Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, rather than a new hospital, I propose a nursing home facility and an outpatient clinic which will help complete the southeast regional and statewide network of veteran health care providers while addressing the need to provide long-term care service to veterans in east central Florida. [[Page S 14371]]

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, east central Florida is a critically underserved area with a growing population of retired, limited-income veterans. Florida has the highest percentage of veterans 65 years and older in the Nation. They currently represent 30 percent of the State's veterans population and, contrary to GAO's recent report, the numbers are increasing daily. Certainly, Florida veterans, Senator Graham, and I acknowledge the budget constraints before this Congress and the need for a balanced budget. For this reason, we have modified our present request to reflect fiscal reality while still meeting long identified medical service needs. Recognizing that neither the House nor the Senate intend to fund the original plan for a comprehensive medical facility at this time, we are requesting that the VA be able to use the previously appropriated fiscal year 1995 funds for the design and construction of an outpatient medical facility and long-term nursing care facility which will provide immediate relief to Florida veterans.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it strikes me that the VA has not given a great deal of thought to defining its mission for the next century. In its fiscal year 1996 budget submission, the VA requested funding for two new hospitals. However, it is clear that our veterans would be better served if the VA, like the rest of the Nation's health care providers, began focusing on outpatient and ambulatory care. I note with interest that the committee has not funded the VA's hospital construction request. I believe that is a result of the committee's concern about VA's lack of strategic planning as well as budgetary concerns.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I would like to engage the chairman and ranking member of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy relative to the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee. Senators Graham, Domenici, and Bingaman will also join with me in this. Let me begin by commending the chairman for putting forth a bill that balances the needs for fiscal restraint with necessary investment. An excellent example of necessary and productive investment is the National Science Foundation's decision 5 years ago to establish the principal facility in Florida and a component facility at Los Alamos. The proposal to embark on this important basic research was a vision of Dr. Jack Crow, the lab's director. The NSF agreed with this vision and made the crucial decision and investment. It was a very wise decision, and I commend them for it.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur immediately following the first vote in connection with the D.C. appropriations bill.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring the legislative conference report to the floor of the Senate this morning. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to Senator Murray. While we did not agree on every issue as we worked our way through this, we did agree to work together to bring a bill to the floor that the Senate could support and, in fact, could be proud of. We began this process early in the year with a resolution being passed in conference indicating we wanted to make substantial reductions in funding of the legislative branch. We have, under this bill, reduced spending for legislative operations by almost 9 percent. That is a reduction in real terms from last year's level. Again, not some projected increase and a reduction from that but from actual levels from last year. We, in fact, did take on some controversial issues, and they were debated in full on the floor of the Senate with respect to the Office of Technology Assessment. In conference, there was further debate on that issue and the House, in fact, receded to the Senate's position and agreement was reached that the Office of Technology Assessment should be eliminated. In addition to that, the bill called for--well, I should back up. The resolution passed earlier in the year by the Republican conference called for a 25-percent reduction in the General Accounting Office. We have, in essence, reached that objective, but we are going to do it in a 2-year period. Under this bill, or with this conference report, we will reach the objective of a 15-percent reduction in the General Accounting Office in 1996, with the remainder of those reductions to take place in the next fiscal year. Again, we worked with Chuck Bowsher on this issue, and our feeling was that rather than for us to micromanage how these reductions would be made over this 2-year period, we concluded it would be best to work with the GAO and, in essence, ask them to devise a plan about how they would reach those objectives. They came back to us with a proposal. We felt, again, listening to what they had proposed and asking us to give them some flexibility, which we have done in this conference report, there was general agreement that we should go forward with the effort to reach that goal. In fact, we have done that now, and I think that both the House and the Senate can be proud of the approach that we took with respect to the General Accounting Office. In addition to that, we suggested that the Sergeant at Arms and other support agencies of the Congress should make reductions. There is a 15- percent reduction in committee staffs. We asked the Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and others, to meet a goal of a 12.5- percent cut. Some of those agencies--in fact, the Sergeant at Arms came up with cuts of greater than 12.5 percent. So all in all, Mr. President, I will say that we have reached our objective. We have done it in a manner the Senate can be proud. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to support this conference report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table relating to the conference agreement be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 1854 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on adoption of the conference report.