Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, on May 2, the Clinton administration reversed 30 years of United States policy by agreeing with Fidel Castro that future refugees would be picked up by United States forces and returned to Cuba. The administration portrays its decision as an immigration control measure reached in secret for the good of misguided Cubans who might set out on rafts and inner tubes to reach the United States before the doors slammed shut. Apparently, it was necessary to keep senior United States officials responsible for Cuba policy in the dark as well. The Clinton administration has not satisfactorily explained its motives and objectives in reaching this agreement with the Castro regime. Therefore, I am introducing this bill which would deny funds for negotiations or other contacts related to normalization with the Castro regime unless the administration has notified Congress 15 days in advance. This measure is not intended to interfere with the administration's ability to conduct diplomacy. It simply requires that if and when President Clinton decides to abandon the centerpiece of the United States' historic policy toward the Castro dictatorship, he does so in an open and public way. For 36 years, Fidel Castro has terrorized Cuba's people, destroyed its economy, and used it as a base for subversion. I could never have imagined circumstances under which the United States would treat Castro's Cuba like just another negotiating partner. But last month, that's just what the Clinton administration did when it cut a deal reversing 30 years of United States policy on welcoming refugees from Castro's Cuba. I will not dignify what the administration did by calling it ``secret diplomacy.'' It was a craven exercise. As A.M. Rosenthal wrote in the New York Times, the Clinton administration ``got a contemptuous zero from Castro for breaking its promises, not even the release of some political prisoners, not the grant of a single civil liberty.'' At a briefing on Capitol Hill the day the policy U-turn was announced, a Clinton administration official was asked whether, under the terms of a deal between the United States and Cuba on interdiction and repatriation of refugees, the Castro regime had pledged to repeal the Cuban law that makes it a crime to leave Cuba without was asked how we can be sure the Castro regime won't use the law to retaliate against returned rafters. ``Prosecutorial discretion,'' replied the official. In a nutshell, that anecdote illustrates the mindset of the Clinton administration. Administration officials--some of them anyway--cannot distinguish between the Castro regime and governments based on the rule of law. This is why many of my colleagues and I are so deeply disturbed by recent overtures to Castro. We don't know where they will stop. We have no reason to believe that the administration won't continue to make concessions at the expense of the Cuban people. My colleagues and I are introducing this bill to let the administration know that the friends of the Cuban people in the United States Congress will not stand by and let this administration engage in anything but a strong policy of support for democracy and freedom in Cuba.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. MACK. Madam President, thank you. I want to, first of all, express my appreciation to Senator Bradley for getting the Senate focused on the Race for the Cure. He came up to me yesterday afternoon and asked if I would be willing to come over and talk for a few minutes this morning. I appreciate, again, in this busy schedule and busy arena in which we find ourselves, a situation where we can focus our attention and our interest on an issue that is of deep concern, frankly, to all Americans, but for some of us there is a very personal aspect to it. I like the word the Senator's wife uses with respect to triumph. Maybe we should begin to change the language that we refer to because, as I have become involved in the discussion of this disease, one of the things that I have found is that the spirit of the individual, the determination of the individual to overcome the disease plays a significant role in the cure. I do not mean to downplay the significance, obviously, of the traditional medical approaches, but I think we are beginning to find out that the human spirit plays a greater and greater role in this battle against cancer. Another person that I would like to thank is Nancy Brinker, who is the individual who started the Race for the Cure. The Susan Komen Foundation was established by Nancy Brinker in memory of her sister who died of breast cancer. Nancy has just done an outstanding job, and she has written a book that is called ``The Race Is Run One Step at a Time,'' and why we will be out on the streets of Washington, DC, and on The Mall this weekend putting one foot in front of the other maybe a little bit faster than we normally do trying to focus attention on the importance of early detection with respect to breast cancer. I just recommend to any individual or any family that is dealing with the disease of breast cancer that you pick up this book that Nancy has written. It will change your life, and it will give you a sense about how you can triumph over the disease. So, again, I thank Nancy Brinker. I thank Senator Bradley for his leadership, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a few comments of my own this morning. As I was trying to think how would I focus my comments this morning on this issue, I decided that I would like to spend a couple of moments anyway speaking on a personal basis about my wife, Priscilla. It has been almost 4 years since that day when Priscilla sat me down. She said, ``Connie, you had better sit down for a moment. I've got something I need to tell you.'' I had just come back from a week's trip. She said that while I was gone she had discovered a lump in her breast and that she was fearful that it was cancer. Again, on a personal basis of having experienced this in my family, as many of you have heard, I have spoken out here on the floor before about my family's experience. At a young age, when I was in my twenties, my younger brother in essence said the same thing to me except that he had discovered a melanoma on his head. Unfortunately, because it was on his head and covered by hair, it had not been discovered until it was way too late. And the doctors told him he probably had 6 months to live. Michael ended up living 12 years and lived most of those 12 years in a very useful and beneficial and, for him, a comfortable way. It was just at the end that it became very, very difficult for him. But the thoughts that went through my mind when Priscilla told me she discovered the lump--I went through all of those experiences again that I had with my brother Mike. The fundamental difference, though, between the two was early detection. Priscilla had not been active in the fight against cancer, but because our family had been dealing with the cancer issue, she had become sensitized. She had heard the messages, frankly the messages that will come from our comments here on the floor today. I will guarantee you there will be someone out there watching and observing today that will hear what Senator Bradley had to say about early detection, hear what Senator Rockefeller will have to say about early detection, hear what I have to say about early detection, and the realization that if you detect the disease early, you can survive, you can triumph. In fact, it has been shown that with most breast cancers, if detected and treated early, there is a 94 percent triumphant rate; 94 percent cure rate. That is a dramatic statistic. The point that the Race for the Cure is all about is we can race there to get the message out that early detection saves lives. So, again, if I can go back on a fairly personal basis, it, frankly, is hard for me to believe that I am standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate talking about breast cancer. I mean not too many years ago most males would have said this is not something we can talk about in public. Most women would have said that not too long ago. Most of our society said we cannot even talk about cancer. The importance of what we are doing is saying that you can come out in a very public way and talk about the disease and it is OK for men and women to talk about early detection with respect to breast cancer. Again, in Priscilla's case, she did all of the things that one is supposed to do. She had a mammogram in November prior to the discovery of the disease. It did not pick up the lump at that time. She had her annual gynecological exam in June of the following year. Nothing showed up. But there was a message about self breast exams that somehow somebody got through to Priscilla. That is the way she discovered the disease. Because of that early