Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I move to reconsider and table en bloc the previous rollcall votes.

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent that I may move to reconsider and table all previous votes en bloc at this time.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today my colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, and I are introducing legislation to ensure that all veterans have access to the same care and benefits provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, or geographic location. Under the Veterans Bill of Rights Act, veterans in all States will have equal access to such services as VA medical facilities, treatment, and personnel; VA home loan guaranty assistance, job training assistance, the administrative claims process, and equal treatment in the handling of claims for benefits. While equal access to these essential veterans benefits and services is implied, in reality, it is not always the case. My home State of Florida, for example, has the most 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans in the United States. It is also home to the second largest overall veterans population. Consequently, the demand for services from the Department of Veterans Affairs is far greater than other States. Florida's veterans population, however, has far less access to medical care and other benefits than nearly every other State. In fact, veterans in Florida are forced to wait months for appointments at VA medical centers and outpatient clinics while veterans in other States have no waiting lines. That's wrong, and it must be changed. Our Government made a contract with the men and women who bravely served our country in times of need. The contract guaranteed that the Federal Government would provide for them in return for their service. Many who honored this contract were injured or disabled. The Federal Government must live up to its' end of the contract by providing equitable treatment regardless of where the veteran lives. Veterans in many States, like those who reside and vacation in Florida, do not receive their fair share of benefits. The Veterans Bill of Rights corrects this inequity, and I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate on the issue of the balanced budget amendment now for several hours today and, frankly, off and on for the last several weeks. Many of my colleagues have done an excellent job of providing expert opinion as to why a balanced budget amendment should be passed, or why it should be defeated. Those experts include economists, constitutional scholars, and past great legislators. But the remarks that I am going to make today are not based on experts. They are going to be based on my own personal observations. They will be based on my own convictions and on some of my own readings. There is a very interesting set of books entitled ``The Debate on the Constitution.'' I was really stunned when I read through this series of documents and speeches and learned of the fear people had of the Constitution. That document put forward for their ratification terrified many of the citizens of our Nation at that time. It terrified them that a great, new central government was going to grow up in their midst, and that this great, new government would, in fact, either destroy or limit their individual rights. I cannot help but draw the conclusion, after those readings--and observing from my own personal experiences in the 12 years that I have served in the Congress--6 years in the House and 6 years in the Senate--that we have today developed a Government that, in essence, is out of control. My own personal reason for becoming involved in politics originated after spending 16 years in the banking business. Prior to that time I had no idea whatsoever that I would end up in politics as a Member of Congress and then of the U.S. Senate. I entered politics because I became so frustrated and so angry with what the Government was doing to the banking business--the business in which I was involved. Virtually every single day I heard from the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, or the U.S. Treasury, about the things that I could do and could not do, as a banker. It even reached the point--I believe it was in 1979 or maybe 1980--when all bank presidents received a letter that specifically told them what kinds of loans they could make and what kinds of loans they could not make. To show you the degree to which this Government control extended itself, this letter provided that banks could lend money for home improvements if the home improvement was going to be the addition of a needed room; but it did not for the addition of a swimming pool. That is the extent that Government had intruded into the operations of private business in America in the late 1970s and early 1980s. So, again, I am reflecting on my own personal conviction that there must be a restraint on Government, and that is what this debate is about. I think the message of the 1994 election was pretty clear. Even though some Republicans have a tendency to see the election as being a mandate for Republicans, I would say that the mandate was a little bit more specific than that. It was a mandate to control Government. It was a mandate to follow a set of ideas of less taxing, less spending, less Government, and more freedom. I think it is important for us to think about that message of 1994 as not necessarily being a wave of Republicanism, but a wave of saying we want our lives back, our freedoms back, and we want Government off our backs. This is a fundamental debate. It is a debate between those who believe in more Government and those of us who believe in less Government. I have told the story of my first vote in the Congress many, many