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Economic Growth and Price Stability Act of 1995. This legislation aims to accomplish two major goals. First, it focuses the Federal Reserve on achieving price stability. Second, it repeals the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978--the [[Page S 14133]] Humphrey-Hawkins Act--which codified the Keynesian principles that advocate government fine-tuning of the economy. Based on the fundamentally flawed premise that government can manage the economy, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act set targets for the economy to reach an unemployment rate of 3 percent for individuals over 20 and 4 percent for individuals over 16 and an inflation rate of 3 percent eventually moving to zero. Almost 20 years later, we know that this law has never achieved any of its intentions. This law proves that government cannot legislate prosperity--the reality is that individuals create jobs and free markets lead to prosperity. By codifying unrealistic goals, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act gives the Fed an unachievable mission to artificially boost growth and employment while keeping inflation and interest rates low. This promotes fine- tuning of monetary policy by the Fed in response to current economic trends. While this may lead to short-term economic boosts, over the long term such intervention by the Fed leads to higher inflation, higher interest rates, and more frequent recessions. The Economic Growth and Price Stability Act corrects this problem by focusing the Fed on the only goal it can effectively achieve: price stability. Focusing the Fed on price stability will lead to a sounder dollar, more stable financial markets, increased employment, and greater long-term economic growth. The Economic Growth and Price Stability Act gives the Fed the responsibilities of defining price stability, charting its own course toward achieving and maintaining it, and setting its own timeframe for accomplishing the price stability goal. By allowing the Fed to create its own timetable, we can rest assured that transitional effects on employment and output will not occur. Under my legislation, the Fed will still be required to report to Congress on a semiannual basis, but it will additionally be required to explain, in verbal and numerical terms, its definition of and its methods for attaining price stability. By not mandating inflation targets, this legislation places the burden on the Fed to appropriately define price stability. As we all know, the market is a harsh task master, and I believe it will be the best judge of the Fed's progress. The Fed will have a strong incentive to make correct decisions about its definition of price stability and its method for achieving it, because the markets will be quick to express their views. The Fed will pursue price stability honestly and openly, because if it does not, long term interest rates will rise. Instead of countercyclical, command and control, government interventionist economics, the Economic Growth and Price Stability Act sets in place a free market paradigm. Under the Economic Growth and Price Stability Act the principal economic responsibilities of government are to establish and ensure an environment conducive to long-term economic growth and increases in living standards by maintaining free markets, low taxes, respect for private property, and the stable long-term purchasing power of the U.S. currency. If the elections in November 1994 taught us anything, they taught us that the American people want less government, not more. The Economic Growth and Price Stability Act recognizes that the American people know what is best for them and directly responds to their demands. I hope you will join me in this vital effort to free our economy from government mishandling.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Economic Growth and Price Stability Act of 1995. This legislation aims to accomplish two major goals. First, it focuses the Federal Reserve on achieving price stability. Second, it repeals the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978--the [[Page S 14133]] Humphrey-Hawkins Act--which codified the Keynesian principles that advocate government fine-tuning of the economy. Based on the fundamentally flawed premise that government can manage the economy, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act set targets for the economy to reach an unemployment rate of 3 percent for individuals over 20 and 4 percent for individuals over 16 and an inflation rate of 3 percent eventually moving to zero. Almost 20 years later, we know that this law has never achieved any of its intentions. This law proves that government cannot legislate prosperity--the reality is that individuals create jobs and free markets lead to prosperity. By codifying unrealistic goals, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act gives the Fed an unachievable mission to artificially boost growth and employment while keeping inflation and interest rates low. This promotes fine- tuning of monetary policy by the Fed in response to current economic trends. While this may lead to short-term economic boosts, over the long term such intervention by the Fed leads to higher inflation, higher interest rates, and more frequent recessions. The Economic Growth and Price Stability Act corrects this problem by focusing the Fed on the only goal it can effectively achieve: price stability. Focusing the Fed on price stability will lead to a sounder dollar, more stable financial markets, increased employment, and greater long-term economic growth. The Economic Growth and Price Stability Act gives the Fed the responsibilities of defining price stability, charting its own course toward achieving and maintaining it, and setting its own timeframe for accomplishing the price stability goal. By allowing the Fed to create its own timetable, we can rest assured that transitional effects on employment and output will not occur. Under my legislation, the Fed will still be required to report to Congress on a semiannual basis, but it will additionally be required to explain, in verbal and numerical terms, its definition of and its methods for attaining price stability. By not mandating inflation targets, this legislation places the burden on the Fed to appropriately define price stability. As we all know, the market is a harsh task master, and I believe it will be the best judge of the Fed's progress. The Fed will have a strong incentive to make correct decisions about its definition of price stability and its method for achieving it, because the markets will be quick to express their views. The Fed will pursue price stability honestly and openly, because if it does not, long term interest rates will rise. Instead of countercyclical, command and control, government interventionist economics, the Economic Growth and Price Stability Act sets in place a free market paradigm. Under the Economic Growth and Price Stability Act the principal economic responsibilities of government are to establish and ensure an environment conducive to long-term economic growth and increases in living standards by maintaining free markets, low taxes, respect for private property, and the stable long-term purchasing power of the U.S. currency. If the elections in November 1994 taught us anything, they taught us that the American people want less government, not more. The Economic Growth and Price Stability Act recognizes that the American people know what is best for them and directly responds to their demands. I hope you will join me in this vital effort to free our economy from government mishandling.