discovery, Priscilla is going to survive. She is going to triumph. She has won. She is so excited about having [[Page S8295]] gone through that victory, if you will, that she is out right now--she left yesterday morning--she is in Florida this week, and she is working with other survivors of cancer, other people who are engaged in getting the message out about early detection. I will say on a personal basis that I do not think Priscilla has ever felt better in her life, both physically and emotionally, to be involved in something she believes in so deeply and the realization that by getting up and saying to people--by the way, let me back up for a moment. When I said to Priscilla that I had decided that I was going to run for the Congress back in 1982, she in essence said, ``Great. Go for it. But there are two things I do not do.'' She said, ``One is I do not speak to the media, and the other is I do not give speeches.'' Well, I tell you something. Priscilla is out speaking to the media, and she is out giving speeches because she is absolutely convinced that the more she does, the more opportunities there are for people to survive, to triumph over the disease. And she had not been doing this. I think most of us recognize that there is nothing more satisfying in life than to be pursuing something that you believe in, that you are committed to, that you are dedicated to. So, while I am out here today to talk about the significance of the Race for the Cure and the 20,000 to 25,000 people that may join us--and I, too, will be participating in the race on Saturday, as I did last year--the real message in all of this is that early detection saves lives. One of the comments that the American Cancer Society has stated over and over again is we can increase the cure rate of cancer from the 50 percent roughly where it is today, to 75 percent without a single additional technological breakthrough. I get very excited about the things that are happening out at the National Cancer Institute with gene therapy, and with the therapy work that is going on, and we are going to get tremendous breakthroughs. But if we did not get one more, we could increase the cure rate from 50 to 75 percent if we could just convince people to take advantage of the early detection procedures that are already available through our health care system in America today. From 50 to 75 percent, that is dramatic, absolutely dramatic. The other comment that I would make, and I have to be careful here not to use too many statistics, but as I understand it, only roughly 35, 37 percent of women that are covered by Medicare take advantage of reimbursement for mammography--only 37 percent. And I would make this point, that as an individual gets older and older and older and the chances of being diagnosed with breast cancer go up and up and up, there is more need to take advantage of what is offered through the Medicare system, and only 37 percent of American women are in fact taking advantage of that at this time. So we need to get that message out to the older women of our society. The last point that I would make here this morning, Madam President, has to do with fear. Priscilla talks about this all the time, and we have all heard it. People say, well, gee, I think I would rather not know. And that is a rationalization on the one hand, but yet it is a recognition of fear, because we are still dealing with a situation where we are convinced that if we are told we have cancer, we are going to die, that people do not survive. That is just fundamentally wrong. So we have to get the message out that you do not have to address this with the level of fear that so many do; that you have to break through that fear and let us detect the disease early and let us provide then for the treatment of the disease so that we can see more of our loved ones triumph over this dreaded disease. So, again, I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Bradley for getting us this opportunity to get together to talk about this. I look forward to being out there on Saturday with him and with the other 20,000, 25,000 as we raise more money to add to the coffers to do the research and get the message out that early detection saves lives. I thank the Chair. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. I yield that 1 minute 11 seconds to my colleague from New York.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the agreement reached last week by British and Chinese negotiators for a new Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong is a grave setback to the rule of law in the territory. The deal violates the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and its guarantees for Hong Kong's legal system by building on the 1991 secret deal on the Court, and using the 1990 Basic Law to make end runs around the Joint Declaration. In reaching this deal, the British side also conceded on the important matter of an early establishment of the court to prevent a gap in appellate jurisdiction in the colony during the transition from London's Privy Council to the new high court. Governor Patten claims that it was worth waiting until July 1, 1997, for the court to begin its work in exchange for an agreement. But this is really just postponement of a bad deal. Under the Joint Declaration, Hong Kong's courts are vested with the judicial power, including the power of final adjudication. Also, under the Joint Declaration, judicial independence is explicitly guaranteed, and the elected legislature must confirm appointments to the Court of Final Appeal. Each of these explicit promises made in the Joint Declaration, signed in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher and Zhao Ziyang, is expressly violated in last week's deal. I would like to address one aspect of the deal specifically--the provision under which Hong Kong's courts will, after 1997, be prevented from hearing and adjudicating matters known as ``acts of state.'' I specifically wish to address this because British and Hong Kong government officials are quietly advising that the act of state doctrine is extremely complicated and arcane. In effect, they are saying: ``Don't try and understand it.'' That is offensive. The ``acts of state'' doctrine is not difficult to understand. In the common law, it is a well-known and narrow category involving actions by one sovereign vis-a-vis another, such as a declaration of war, or a treaty. The last such case arose in Hong Kong in 1947. Under the terms of the agreement, Hong Kong's courts will be restricted from adjudicating ``acts of state'' as defined in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Beijing passed the Basic Law, often referred to as the colony's post-1997 constitution in 1990. The Basic Law contains numerous and substantial violations of the Joint Declaration, yet the uncritical acceptance of the document by Great Britain has allowed the Basic Law to play an insidious role in the transition to PRC rule. Great Britain and the PRC have now agreed that Article 19 of the Basic Law will define the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts. Article 19 provides that ``acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs'' will be outside the courts' jurisdiction. The deliberate ambiguity of this formulation leaves the matter up to Beijing which has already assigned the power of interpreting the Basic Law to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress rather than Hong Kong's courts. The Basic Law's definition of acts of state now endorsed by the British government of Hong Kong is vague and will, without a doubt, be used by the People's Republic of China to deny Hong Kong's courts the ability to hear and adjudicate challenges to the Beijing-appointed government after 1997. Both Britain and the People's Republic of China made specific and detailed commitments to preserving Hong Kong's legal system after 1997. In recent years, China has made its intentions regarding those commitments crystal clear: it will not honor them. Britain has been more subtle, styling itself as a defender of Hong Kong while engaging in diplomatic backsliding. Great Britain's failure to meet its commitments regarding the rule of law will irreparably damage its historical legacy in the colony. I hope that in light of the strong criticism and concern that have been expressed at the announcement of this deal, Great Britain will revise its legislation on the Court of Final Appeal to make it consistent with the Joint Declaration. Furthermore, Great Britain and the Hong Kong government should move with speed and conviction to repeal colonial laws and establish an official human rights commission.