times throughout my stay here. I tell about this story because I want to make the point that there is more to this debate about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget than economics. The first vote that I cast as a Member of the House of Representatives in January of 1983 was a very big deal for me because I had never cast a vote in a legislative body before then. Politics and legislative bodies were all brand new to me. It was a very, very exciting moment, and I thought it was an important moment. As I look back, I realize that the issue we were debating that first day in the House back in 1983 was not an issue that was going to change the direction of the world; it was not going to have great significance on the country or, for that matter, great significance with respect to the House of Representatives. The question that was being posed that day was whether we should add a new committee to the Congress of the United States. I must say to you that I came here already with a preconceived idea that we had too many committees; that the staffs were, frankly, getting too large; that we were spending too much money on the legislative operations of Government, and that we did not need this committee. But because I was brand new, I thought maybe this question was not quite so simple and that I should check with some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get a sense of what they were going to do. As I wandered around the floor, the message I got back was, ``Connie, we do not need another committee. We already have too many of them.'' In fact, they said to me, ``This is a select committee and they do not write legislation. They are really platforms for politicians to make public statements, and we are spending too much money. The committees are out of control, the staffs are getting too large. We do not need another committee in the House of Representatives.'' So I went over and cast my first vote. In the House, they use a computerized card to record votes. I put my card in and pushed the ``no'' button and I looked back over where the Speaker sits. Everybody's name is awash in lights across the back of the room. I looked up there thinking--after listening to my colleagues--that this board was going to be awash in red lights voting ``no.'' Well, out of 435 Members of the House, I think about 34 of us voted against the addition of another committee. There are a couple of things I did not mention to you. First, the name of the committee was the Select Committee on Families and Children. The other thing I was told, as I wandered around the floor as that brand new freshman legislator filled with excitement and enthusiasm and idealism was, ``Connie, you do not vote against something called `families and children' and go back home and run for reelection.'' Now, to me, that story says it all. It says if there is not some form of outside constraint on the ability of Members of the Congress to spend the taxpayers' dollars, we will end up with exactly what we are getting. Earlier today, I heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts say, basically, that we do not need this amendment; we can just go forward and do the things that we know we should be doing without this restraint--without this requirement in the Constitution. Well, in one of the books I was reading this past week I came across a statement that I think many of us have heard from time to time. I did not realize it was an old Chinese saying. But it said something to the effect: If you do the same thing over and over and over again reaching the same result and each time expect that there is going to be a different outcome, this is insanity. Again, I have made this comment to the people in the State of Florida, that it is insane for us to continue, year after year after year after year, to continue operating under the same process that has failed us. So it seems to me that logic dictates that we ought to be adjusting the process because it is only in changing this process that we will bring about change. And, as I said earlier, change is what the 1994 election was all about. Interestingly, as I stand here both of my grandfathers come to mind. The desk I am standing over was handed over to me by Senator Phil Gramm in January 1989, was the desk that my grandfather, Morris Sheppard, sat at when he was in the U.S. Senate from 1912 to 1941. And, the baseball that I hold in my hand is a baseball that was signed by my grandfather, whose name so many people recognize, Connie Mack, who was born in 1862. He signed this baseball in 1929. Since then my father has signed it, I have signed it, and year. I thought about bringing this baseball to the floor of the U.S. Senate because I had the opportunity again during the debate on this amendment to observe the distinguished Senator from West Virginia refer to a contract that he had signed many, many years ago. What it brought to my mind is how our Nation has changed from one generation to the next; how different America is from the country that my grandfather was born into in 1862; and how different the Nation is compared to what it was like when my father was born and when I was born and when my son was born. I think about what this Nation is going to be like for my grandchildren, three of which I have at this moment, 10, 8, and 1\1/2\. I wonder what kind of future is in store for them if we do not make some significant changes in the way we do business. I looked back at some of the historical fiscal records of this country. In 1929, when my grandfather signed this ball, I looked up the level of Federal spending. Calculated in 1994 dollars Federal spending in 1929 was the equivalent of $29.9 billion. In 1941, Federal spending was $174 billion. In 1961, it was $520 billion. And in 1994 it