Mr. MACK

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act and the reports pursuant to that act have contributed to United States policy goals in Hong Kong. Senator McConnell deserves thanks and appreciation for the work he did in seeing that bill passed into law. The amendment adds the requirement of a report in 1996 and every year after 2000 pursuant to the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act. Currently, reports are not required in those years. The amendment also includes directive language establishing criteria for reporting on six issues related to the implementation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong. Past reports have been deficient on these points. The purpose of the directive language, which does not amend the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act, is to give guidance on title III's existing reporting requirements. They do not reflect a departure or a change in Congress's stated policies in the act. amendment no. 2721 (Purpose: To require a report providing a concise overview of the prospects for economic growth on a broad, equitable, and sustainable basis in the countries receiving economic assistance under title II of this act) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, once again this year, I have submitted an amendment to require administration reports on economic policies in countries receiving U.S. economic assistance. It seems to me that in the wake of the collapse of communism and the vindication of free- market capitalist economic policies, it is absolutely essential that our policymakers keep in mind the economic principles and protections that have made the United States the freest and strongest country on the face on the Earth. amendment no. 2722 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Congress that the Administration should expeditiously declassify documents relating to Hondurans who were allegedly ``disappeared,'' and for other purposes) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of Senators D'Amato and Bond, the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of 1995. This bill represents the first serious effort in decades to reform and consolidate the Nation's public and tenant-based assisted housing programs, and to redirect the primary responsibility for these programs away from the Federal bureaucracy and toward States and localities. Public housing is home to 1.4 million American families, and much of it is good. Unfortunately, to many Americans the pictures in the national media of high rise public housing projects being imploded symbolize the failure of our housing policy. Clearly, some public housing, particularly in major cities, has fallen into a vicious cycle of crime, drug abuse, welfare dependency, and hopelessness. In far too many places, public housing developments, which are supposed to provide a housing platform from which lower-income families can achieve their own aspirations of economic independence and self-sufficiency, are little more than warehouses that rob the poorest of the poor of their dignity and hope. The underlying principle of the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act is resident choice. By encouraging cost-effective and efficient use of resources, the bill gives housing authorities the ability to offer their residents tenant-based assistance where it is economically feasible. It also requires that distressed public housing be vouchered out to protect the right of residents to decent and safe housing. A key to increasing resident choice is improving the ability of tenant-based assistance programs to meet the demand for affordable housing. This bill makes important changes in the section 8 voucher program. It repeals program requirements, such as ``take one, take all,'' that discourage landlords from participating in the tenant-based program, and it emphasizes lease requirements similar to those in the marketplace. Micromanagement by both Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] has saddled housing authorities with rules and regulations that make it almost impossible for even the best of them to run their developments effectively and efficiently. Under today's rules, the residents of public housing face powerful disincentives to work and to achieve economic self-sufficiency. The public housing system must be changed radically before it is entirely discredited. Our bill addresses the crisis in public housing by consolidating public housing funding into two block grants and transferring greater responsibility for the operation and management of public housing to the housing authorities. It provides greater flexibility to housing authorities to utilize their resources in a more efficient, effective, and creative manner to improve housing quality, while also providing for local accountability in the use of those resources. The bill ends Federal requirements that have prevented housing authorities from demolishing their obsolete housing stock, concentrated and isolated the poorest of the poor, and created disincentives for public housing residents who want to work and improve their own lives. It would, among other things, permit housing authorities to change counterproductive rent rules that currently discourage employment and prevent the creation of mixed-income public housing communities. It also repeals Federal preferences and allow housing authorities to operate according to locally established preferences that are consistent with a community's housing needs. While allowing well-run housing authorities much more discretion, our bill would also crack 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 PHA's that are unable to make significant improvements in their operations. This 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. Mr. President, this legislation will help protect the Federal Government's sizeable investment in public housing. It will also empower residents by increasing their involvement in developing housing agency management plans, expanding tenant management opportunities, and making public housing a springboard to dignity and hope. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of Senators D'Amato and Bond, the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act of 1995. This bill represents the first serious effort in decades to reform and consolidate the Nation's public and tenant-based assisted housing programs, and to redirect the primary responsibility for these programs away from the Federal bureaucracy and toward States and localities. Public housing is home to 1.4 million American families, and much of it is good. Unfortunately, to many Americans the pictures in the national media of high rise public housing projects being imploded symbolize the failure of our housing policy. Clearly, some public housing, particularly in major cities, has fallen into a vicious cycle of crime, drug abuse, welfare dependency, and hopelessness. In far too many places, public housing developments, which are supposed to provide a housing platform from which lower-income families can achieve their own aspirations of economic independence and self-sufficiency, are little more than warehouses that rob the poorest of the poor of their dignity and hope. The underlying principle of the Public Housing Reform and Empowerment Act is resident choice. By encouraging cost-effective and efficient use of resources, the bill gives housing authorities the ability to offer their residents tenant-based assistance where it is economically feasible. It also requires that distressed public housing be vouchered out to protect the right of residents to decent and safe housing. A key to increasing resident choice is improving the ability of tenant-based assistance programs to meet the demand for affordable housing. This bill makes important changes in the section 8 voucher program. It repeals program requirements, such as ``take one, take all,'' that discourage landlords from participating in the tenant-based program, and it emphasizes lease requirements similar to those in the marketplace. Micromanagement by both Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] has saddled housing authorities with rules and regulations that make it almost impossible for even the best of them to run their developments effectively and efficiently. Under today's rules, the residents of public housing face powerful disincentives to work and to achieve economic self-sufficiency. The public housing system must be changed radically before it is entirely discredited. Our bill addresses the crisis in public housing by consolidating public housing funding into two block grants and transferring greater responsibility for the operation and management of public housing to the housing authorities. It provides greater flexibility to housing authorities to utilize their resources in a more efficient, effective, and creative manner to improve housing quality, while also providing for local accountability in the use of those resources. The bill ends Federal requirements that have prevented housing authorities from demolishing their obsolete housing stock, concentrated and isolated the poorest of the poor, and created disincentives for public housing residents who want to work and improve their own lives. It would, among other things, permit housing authorities to change counterproductive rent rules that currently discourage employment and prevent the creation of mixed-income public housing communities. It also repeals Federal preferences and allow housing authorities to operate according to locally established preferences that are consistent with a community's housing needs. While allowing well-run housing authorities much more discretion, our bill would also crack 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 PHA's that are unable to make significant improvements in their operations. This 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. Mr. President, this legislation will help protect the Federal Government's sizeable investment in public housing. It will also empower residents by increasing their involvement in developing housing agency management plans, expanding tenant management opportunities, and making public housing a springboard to dignity and hope. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, with regard to title V of H.R. 4, the Work Opportunity Act, I am interested in clarifying an issue regarding the applicability of the term ``assistance * * * for which eligibility is based on need'' to various student loan programs. As I understand this legislation, eligibility for needs-based public assistance will either be subject to a deeming period or will be forbidden for a period of five years for most non-citizens. At this time, there seems to be an erroneous public perception that all student financial aid programs will be subject to these provisions. This is not the case. In the interests of responsible legislating, I think it is important to clarify that unsubsidized student loans are not needs-based and should therefore not be subject to the requirements of title V.