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I applaud last week's capture of Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela, a notorious member of the Cali cartel responsible for smuggling an enormous volume of cocaine into the United States and the subject of criminal indictments in Florida and Louisiana. The arrest is a significant achievement by Colombia's antidrug forces, but the real test of Colombia's commitment to the struggle against narcotics traffickers lies ahead. Colombia's record regarding prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of narcotics traffickers is marred by corruption. Orejuela's arrest must be followed by a thorough judicial process that strictly adheres to the rule of law.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me express my deep appreciation to Senator Hatfield for his leadership on this issue in bringing this amendment to the floor of the Senate. In trying to figure out what I would confine my comments to in 5 minutes, because there is so much that I feel and so much that I have learned with respect to what the National Institutes of Health is involved in, again, it is very difficult to kind of bring it down to a couple of points. A book that I read several years ago called ``The Transformed Cell,'' written by Dr. Steven Rosenberg out at the NIH National Cancer Institute, really talks about the fundamental changes that have taken place in the way we treat diseases in this country and, for that matter, around the world. I am referring specifically to the treatment of cancer now. For many years, if one was diagnosed with cancer, basically, surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy were the three choices, if you will. The physicians would look at the particular disease and status to make a determination about which of those three alternatives to pursue. Dr. Steven Rosenberg began his practice over 20 years ago when something occurred that kind of indicated to him that maybe there was something else going on that could, in fact, be used to fight the disease. An individual that he was treating was cured of, I believe, melanoma. And 20 years ago, if a person was discovered with melanoma, it was just a matter of time. There was no cure. But, somehow or other, this patient survived. Dr. Steven Rosenberg came to the conclusion and a very strong feeling that the answer was in the immune system; that what saved that individual was his own immune system. And then that raised the question: Well, if the immune system can defeat the disease in one individual but yet it does not in another, why does that occur? And that began a long process of over 20 years of trying to come to the discovery and understanding of what we can do to enhance the immune system in order to fight the disease. Now, if Dr. Steven Rosenberg were here today, I do not think he would say to us that he has the total answer. But if you read his book, you will find, for example, that in 40 percent of the cases there was a response to immunotherapy in melanoma. The reason I get a little bit focused on melanoma is because, as many of you know, I am a survivor of melanoma. In 1989, after coming to the U.S Senate, I was diagnosed with melanoma. Fortunately, we found it early and I should not have to be concerned with it at all. But in 1979, my younger brother Michael died of melanoma. And I can tell you personally what that experience is like. And I could be talking about AIDS, I could be talking about, as the Senator from California talked about, the viruses, I could be talking about any one of those. But the reality is that we are making great strides today because of the work that is being done at NIH by people like Dr. Steven Rosenberg. So he added a fourth modality to the treatment of cancer. And there is a fifth today, and it is called gene therapy. And we are just beginning to scratch the surface on gene therapy. One of the earlier speakers referred to the discovery of the breast cancer gene, and there probably are several breast cancer genes. But there has also been discovered a melanoma gene. It is called P-16. And we know, through the research that has been done out at NIH, that it is relatively simple to define cancer but very complicated to come up with a solution. Cancer is nothing more than the uncontrolled growth of cells. But the issue is: Why are they uncontrolled and how can we control them? And gene therapy and DNA are going to play a significant role in making that determination. My last point would be this: We have discovered what is called P-53, which I believe is a protein--it may be a gene as well--a protein that is involved in sending the message to the individual cells as to when they should grow and when they should stop growing. There have been great strides made with respect to the P-53 gene. It would be a tragedy for us to step back now when we are on the verge of breakthroughs on all kinds of diseases through gene therapy. So what I am saying to the Senate is there are great benefits that come from this investment. I will close with this quote. Pasteur wrote: ``I am on the verge of mysteries and the veil is getting thinner and thinner.'' We want to provide the funds to make sure that that veil disappears.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, during the next several days, as during the past few days, we are going to hear a lot of discussion about the numbers within the budget and a lot of statistics in the debate about economics. But the underlying reality of what we are debating is not really economics, and it really does not directly relate to numbers. What we really are talking about is the future of this great Nation. We are talking about the futures of our children and our grandchildren. We are talking about the futures of our moms and dads and our grandparents. And we are talking about the futures of working men and women in this country. This comes to my mind, frankly, because over this weekend I had the opportunity to speak both to my mom and dad and to my grandchildren. My dad is 82 years old. My mother is 80. And I had the opportunity, believe it or not, to speak to the youngest of my grandchildren, who is 2 years old. I thought about this earlier this morning. Some things never change. Because my little grandson said to me as we were chatting on the phone, ``I am going to go watch baseball.'' You can imagine that out of a little 2-year-old, he said--``I am going to go watch baseball.'' Talking with my mom and dad and to my daughter and my grandchildren over the weekend made me realize that what we are focusing on is the future of our Nation and the people of this great country of ours. My dad still volunteers over at one of the hospitals in my helps lift people out of their hospital beds, and puts them on a stretcher to take them down to the X ray or to the operating room. People from all over my hometown come up to me and tell me that my dad helped them when they were over at the hospital. The interesting thing is my dad just got out of the hospital a few weeks ago. My mother just returned from some 3, 3\1/2\ weeks in a nursing home. In a sense, they represent the elderly of our Nation and their reliance on health care. Virtually every family in America experiences the same kind of thing I am talking about--the need of our elderly to look to health care. And the question we must consider is what their future going to be like if we do not address the question of Medicare. The trustees of the Medicare trust fund have said now for 2 years in a row that Medicare is going to be bankrupt in the year 2001 or the year 2002, depending on what set of economic assumptions one uses. How will other folks' moms and dads and grandparents be able to rely on Medicare if we do not act? Frankly, this is not a Republican problem. This is a problem for the entire Nation. This is one where the President of the United States should be taking the lead. There should be a bipartisan plan. Frankly, when you look at the trustees' report and you see the hesitancy on the part of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and the President, to lead, we do not have any choice than to take the lead ourselves. We must act because 6 or 7 years from now there will not be a Medicare fund capable of paying the beneficiaries. We cannot allow that to happen. So I am proud to be part of this effort to solve the overall budget crisis and to address the question of Medicare, because we have to preserve Medicare for others in the future. As I said, this is an American problem. It is one to which there ought to be a bipartisan response. Let me share some of the numbers which suggest the extent of the problem. Some of the reports indicate that the average retired couple today will receive back in benefits from the Medicare health system $126,700 more than they pay in. Common sense suggests this cannot continue. Common sense suggests that as long as you do have a system like that, it makes sense that it could go bankrupt. And that is exactly what the trustees have said. Our response has been to