are classified, there is much that can be said in general terms about the importance of this measure. My colleagues should understand that although the end of the cold war has lessened the threat to the United States, it has not reduced the demands for information imposed on the Intelligence Community by its many consumers. We live in an era described as the ``age of information,'' and that applies to the public sector no less than the private sector. In fact, the instability and turbulence unleashed by the collapse of the Soviet empire has led to increased requests for information on a wide variety of new topics, countries, and conflicts. For example, in recent years the U.S. has become involved in conflicts in Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. In each case, the Defense Department has depended on the Intelligence Community for the information necessary to perform assigned military missions with a minimum of risk to U.S. personnel. These operations, including the ongoing U.S. military involvement in Bosnia, should demonstrate beyond any doubt that the demise of the Soviet Union has not lead to reduced requirements for intelligence information, either to support the U.S. military, or to support civilian policymakers engaged in arms control, counternarcotics, political or economic negotiations, monitoring international embargoes, or the routine conduct of foreign policy. Ironically, our national security is becoming more dependent on intelligence collection, rather than less dependent, in the post cold war era. This is primarily the result of a reduced military force structure that is increasingly dependent on superior intelligence to compensate for smaller numbers. For example, the U.S. Army has shrunk from 18 Active Duty Divisions in the mid-eighties to only 10 today. The U.S. Army is now the eighth largest in the world, and it is stretched thin at many points, as in South Korea, where 37,000 U.S. military personnel and 500,000 South Korean soldiers are confronted by a North Korean Army that is twice as large. The U.S. Navy and Air Force are engaged in similar reductions. The Air Force now has 20 active and reserve fighter wings, down from the 38 fighter wings available during the Reagan Administration. Similarly, the Navy has long since abandoned the goal of a 600 ship fleet and is now planning for a force some 30% smaller. With this reduced force structure, the U.S. can still prevail, even against much larger adversaries fighting close to their own shores, but only if the U.S. maintains superior personnel, weapons systems, and intelligence and communications capabilities. The public and my colleagues should be aware that the overwhelming majority of the funds authorized in this bill directly support, and indeed are executed by, the Department of Defense. There is simply no way to make substantial, additional reductions in intelligence programs without harming U.S. military readiness and capabilities. In addition to the critical support that the Intelligence Community provides the Department of Defense, there are numerous missions performed by the Intelligence Community that are critical to the conduct of U.S. foreign policies. The Intelligence Community makes it possible to verify arms control agreements; it monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; it provides unique information regarding the intentions of foreign governments; it tracks international terrorism across the globe; and our intelligence agencies operate on a global basis to penetrate the international drug cartels. Many of these missions involve great difficulty and often danger, but there is no substitute for the painstaking work the Intelligence Community quietly performs in many distant lands. I believe that the contributions made by the Intelligence Community to the war on drugs merit special consideration and increased support. During the confirmation hearings for DCI John Deutch, I expressed my sentiments to the nominee and asked him to consider the evidence presented by William Bennett and John Walters in their article of February 9, 1995, entitled, ``Why aren't we attacking the supply of drugs?'' The article points out that after the Bush Administration deployed U.S. military forces to help detect and interdict drug shipments in 1989, the price of cocaine increased by some 30% within a year's time, and the number of hospital admissions for cocaine overdoses declined by a roughly similar amount. The DCI responded to my questions on the counternarcotics issues by saying, ``And I must say, Senator, just so there is no misunderstanding, I agree with your point, that here is a place that deserves more resources generally by the Intelligence Community, not less.'' After the nomination hearings, I wrote the DCI on this issue, and supported increased expenditures for counternarcotics activities during the committee's budget deliberations. I am pleased to say that the Intelligence Authorization bill contains additional funds for counternarcotics programs that were not in the Administration's request. I am also delighted by the progress that has been made over the last few months in apprehending the leaders of the Cali cartel. U.S. intelligence agencies have contributed to this success and already, once again, the newspapers are reporting an increase in the street price of cocaine. The evidence again clearly suggests that aggressive efforts to attack drug production and transportation can be effective. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I will continue to press for increased counternarcotics efforts by the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the far-reaching changes being implemented within the Intelligence Community because too often the public only hears the bad news. The Intelligence Community has tightened its belt in terms of both budget and personnel. Substantial changes are being made in the way that the CIA operates overseas; in hiring and promotion practices, and in the way that the CIA interacts with its oversight committees. This Intelligence Community is not treading water--DCI John Deutch is implementing profound changes that will increase efficiency, improve intelligence support to consumers, and rectify the problems recently brought to light in Guatemala and the Ames case. Further, although there was no illegality or impropriety involved, he is working to ensure that the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO] is not overly conservative in estimating costs and risks, leading to excess funds in carry-forward accounts. We are most fortunate, in my view, to have a Director of Central Intelligence who is intimately familiar with military requirements for intelligence as well as the many technical matters which are so critical to modern intelligence collection. I believe that Director Deutch and his team will continue to aggressively implement the changes necessary to assure accountability and restore public confidence in the CIA. In conclusion, I believe that the Intelligence Community is moving rapidly to keep pace with new missions and new technologies. I also believe that the programs authorized by this bill are vital to the security of the United States and deserve the support of every Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a statement recently made by the DCI addressing the future of the Intelligence Community, together with my correspondence with him and a relevant newspaper article on counternarcotics issues, be printed in the Record. [[Page S 14794]]

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Truth in Lending Act Amendments of 1995 will finally bring an end to the massive potential liability facing the mortgage industry as a result of extraordinary penalties under the Truth in Lending Act [TILA] for technical errors. Recognizing the threat to mortgage lending, we placed a moratorium on class actions for certain technical violations under TILA to give us an opportunity to develop a solution. The Truth in Lending Act Amendments of 1995 provide that solution. This bill does a number of important things. First, it provides retroactive relief to the mortgage industry from the extreme potential liability that was caused by the Rodash versus AIB Mortgage Co. case. This problem, which seriously threatened the viability of residential mortgage lending in this country including the mortgage-backed securities markets, was caused by the ambiguity surrounding the proper treatment of certain charges, and the extremely low tolerance for any error in making disclosures. The current treatment of fees, such as mortgage broker fees, has been challenged in litigation. It is not fair to subject a lender to extreme penalties for their treatment of these fees, which some are now trying to recharacterize as finder's fees. The entire industry historically excluded these fees from the finance charge, without regard to whether the broker received yield spread premiums or other types of compensation from the lender--known or unknown to the borrower--or whether the broker is acting as an agent of the borrower, the lender or both. Based upon the preexisting language of TILA, Regulation Z and the Federal Reserve Board commentary-- particularly 4(a)-3, this exclusion is manifestly correct. However, it seems proper to eliminate any issue whatsoever. With this legislation, lenders will now be able to get on with the business of making loans. Second, the bill prospectively clarifies the treatment of specific charges such as tangible taxes and courier fees. This gives creditors greater certainty and provides consumers with more accurate disclosures through uniform treatment of charges. The Federal Reserve is also directed to review the finance charge disclosure and make recommendations to improve it. Specifically we are looking for recommendations that make the finance charge disclosure more accurately reflect the cost of credit. In addition, we would like suggestions on how to eliminate any abusive practices that have developed in the reporting of the finance charge. Third, recognizing the highly technical nature of the Truth in Lending Act, the bill raises the tolerance level for understated disclosures for all future transactions from $10 to $100 for civil liability purposes. For errors which can lead to rescission of the loan, which is a much more extreme penalty, the tolerance is \1/2\ of 1 percent of the loan amount. However, for certain refinance loans where the refinancing borrower did not receive additional new advances from the creditor, the tolerance is 1 percent of the loan amount. In accordance with current Federal Reserve regulations, funds to finance the closing costs of the transaction do not constitute new advances. Fourth, the bill clarifies that loan servicers are not assignees for purposes of Truth in Lending liability if they only own legal title for servicing purposes. Fifth, the bill raises the statutory damages for individual actions from $1,000 to $2,000. Statutory damages are provided in TILA because actual damages, which require proof that the borrower suffered a loss in reliance upon the inaccurate disclosure, are extremely difficult to establish. Sixth, the bill preserves the consumer's 3-day rescission period for all refinance loans with different creditors. As currently set forth in the Truth in Lending Act, this cooling off period expires in 3 years. Contrary to some court decisions which have allowed this rescission period to extend for as long as 8 years after the loan was closed in the context of recoupment, the existing statutory language is clear: 3 years means 3 years and the time period shall not be extended except as explicitly provided in section 125(f). Moreover, as is currently set forth in the Federal Reserve regulations, when a borrower refinances an existing loan and takes out new money, only the new money is subject to rescission. This legislation is critical to avert what could be a financial disaster in the mortgage industry. I appreciate the bipartisan effort to fix the problems with the Truth in Lending Act while still protecting the rights of the consumers and I urge the adoption of this bill.