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, Bob Graham, joins me today on this occasion to honor one of the greatest football players of all time, Lee Roy Selmon. Lee Roy Selmon was born on October 20, 1954 in Eufaula, OK to Lucious and Jessie Selmon. He played football at Eufaula High School before earning a scholarship to the University of Oklahoma in 1972. He led the Sooners to the national championship while earning a number of post- season individual awards. He was selected to the All Big Eight Conference team his junior and senior years. He was also selected a Consensus All-American and won both the Outland and Lombardi trophies for best collegiate lineman. In 1976, he became the first draft pick in the history of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' organization. The Bucs selected Lee Roy not only for his outstanding football ability, but also for his extraordinary leadership and work ethic. Lee Roy played each game with tremendous tenacity, both physically and mentally. Despite the fact that he was consistently being double and triple teamed throughout his illustrious 10-year career, he still registered an amazing 78\1/2\ sacks. His inspirational play was instrumental in guiding the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to their only NFC Championship game appearance in 1979. He went on to play in six consecutive Pro Bowls, earn three All-Pro selections and win the NFL Players Association's NFC Defensive Lineman of the Year Award. Lee Roy's rare combination of strength, speed and agility transformed the way in which future players would play his position. On July 29th of this year, Lee Roy was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. In doing so, he became the first Buccaneer to accomplish this feat. Lee Roy on his induction stated, ``It's more than a dream come true because I never dreamt it. I'm very humbled by it and very thankful for it. I guess sometimes when you don't dream things yourself, then other people have bigger dreams for you.'' Lee Roy's accomplishments are not limited to his play on the gridiron. Since his retirement in 1984, he has remained active in local community efforts. Lee Roy has always approached his off the field endeavors with the same tenacity that characterized his play on the field. He was chosen one of America's Ten Outstanding Young Men by the United States Jaycees and selected Kiwanis Citizen of the Year for Florida's west coast. Currently, Lee Roy serves as an associate athletic director at the University of South Florida, where he has been the driving force behind USF's efforts to field an intercollegiate football team. Mr. President, it is an honor for us, as United States Senators from the great State of Florida, to recognize a man that is revered by many, respected by many more, and well-liked by all. Lee Roy Selmon; a hero in every sense of the word.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Hutchison formula has been inappropriately referred to as a ``supplemental'' grant to States. This is a misleading characterization of the additional moneys provided in this legislation. It implies that certain States have been able to negotiate a sort of slush fund or bonus for themselves unfairly. In reality the Hutchison formula in the underlying legislation begins to chip away at historical inequities between States due to the Federal Government's present system of awarding AFDC moneys. This debate is and should be about equity. The Feinstein amendment not only undermines an honest attempt to provide some equity and parity between States but it does so in a way that in essence rewards States for increasing the number of people living in poverty each year. This policy, Mr. President, runs counter to the welfare reform bill's goal of encouraging States to get people off welfare and into work. Any incentives that we create to reward States for reducing their welfare caseloads would be nullified by Senator Feinstein's amendment. The Hutchison formula provides funds for States which have been historically below the national average of Federal welfare spending and at the same time experiencing an above average population growth. These qualifiers appropriately identify those States with the most need and begins to move those States, albeit modestly, toward parity. California currently receives $1,016 per person living in poverty compared to the $363 Florida receives per poor person living in poverty. Under the Hutchison formula, in the year 2000, Florida will still not reach parity with California--Florida will only be receiving about $400 per person living in poverty. Yet the Feinstein amendment will give California $160 million additional over the next 5 years. Providing States like California with additional money, when they already receive more Federal dollars per recipient than almost any other State--does not mean equity to me. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and vote against the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to support and recognize the significant achievements of the Academy of Residential Construction [ARC], a major training effort in my State to teach noncollege bound high school students a trade in the homebuilding industry. As ARC prepares for its second year of skilled carpentry framer training, it is refreshing to see a partnership that is free from Government funds and enthusiastically embraced by both the business community and educators. ARC is an ambitious collaboration between William H. Turner Technical Arts High School, the Builders Association of South Florida, the Latin Builders Association, Inc., the Home Builders Institute, PAVE, and the Education and Training Foundation. Through ARC, secondary students, many of whom are disadvantaged, work with south Florida's leading educators, builders, manufacturers, and suppliers to learn homebuilding from the ground up. With the help of the Fannie Mae Foundation, these partners have developed the Nation's first and only high school construction training program [[Page S 12421]] designed by builders and educators specifically to meet builder's needs. Students enrolled in ARC receive approximately 1,100 hours of multidimensional training which include classroom, shop, laboratory, and worksite instruction during grades 9 through 12. Having passed builder approved standards and upon graduation, ARC students are certified as skilled in carpentry framing. It is refreshing to see a community and the entire homebuilding industry actively involved in a program that helps make students immediately employable once they graduate high school. I am very proud of Miami's ARC Program and the financial commitment made by the Fannie Mae Foundation to train the next generation of homebuilders.