recognize that we need to slow down the rate of growth in the Medicare system. It is growing now at over 10 percent per year. We are suggesting its growth should be slowed to 7.2 percent. What does this mean to the average beneficiary? Today, that average beneficiary is receiving about $4,800 per year from Medicaid. Under the proposal, it would go up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,800 to $7,000 per year. Certainly, we ought to be able to put together a Medicare system that can operate with those kinds of numbers. And that growth, by the way, is still 1\1/2\ times faster than the private sector. Certainly we can find a way to accomplish this task. And in the end what will we have done? We will have improved, protected, and preserved the Medicare System. I think frankly the people in the country want this to happen. I would much rather this be a bipartisan effort. But, frankly, we cannot wait for the other side, if they are not going to be involved in solving the problem with respect to Medicare. I mentioned earlier about trying to put this discussion within the framework of real people, and I know we have heard a lot from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the tragedy that will occur if some proposal like this budget resolution is put together. As a matter of fact, I heard over the weekend that Laura Tyson, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President, said, if this balanced budget plan were to go into effect, that it would create a larger divide between those who have and those who do not have. She states that cutting down on education we will deprive the next generation of education benefits which will widen the gap. Mr. President, I think most people in this country clearly understand that education is the responsibility of the local communities. In fact, most could make the claim that the larger the Government role in education, the worst off the education system in this country has gotten. And, our children are not receiving the kind of education that is necessary to enhance their ability to be able to compete in the 21st century. I think that this comment by the Chairman is incredibly misleading, and I think it is important that we focus on what the benefits really are. Let me talk for a moment about the kinds of people for whom this budget was drafted. I am thinking about the couple that gets up at 4:30 in the morning to begin their commute to work, whether that be by train or by car. Both work all day long, and by the time they get back home at night in the dark they are exhausted. And they do that 5 days a week, some 6. What about them? How much more are we going to ask them to provide to Washington to fund a set of programs that frankly they feel, and I feel, have failed us? If one could make the argument that all of these programs have worked and have improved the lives of so many people, that would be a different story. But what do we see? We see the number of people who are relying on these programs is growing year after year, which is an indication, frankly, that we have failed to provide them opportunities. What we have done is to develop a trapdoor of dependency, and that needs to change. We ought to start thinking about those families whose moms and dads are working all day long struggling to take care of themselves and their children, to provide for their future. It is these families, frankly, who are getting tired of seeing more and more of their income taxed away by a Federal Government that continues programs that have proven to be a failure. I also think about the young family, married couple with a young child, the husband has two jobs, works all week long at those two jobs, comes home for the weekend, and takes care of the child while the wife and mother goes to her job over the weekend. What about their future? What about developing a society and economy that provides them a future, one filled with opportunity and hope? Nobody seems to talk about those. All we hear about is the harm that may be caused by proposals that are put forward. I ask my colleagues to think about those hard-working men and women who have been taxed year after year after year. Those are the kind of people on whom I think we ought to keep focused; or the family whose husband has to be away from home 3 or 4 or maybe 5 days a week traveling around his sales territory while his wife is at home. Many such wives having to manage a job and having to raise the children as well. So, again, Mr. President, I say there is a debate which is much more about people and their futures as opposed to just hard statistics and cold numbers. But we do have to talk about numbers. I would like to relate a story about the first budget hearing that I attended as a Member of the Congress. It occurred back in February 1982 during the Reagan administration. Stockman, Regan, and Feldstein, Director of OMB, Secretary of the Treasury, and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers all came to the Congress in February 1983 and told the Congress that if we did not change the spending patterns of this Nation that we would see deficits out into future as far as one can see--$200 billion plus. Frankly, Mr. President, this Congress, controlled by the other party, that entire time did nothing to address their spending habits. Their response to a continuing deficit over and over and over again was to say to those families that I have just spoken about that you just are going to have to give up a little bit more of those hard-earned dollars for which you have been working. Well, frankly, in November of this past year the people of this country said enough is enough. And they supported the ideas of less taxing, less spending, less Government, and more freedom. That is what this debate is about as well. Again, for the last 12 years, after being told we were going to see deficits of $200 billion plus out into the future, nothing was done by the Congress of the United States. [[Page S7032]] So what did we get from the President of United States for his budget proposal? We got a budget that was referred to by a member of the administration at the time as a source of shame. Frankly, he was right. It is a source of shame. And I suspect that is why our colleagues on other side of the aisle--every single one of them--ran from it, would not vote, not one as far as I can recall, not one voted for the President's budget proposal. That is an abdication of leadership. I would say that our colleagues find themselves, frankly, in somewhat of an embarrassing position. I mean, after all, they told us during the debate for the balanced budget amendment that were for a balanced budget. Many said that they really believed that we ought to get to a balanced budget just not with a constitutional amendment. I think that the President's actual words were something like ``We don't need the balanced budget amendment, all we need is will.'' We are still waiting to see that will. We know that they are opposed to our plan. We now know that they are opposed to the plan put forward by the President. But we see no plan at all from the other side; no plan at all when we are talking about the future of this Nation and the future of our children and our grandchildren. I can understand why they did not support the President's plan because, frankly, in today's environment, today's debate, it was not serious. It simply was not serious. In fact, it did not even stand up to the objectives that were established by the administration itself. The one economic argument that Laura Tyson placed on why that was a good proposal was that, over a period of 5 years, it was showing a reduction in the deficit as a percentage of GDP. And after all, that was a worthwhile economic goal, and, frankly, a number of economists around the country support the concept that a reduction of the deficit as a percentage of GDP is a good goal. But guess what happened? As a little interesting side comment here, I remember in the State of the Union Message a couple of years ago the President of United States saying to us we are not going to use OMB to establish our budget numbers, the economic data. We are going to use the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. We do not want anyone to say we are recalculating our way out of this deficit. So we started out in 1993 and 1994 using the Congressional Budget Office. But now that we have entered into this debate about this budget, the President has moved back to the Office of Management and Budget, to use the numbers from the OMB. And when the CBO recalculated the President's budget, guess what happens? It is not a national $200 billion deficit for the next 5 years. It grows from $177, or $176 billion, to something like $276 billion. In other words, it is a growing deficit, not a deficit that is staying still or declining. It is a growing