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to ensure that physicians and their patients have the best and most current information at their disposal when making medical treatment decisions. I am pleased Senator Frist has agreed to join me in this effort. His firsthand experience as a distinguished surgeon has been invaluable as we worked to craft this legislation. Also joining us as cosponsors are Senators D'Amato, Shelby, Abraham, Santorum, DeWine, and Faircloth. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approves a new prescription drug or medical device, it does so for specified uses. Frequently, however, scientist discover the drug or device is also beneficial in treating other medical conditions. Physicians are free to prescribe prescription drugs and use medical devices for these new, off-label, uses. However, since 1991, the FDA has prohibited the industry from distributing scientific articles about these important new uses. I have been told that as many as 40 percent of all prescriptions are for an off-label use. Accordingly, one has to question the wisdom of withholding such vital information about new uses. Our legislation would permit the dissemination of certain information about off-label uses of FDA-approved prescription drugs and medical devices to physicians. It is important to emphasize that our legislation applies only to the dissemination of peer-reviewed articles from medical and scientific journals, textbooks, and similar publications. In so doing, it ensures the objectivity of the information. Furthermore, it would permit the distribution of information which is the subject of a scientific or educational program which is approved by an independent continuing medical education accrediting entity. Finally, the legislation would include peer- reviewed data on a pharmaceutical or device which is recognized under Federal law for purposes of third party coverage or reimbursement, such as Medicare. Several other safeguards are built in to the legislation. First, our bill requires disclosure that the information being disseminated has not been approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and also that the information is being disseminated at the expense of the drug's sponsor. Second, it requires disclosure of my financial arrangement between the authors of the data and the manufacturer of the subject drug or device. The FDA's gag rule on the distribution of information about new uses of prescription drugs and medical devices inhibits the ability of a physician and his or her patient to make informed decisions about the patient's course of treatment. No physician, no matter how dedicated he or she might be, can possibly read every scientific journal or attend every medical seminar. This bill will maximize the ability of physicians to gain insight about new uses of approved therapies to treat a patient's illnesses or improve their quality of life. The American Medical Association, in a letter to the FDA on the subject, stated, ``the dissemination of accurate and unbiased information about off-label uses of approved drugs and medical devices to practicing physicians is essential to the provision of high quality medical care.'' The current policy prohibiting the exchange of scientific data is another example of the Federal Government taking medical decisions out of the hands of physicians and patients and putting them in the hands of Government bureaucrats. In addition, the policy may be a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. Mr. President, five members of my family and I have each battled cancer. All but my brother, Michael, survived thanks in part to advances in medical science. I know from personal experience how important it is for physicians to have the data and information they need to make informed choices about a patient's course of treatment. I would hate to think that something more could be done for people like Michael but for the Government's unwarranted limitation on what a physician may be told about new treatments. The Congress of the United States must act now to ensure that physicians have access to the most current medical literature. We look forward to working with Senator Kassebaum and members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources to ensure swift passage of this commonsense FDA reform legislation. We encourage our Senate colleagues to join us in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate the 25th anniversary of what can only be described as a truly outstanding congressional success story. On July 24, 1970, Congress took a bold and innovative approach to helping millions of families across this Nation achieve the American dream of home ownership by creating the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, better known as Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was created to address fundamental problems in our mortgage [[Page S 12422]] markets which prevented middle-class working families from getting the credit essential to buying a home. There was a housing crisis in 1969 and 1970 created when the economy was facing both high inflation and escalating interest rates. Despite a high demand for new houses, the combination of higher inflation and escalating interest rates was choking off credit for home building. Rising housing costs were pushing home ownership out of reach for hard-working American families. Inflation also forced many depositors to withdraw their savings from depository institutions in search of higher returns. Savings and loans--the country's major source of mortgage loans--were forced to reduce their mortgage lending activities. The housing crisis was also caused by a geological mismatch in supply and demand for housing funds. Since deposits in savings and loans were the primary source of mortgage money, faster-growing areas of the Nation faced shortages in mortgage credit, while slower-growing regions experienced excess supplies. Reliance on savings and loans for mortgage