deficit. And by their one measure, that is, as a percentage of GDP, the Congressional Budget Office says it goes from 2.5 percent of GDP up to 3.1 percent. So by their own measure, their own budget does not meet that target. And so I think it is very unfortunate that we find ourselves in a situation where a budget has been proposed by Republicans without the help or support of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. Frankly, I think that this budget is based on courage, commitment, and conviction and I am proud to be a part of that effort, to get us to a zero deficit in the year 2002. And again I think it is unfortunate that an alternative approach has not even been offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We ought to ask ourselves the question, what happens if we do not act? I remember I made some comments during the balanced budget amendment debate a few months ago about the potential consequences for not acting. I have often thought it was quite interesting, as I listened to my constituents in the State of Florida and my colleagues here in the Congress, that there is an attitude which honestly believes the United States is so powerful and we are so right we would never have to pay the consequences associated with bad economic policy. If you recall, the debate on the balanced budget amendment was taking place about the time that Mexico was going through some very difficult times. There was this feeling that somehow or another the United States would never have to pay for the consequences of bad economic policy, and I think that is fundamentally wrong. I would encourage people to take a look at what happened to the value of the U.S. dollar when this body defeated the balanced budget amendment. I would also say take a look at what has happened to the U.S. dollar since this administration has come into power: a whole series of misdirected economic policies--higher tax rates, more regulation, more Federal spending, no constraint. People around the world have lost faith in U.S. currency. Now, some people say, why should I worry about the value of the dollar? If I go to a local store, does that dollar not buy me the same thing? The drop in the value of the dollar, if it affects me in my purchasing power, does it not affect the value of the product as well? I do not see anything that has happened to me as a result of it. Think of the currency of our country as being the common stock of our country, and what has happened in the last 2 years is we have lost one- third of the value of our common stock of this country because of failed economic policy. There is an opportunity here to change that devaluation of our currency. Just to give you again an idea of what the consequences are for not acting, when interest rates, for example, go up by half a percent with the FHA fixed-rate mortgages, applications drop 27 percent. A half a point change, a 27-percent decline in the applications for FHA mortgages. In the conventional mortgage, we saw that where interest rates moved up 1.5 percent, somewhere around 200,000 to 300,000 people no longer could afford to buy a home. Job creation: The rate of growth in job creation in this recent recovery is roughly half of what it has been in previous recoveries, and statistical data indicates to us that probably for the fourth year in a row we are going to see a decline in real median income earnings of America's families. And that will just continue to get worse, not better, if we do nothing. It appears this is what is being proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or would result if we were to follow the plan that has been put forward by the President. Now, we have some conflicting feelings with respect to what will happen economically. Again Laura Tyson tells us that it would be a tragedy to balance the budget. But Chairman Greenspan has said--and he has said this many times in the past--he never really has to worry about the Congress coming up with too much in the area of spending cuts. Chairman Greenspan has, in fact, embraced what we are doing. If I have to make my choice about which one of those economists to focus on and pay attention to, I think it is pretty obvious it would be Chairman Greenspan over Laura Tyson. So again, the consequences are dramatic. We have an opportunity here to do something to change the direction of this Nation. We have an opportunity to provide for more jobs, more business formation, and greater opportunity for our children and our grandchildren if we pass this budget proposal. I would ask my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of this budget resolution. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which will help protect the pensions of our Nation's seniors. The Pension Protection Act will stop the administration's ongoing efforts to raid our Nation's pension funds. In an effort to find capital for its social projects, the Clinton administration has effectively been chipping away at the strict fiduciary standards set up by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]. The Department of Labor has issued new interpretations of ERISA fiduciary standards which challenge the requirement that pension funds be invested for the sole purpose of increasing the economic benefit of the pension's beneficiaries. This relaxing of ERISA standards combined with a well-defined strategy to encourage pension plan managers to invest in social projects puts at risk the hard-earned pension benefits of current and future retirees. It is no surprise that this administration wants to finance its social projects and pet political programs with private pension funds. Currently, these funds hold over $3.5 trillion in assets. Many see this pot of money as a lucrative and untapped source of funding to finance their own political agenda. Mr. President, the Clinton administration has always viewed pension funds as a convenient source of public funding. In fact, in his book ``Putting People First,'' President Clinton proposed a $20 billion investment program paid for with pension funds. These economically targeted investments [ETI's] would use pension funds to pay for Government programs. This nice-sounding term is merely a disguise for the systematic raiding of our pension funds. My legislation would put the brakes on a dangerous course of action which is being orchestrated by the Department of Labor. Specifically, this legislation would abolish the ETI Clearinghouse recently established by the Department of Labor. This Clearinghouse is designed to identify investments that the administration deems socially beneficial. The legislation would also nullify Secretary Reich's 1994 Interpretive Bulletin that encourages ETI's and would in effect ensure that pension managers do not select investments which have a purpose other than serving the ``sole interest of the plan participant.'' In addition, this legislation would instruct the Labor Department to cease acting as a promoter of ETI's and instead act as the enforcer of ERISA's fiduciary standards. Finally, this bill would deny funding to any Government agency for the purpose of operating an ETI database or list. Last year, the American people sent a loud and clear mandate for less spending, less taxes, and less government. But this administration has decided to ignore that mandate by trying to increase spending on Government programs. First they raised taxes to pay for their programs and now they seek to spend our retirees' hard-earned pension funds. This is wrong. Mr. President, directing private pension funds to replace public funding of Government programs is yet another example in a long line of ``spend now, pay later'' policies that the Federal Government has adopted over the years. Encouraging pension funds to participate in risky investments deserves our strongest opposition. We should not be compromising fiduciary standards and the financial security of our Nation's retirees in order to meet partisan, political goals. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 607

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1380, which temporarily suspends class action lawsuits filed under the Truth in Lending Act until October 1, 1995. This bill will give Congress time to address a U.S. Court of Appeals decision, Rodash versus AIB Mortgage Co., which allowed a borrower to rescind a mortgage based on a technical violation of the disclosure and notice requirements provided for in the Truth in Lending Act. Nearly 50 class action suits have been filed based on the Rodash decision. The Truth in Lending Act is a complex law with almost no room for forgiveness if an honest technical error is made by the lender. Under truth in lending, for a mistake as little as $11 in how a charge is disclosed, the lender could be forced to reimburse all fees and costs to the borrower, including all interest paid for up to 3 years. In addition, the lender must release the mortgage lien, leaving the lender with an unsecured loan. These laws encourage cookie-cutter lending in order to avoid mistakes. Consumers are then hurt by higher rates and less lending. The enormous number of loans that have been refinanced since 1991 makes this a potentially system-wide problem. I do not believe that the authors of the Truth in Lending Act intended to stifle creative lending and punish the mortgage industry for technical violations of its complex disclosure provisions. If the courts were to permit borrowers to rescind loans as part of class action lawsuits, the impact could be felt from the financial institutions and the secondary markets all the way to the Federal deposit insurance funds, which are ultimately backed by the U.S. taxpayer. In Florida, we have seen ads with banner headlines, ``collect money back from your lender,'' encouraging borrowers to rescind their loan. There is no mention of harm done to the consumer in the ads. In fact, even if the amount disclosed was more than what was actually charged, a borrower can rescind the loan. I have heard that some attorneys are trying to amass a large number of plaintiffs in order to increase their fees. In the end, the biggest beneficiaries of this wave of class action suits will be the lawyers. Consumers will be left with small settlements, higher costs, and fewer choices of mortgage lenders. This bill, H.R. 1380, gives Congress time to examine the Truth in Lending Act and correct the problems created by the Rodash decision. At a minimum, we need to clarify the disclosure provisions of this highly complex law, provide a greater tolerance for honest mistakes, and make sure that the penalties are in line with the violations. This bill is narrowly drawn to temporarily end the abuse of the Truth in Lending Act through class-action suits. Individual consumers will still be allowed to bring suit during the moratorium on class actions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the March 31, 1995 report required by the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act made some useful contributions to the historical record of Hong Kong's transition from a dependent territory of the United Kingdom to a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. The report correctly assessed Governor Patten's highly touted legislative reforms as modest. The account given of threats to press freedoms was also important, in light of the People's Republic of China's recent actions against Hong Kong and other journalists. While the report included the case of Xi Yang, the Hong Kong reporter imprisoned inside mainland China for ``stealing state financial secrets,'' it would have been appropriate for the report to have included the detail that the secrets were planned increases in interest rates and the sale of gold. Most important, the report expressed U.S. support for ``continued development of democratic institu- tions * * * and the conduct of free and fair elections after July 1.'' I hope the United States Government is making this position clear to the People's Republic of China in no uncertain terms. The report neglected to discuss a number of important developments which I highlight here because they are so critical to the future of the territory. Much as China's treatment of the press has had a chilling effect on Hong Kong journalists, the People's Republic of China's harsh and arbitrary treatment of businessmen is having pernicious effects in Hong Kong. The People's Republic of China frequently arrests, imprisons, and holds incommunicado, foreign businessmen--almost 20 in the past 3 years--particularly those with whom People's Republic of China state- owned enterprises have commercial disputes. For example, at the instigation of the People's Republic of China, James Peng, an Australian citizen, was arrested by Macau police and deported to Shenzen in Guandong Province. Mr. Peng's offense was that he won a legal battle to retain control of his company, a Sino-foreign joint venture listed on the Shenzen stock exchange. Another businessman, Zhang Guei-Xing, who holds an American green card, was jailed under horrific conditions in a detention camp in Zhengzhou for 2\1/2\ years. A Miami businessman, Troy McBride, has been detained in Anhui province since mid-March, his passport confiscated, because of a commercial dispute. In the People's Republic of China today, economic disputes have become economic crimes. Arrests, detention, and harassment of businessmen are just one more business practice. The ultimate goal is a settlement involving the surrender of property or other assets--in effect, a ransom payment. Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] reports a sharp increase in corruption complaints as the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong markets become more intertwined. The People's Republic of China's treatment of businessmen, the absence of the rule of law, and the insidious spread of corruption from the mainland to Hong Kong, must be included in future U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act reports. The report's recognition of the lack of progress and even stalling on rule of law issues within the joint liaison group is also important. However, the report should have acknowledged that the role the joint liaison group has assumed in this transition period is contrary to the terms of the joint declaration, which expressly states that the the joint declaration's terms, Great Britain has the authority to govern Hong Kong until June 30, 1997. The People's Republic of China's manipulation of the joint liaison group is part of the People's Republic of China's 10-year pattern of reneging on its commitments under the joint declaration. Notwithstanding the recent public relations tour through the United States by Lu Ping, Beijing's top Hong Kong official, the People's Republic of China has repeatedly displayed its contempt for the joint declaration. Five years ago this week, in April 1990, Beijing codified significant deviations from the joint declaration in the basic law, the so-called miniconstitution for post-1997 Hong Kong that Beijing wrote and rubberstamped in its National People's Congress. The basic law subordinates the Hong Kong Legislature to the Beijing-appointed executive, and assigns the power of judicial interpretation to the standing committee of the National People Congress rather than to Hong Kong's judges. The basic law's provisions on the legislature may become moot however, since the People's Republic of China has promised or threatened to dismantle the Legco and Hong Kong's two other tiers of government. Beijing also threatens to abolish the Bill of Rights, enacted by the Legco in 1991 in reaction to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and over the objections of the Hong Kong government. Finally, a high official of the Chinese supreme court has suggested that Beijing will replace Hong Kong's common law system, which is synonymous with individual rights and the rule of law within a civil law system. China's own civil law system is explicitly subordinated to the Communist Party. The status of plans for establishing a high court before 1997 is cause for concern as well, and here the report's brief treatment of the issue is troubling. The details of a Court of Final Appeal, to replace the Privy Council in London, as the territory's highest court were agreed to in the joint declaration. The U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act report mistakenly accepts the 1991 agreement between the British Government of Hong Kong and China as a basis for the Hong Kong government's legislation implementing the court. The 1991 agreement explicitly violates the joint declaration and basic law. Accordingly, democratic legislators plan to amend it to bring it into accord with the joint declaration. I was surprised and disappointed that the report did not address two matters of tremendous significance in this transition period and to post-1997 Hong Kong. First, the report omitted any discussion of the Patten government's rejection of proposals by Hong Kong's democrats for an official human rights commission. Over the next 27 months, the commission cold define a human rights standard against which to judge the Hong Kong SAR government. The People's Republic of China's expressed hostility to independent and democratic government institutions after 1997 is an argument for moving full-speed ahead with a human rights commission and other institutional reforms, not for backing off. Also missing from the report was any mention of Great Britain's failure to report on human rights in the colony according to its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As 1997 draws near, there will be a greater need for accurate and timely reporting on developments in Hong Kong. There is also a need for a clearer recognition of the implications of the People's Republic of China's behavior for the people of Hong Kong. I look forward to future reports and hope that, in the intervals between reports, my colleagues in the United States. Congress and other friends of Hong Kong will pay close attention to the statements and actions of the Beijing and Hong Kong governments. Above all, there must be more attention to the voices and concerns of the Hong Kong people.