credit highlighted an inherent weakness in the housing finance market. Due to the illiquidity of the traditional mortgage instrument, there was no way to tap funds available in our Nation's capital markets. If mortgages were converted into securities, a major source of funds could be channeled to meet the needs of new home owners. Twenty-five years ago, Congress concluded that the best way to ensure a continuous and reliable source of mortgage credit was to develop an efficient and liquid nationwide secondary mortgage market. The Freddie Mac Act, as it became known, established a company solely dedicated to fulfilling this mission. Mr. President, Freddie Mac has worked hard to fulfill that mission every day for the past 25 years. Over that time, Freddie Mac has purchased over $1.2 trillion in mortgage loans helping 16 million families by financing 1 in every 6 American homes. By every measure, Freddie Mac is a great success. I am sure that my colleagues in Congress and the American people join me in expressing our appreciation and congratulations to Freddie Mac on its 25th anniversary.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator John Chafee in introducing the Medicare Cancer Screening and Prevention Act of 1995. The legislation provides for Medicare coverage of preventive care specifically aimed at the early detection, prevention, and treatment of colorectal cancer. This bill, when enacted, will close a significant gap that currently exists in the preventive services covered by Medicare. Under current law, Medicare does not reimburse for preventive colorectal screening services. A beneficiary must have a presenting condition, such as bleeding, or must already have colorectal cancer before services are provided through Medicare. These are very costly diseases, which Medicare will pay to treat. However, I believe it is in the best interests of patients and the Medicare system to provide for coverage of tests which will identify colorectal cancer at its earliest stages. Medicare currently provides coverage for other preventive services such as mammography screening for breast cancer and flu shots. This legislation will send the message to all beneficiaries that colorectal cancer is curable if detected early. This legislation will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible to receive the basic colorectal cancer screening tests which are recommended by the American Cancer Society for all Americans over the age of 50. As my colleagues will recall, these basic tests were used successfully to detect and successfully treat former President Ronald Reagan's cancerous colon polyps in 1985. Colorectal cancer is one of the most widely contracted forms of cancer, with higher incidence rates than either breast cancer or prostate cancer. In [[Page S 12277]] 1995 alone, according to the American Cancer Society, more than 138,000 new cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed. Tragically, more than 55,000 Americans will die from the disease this year. My home State of Florida has been disproportionately affected by colorectal cancer with the third highest estimated number of new cases and deaths associated with this form of cancer. Scientific data clearly show preventive services can successfully combat many cases of colorectal cancer. If colorectal cancer goes undetected, the 5-year survival rate is approximately 60 percent or less. If, however, colorectal cancer is detected at its earliest stages, then the 5-year survival rate increases dramatically to 87 percent for rectal cancer and 93 percent for colon cancer. The legislation we are introducing today will not only address the early detection of colorectal cancer, but it will also aid in the prevention of colorectal cancer in many Americans over the age of 50. At a time when the Board of Trustees of Social Security and Medicare warns that the Hospital Insurance, or Medicare part A, trust fund will become insolvent by the year 2002, Congress should enact laws to prevent hospitalization and reduce long-term health care costs. This legislation will greatly enhance this effort by focusing on preventive services which have been shown to be cost-effective. For example, a National Cancer Institute study found the costs of screening for colorectal cancer are favorable as compared to other preventive services. The study also found the costs of medical treatment of advanced colorectal cancer far outweigh the costs of prevention and early treatment. In addition, the onset of this tragic form of cancer leads to lost productivity, lost income, and lost tax revenues. The scientific evidence supporting the benefits of early detection and screening is clear. The technology to prevent colorectal cancer has been available for more than a decade. Now is the time to increase the accessibility of these services to the population of Americans who are at highest risk of contracting colorectal cancer--our senior citizens. The American Cancer Society, along with physician organizations such as the American College of Gastroenterology, and consumer groups such as the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America are unified in their strong support and advocacy for this important legislation. Enactment of this bill is prudent, cost-effective, and humane. My wife, our daughter, my mother, and I are each alive today because of the early detection of cancer. I've been told that our Nation can see a 50-percent increase in cancer survival rates if only Americans would follow the screening recommendations of the American Cancer Society. The need is great. The cost-effectiveness of these tests is conclusive. I am proud to join in introducing the Medicare Cancer Screening and Prevention Act of 1995. I ask all of my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it is my understanding that no funds have been requested nor provided in fiscal year 1996 for the realignment of EC equipment. I ask, is this the chairman's understanding?