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there are any number of reasons, from the massive amount of cocaine entering the United States from Colombia, to the rise in high school drug use over the past 2 years, that I could rely on to explain my decision to cosponsor the Narcotics National Emergency Sanctions Act [NNESA]. The poor performance of Colombia's government in interrupting the flow of heroin, marijuana, and cocaine that originates or is processed in Colombia, would be justification enough for the extraordinary measures created by the NNESA. Above all, however, I am moved by the rank corruption the drug trade has spawned in Colombia and the colossal abuse of public trust by officials who ally themselves with criminals rather than the people they serve. Colombia's government institutions, including the courts, the Congress, and the highest levels of the executive, have been penetrated by the influence of narcotics traffickers. Not surprisingly, in 1994, Colombia failed to meet minimum standards of performance in combating drug trafficking. The Clinton administration responded by granting a national interest waiver. Although it is possible to imagine circumstances in which a national interest waiver might be justified, Colombia is not such a case. Colombia deserves to be taken out of the normal narcotics cooperation certification process because it is in a league of its own. We do not seek to penalize Colombia unnecessarily, or to impose an arbitrary standard. The NNESA responds directly to public commitments President Samper has repeatedly made to improve Colombia's anti-narcotics performance. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration itself has sent mixed signals about its commitment to the fight against illegal drugs. Enforcement of drug laws enjoys low priority at the Justice Department where Federal mandatory minimum prison terms are criticized as too harsh. Nationwide, Federal prosecutions of narcotics-related crimes have dropped dramatically since 1992. Colombia and Peru were refused intelligence information crucial to the interdiction of narcotics flights for several months in 1994. Although later overturned, the decision to cut off intelligence sharing dealt a severe blow to counter-drug efforts and broadcast the administration's ambivalence about the drug war. Overall, international interdiction efforts receive little support and dwindling resources in spite of efforts by some officials to protect this indispensable function. The Clinton White House must restore anti-narcotics policy to the top priority status it has enjoyed under previous administrations. It can start by endorsing the NNESA and sending an unambiguous message to Colombia: the United States has no national interest in cooperating with any government that colludes with drug traffickers.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Reducing appropriations accounts across the board as proposed in the amendment would have the effect of freezing in place the spending priorities established in the previous Congress by the former majority party. We must begin the process of reordering some of the budget priorities established in the last Congress. Unless we do so, it will be virtually impossible to control spiraling Federal spending in fiscal year 1996 and beyond. I am especially concerned that we get a handle on the looming budget crisis at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. For example, cutting spending across the board wouldn't do a thing to help us to begin controlling now future obligations to renew expiring section 8 contracts. These obligations will reach $20 billion annually by the year 2000. This rescission package takes a reasonable approach to the HUD budget, which had been among the fastest growing in the Federal Government over the past few years. We target the HUD rescissions to new obligations and commitments, such as section 8 incremental assistance. No one currently receiving assistance should lose that assistance as a result of the rescission of this funding. But if we fail to rein in new obligations now, it is likely that down the road--in a year or two--we may be faced with the reality of not renewing section 8 contracts or recapturing turnover section 8 units as they become available because we will not have the money to do it. That would truly represent a reduction in the housing assistance we now provide to 2.8 million families receiving section 8. As a rule, I would agree that all budget accounts should share equally in meeting national disaster needs. However, at this point, there is merit in achieving the reductions in other ways that will reduce our future obligations.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995. I thank Senator Hatch and my other colleagues who drafted this bill which seeks to stop Government from infringing upon its citizens' private property rights. Private property rights are fundamental to a free and fair society. Last June, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote on behalf of the majority, ``We see no reason why the takings clause of the fifth amendment, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the first amendment or fourth amendment, should be relegated to the status of a poor relation.'' Over the past several years, we have seen Federal bureaucrats trample our fifth amendment right that private property shall not, ``* * * be taken for public use without just compensation.'' There are countless examples of people forced to spend their time and money fighting their own Government for the simple right to use their land. Unfortunately, there are even more citizens who never make it to court because they cannot afford lawyers to help them fight for their rights. In these cases, Government has robbed its citizens of the use of their property, without even compensating them. It makes you wonder if the American people still control their Government or if our U.S. Government now controls us. The Omnibus Property Rights Act will restore the basic rights accorded to private property owners by our Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights. It will slash through the bureaucracy that has rendered those rights meaningless, and it will preserve for future generations the essential freedoms and rights upon which America was founded.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, the Senate failed to take what would have been a courageous and historic step toward fiscal responsibility when it defeated the balanced budget amendment. It was one of the most disappointing and discouraging votes I have been a part of. That's because we failed the American people, who sent us a very clear message last November. They said they wanted an end to business as usual. Their message was emphatic: they want less spending, less Government and more freedom. But we turned a deaf ear. I hope the Senate has another chance to pass the balanced budget in the future and I will continue to fight for its passage. But in the meantime, there are other steps we can take to significantly reform the way the Federal Government spends the American people's money. today, we can take a giant step in the direction of fiscal sanity by passing the line-item veto. The biggest threat to America's long-term prosperity is out-or- control deficit spending. The result of 26 straight years of deficit spending is a mountain of debt. In fact, our national debt now totals nearly $5 trillion. Every day that we fail to impose fiscal discipline on ourselves we are mortgaging our children's future. Giving the president the line-item veto will not solve the larger problem--massive deficits as far as the eye can see. But it will begin to restore fiscal sanity to a broken budget process. It will allow presidents to strike out specific wasteful and unnecessary programs that get stuck into huge and complex appropriations bills. Now, if a President wants to cut out a specific item, no matter how big or small, he must veto the entire funding bill. The line-item veto, a power some 43 governors already have, would allow the President to eliminate those programs without having to send the entire bill back to Congress. It's a common-sense reform that is long overdue. The line-item veto is only one of what I hope will be a number of reforms in the budget process. There are other reforms that would force Congress to finally get its spending under control. For example, I am proposing a Spending Reduction Commission which would serve as a fail- safe mechanism to help ensure we achieve the spending cuts necessary to get to a balanced budget. There are other proposals to change the current process that I believe we should seriously consider as well. But the issue before us today is the line-item veto. The American people are demanding that we act, and act now, to control Government spending. Passing the line-item veto is an important step in that direction. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this past election demonstrated the desire of American citizens everywhere for change. People are frustrated with the direction in which this country has been heading and the skewing of priorities and values. One example of how standards and basic values are slipping was the 1989 Supreme Court ruling which permitted the desecration of our Nation's flag. The American flag has always been a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world. It has guided thousands upon thousands of American service men and women as they have fought and died in defense of our basic freedoms. The Court's decision struck at the heart of everything we hold dear in America. The flag is our most cherished symbol of liberty and is recognized throughout the world as an emblem of hope for those struggling for freedom. We should not condone its willful destruction. Mr. President, I support the proposal for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of the American flag. With this amendment, the first amendment can be upheld while we clearly declare our reverence for and dedication to our most cherished symbol of freedom--the American flag.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, in 1988 Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc., founded Meals-on-Wheels America to help communities across the Nation feed their homebound elderly. Mr. President, I rise to speak today to recognize Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc. for their $5,000 grant to the North Miami Foundation for Senior Citizens' Services, Inc., who in conjunction with Meals-on-Wheels America, will expand their services and increase the number of recipients of this important program. In addition, I commend the volunteers from the Seagram family and Senior Citizens Services, Inc., for their tireless efforts in distributing and serving the meals. Through their hard work and dedication, they have improved the quality of life for the homebound elderly. As our elderly population continues to grow, our country will become increasingly dependent on the altruistic efforts of groups like Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons and the North Miami Foundation for Senior Citizens' Services, Inc.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for offering this amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This amendment is essentially the same as legislation I introduced earlier this year to require monthly reports by the United States Treasury on the Mexican economy. It is critical that this information be conveyed to Congress on a timely basis so that we, who are responsible for the protection of United States tax dollars, are fully informed as to the risk of Mexico's failure to repay those dollars. The reason for this risk is that while we stand here, the Mexican economy is deteriorating. Inflation has reached 40 or 50 percent, production is falling rapidly and the Mexican peso continues to drop like a rock. Mexican citizens are suffering from the massive reduction in the purchasing power of their pesos. Many economists suggest that Mexico's economic problems could have been avoided if the right economic policies were followed. However, they were not. Now that United States taxpayer money is at risk, it is more important than ever that the Congress be informed about economic developments in Mexico. In order for Congress to gauge this risk, information is key. This amendment will guarantee that the Congress is kept fully informed about developments in Mexico so that taxpayer dollars can be protected.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, is the pending business the Helms amendment?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, during the past several weeks there has been significant debate on one of the most fundamental issues facing America today. One which, frankly, divides the two parties in this country. At times the debate was heated. At times the debate appeared to indicate the balanced budget amendment would pass. But, in the last days, it became clear that would not be the case and the balanced budget amendment was defeated. This morning, while Republicans were trying to recover from that defeat, we were buoyed by the announcement that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell was switching parties, changing from Democrat to Republican. During the press conference this morning making that announcement, a question was raised by one of the reporters regarding a comment attributed to the minority leader of the Senate, suggesting of Senator Campbell, ``perhaps he should resign and run for reelection. * * *'' I assume the minority leader made that statement because Senator Campbell had changed parties. I would like to suggest that perhaps the minority leader, Senator Daschle, should resign and run for reelection himself, because clearly he changed his position on an incredibly fundamental issue which he not only voted for in the past, but made as a central theme of his campaign in 1986. Let me quote from one of his commercials: The national debt. America is awash in red ink. But in 1979, Tom Daschle saw the damage these deficits could do to our country. His first official act was to sponsor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. For seven years, Tom Daschle battled party leaders and special interests to cut waste and close loopholes. Mr. President, using the same line of reasoning and logic that was employed this morning by the Senate minority leader, Senator Daschle, perhaps he should follow his own advice. Perhaps he should resign and run for reelection. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this week marks the anniversary of a very special event in the history of my State. One hundred and fifty years ago on the 1st of March 1845, the U.S. Senate passed a bill admitting Florida to the Union as the 27th State. President John Tyler signed the bill into law on March 3, 1845. Tomorrow, March 3, 1995, the State of Florida will celebrate its sesquicentennial. Florida has a rich history stretching nearly five centuries. The search for gold and glory brought Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon to Florida during the Easter season of 1513. He and his crew disembarked between present-day St. Augustine and Cape Canaveral to claim the land in the name of the King of Spain. Ponce de Leon called this new land Florida--a Spanish word meaning ``full of flowers.'' From discovery in 1513 to early 1821, Spain, France, and England played significant roles in Florida's exploration and development. During the territorial period--1821 through 1845--Florida became one of the major cotton producing areas of the region. The struggle for statehood was a major political issue in Washington and throughout the territory of Florida. David Levy (Yulee), who later became Florida's first U.S. Senator, led the fight to bring Florida into the Union. Florida's admission to the Union and the contributions of its citizens have proven to be of immense benefit both to the United States and to the State of Florida. As the United States has grown and prospered Florida has become a world leader in agriculture, commercial fishing, education, financial services, horse breeding, high technology, manufacturing, phosphate production, and tourism. More than 20 million tourists visit Florida each year to experience the Sunshine State's great natural beauty, her pristine beaches, clean waters, pure air, and extraordinary scenery. Each region of Florida has its own unique identity. There are vivid contrasts between the excitement of Cape Canaveral and Disney World, the cosmopolitan feel of south Florida, the tropical world of the Florida Keys, the natural beauty of the west coast, the mystery that is the Everglades, the citrus and cattle country of central Florida, and the deep South culture of north Florida and the panhandle. The marvelous diversity of those who have migrated to Florida seeking a better life for themselves and their families have made the State a microcosm of America itself. The dedication and innovation of Floridians, both past and present, inspire all of us in Florida as we prepare our State for the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that motions offered by Senator Dole be withdrawn.