was $1.46 trillion. Another point I should make is that, in 1929, the debt was about $480 million--$480 million. By 1994, the national debt had reached $4.643 trillion. If we keep this up, what kind of future will we leave our children? What will it mean to them? The previous speaker spoke very eloquently about what will happen to future generations because of what we have already done and how much worse it will be if we fail to do something to change the direction in which we are headed. It also struck me, as I listened to the discussion, how our country has changed from generation to generation and how much our country has changed from 1776 to 1862 to the present. If we fail to recognize that our society is one of change, I guess one could conclude that we should not change the Constitution. Both previous speakers used the term, ``moral obligation'' in reference to the Constitution suggesting that it is a moral document. I am suggesting that I think we ought to recognize our society has changed and continues to change. Unfortunately, we have moved away from a group of people who believed in the idea of personal responsibility to those who have fostered an entitlement mentality today. I would suggest that what we have done for the last 25 years is a reflection of who we are; that somehow or another we think we can live generation to generation passing on huge amounts of debt with no consequences. And I think everyone understands that that is just fundamentally wrong. Again, there are those who are going to say to us, ``We don't need this constitutional amendment to do what is right.'' I would make the argument that after having served these last 12 years and being involved on the House side in helping to pass the Gramm-Rudman legislation, we do not have the resolve to impose limitations on ourselves. As you may recall Gramm-Rudman was a statute, an attempt to control spending which the Congress merely changed when it became too difficult to get the job done. So the conclusion that I have come to is that the only way to effectively control what the Congress does with respect to spending the taxpayers' money is to put an outside restraint on them. Without this restraint we risk losing those personal freedoms that have made this country great. Oh, I know, today there will be people who will say, ``Aren't you going a little overboard to suggest that our Nation and our individual freedoms might be at risk because of our decision to continue to overspend and to run deficits?'' I do not think so at all. What we are involved in--we have heard the term many times --is an experiment in self-government. We are involved in an experiment in democracy. We need to understand that this is a continual experiment in democracy. Ours is a constantly changing nation, a nation whose values and whose morals have been changing. If we do not address and adapt to that change, then we are putting the next generation at risk. I think that when we come down to the final vote, we are going to have the necessary votes to pass this constitutional amendment. And when we look back, I think that we will find the turning point was when President Clinton submitted his budget for fiscal year 1996. I am not going to put this in a partisan perspective, because I recognize the claim can be made that Presidents Bush and Reagan did exactly the same thing in submitting budgets which failed to address our debt problem. But, what is different about this debate is that the country finally recognized that a constitutional amendment had to be passed, that it was an absolute requirement which we as a nation, as a society, and as a Congress had to put in place a series of budget decisions to get us to a balanced budget. My hometown newspaper referred to the President's budget proposal by saying: ``Clinton to GOP: You Cut the Budget.'' It went on to say, ``Republicans Ready and Willing.'' I think that those who had been arguing all along that we can balance the budget without a constitutional restraint saw in the administration's budget proposal that this was simply not the case. They recognized that we were going to get the same old thing, over and over again. If we wanted the status quo, then we got it in the budget that was presented to the Congress by President Clinton. I want to refer, also, to a chart that I have used in the past. Many may remember this book, entitled ``Bankruptcy 1995.'' There is a very interesting chart in it referred to as the ``Hockey Stick Chart'' because it plotted the total debt over a period of time from 1970 to the year 2000. It illustrated that at some point the total debt just goes straight up, absolutely out of control. I remember when I read this book, it started off with a series of examples of what would happen when a country's debt gets out of control, and the choices that would face a society, such as monetizing the debt. What really has come back to my mind is the story that was told as to what happened in some of the Latin American countries in the past, and what they said would happen to the United States. The message was: ``If you fail to get control of your spending and your deficits and your debt in America, the same thing could happen to you.'' I remember reading through this. It was fairly dramatic. Think about what it would be like if you woke up in the morning to talk with your mother and dad, who had received an emergency telephone call the night before from the place where they were working, telling them that it was no longer necessary for them to come in because there was no company left. The company went bankrupt because of certain things that happened as a result of monetizing the debt. Inflation skyrocketed to the point where the cost of the basic necessities of life--food, housing, health care--no longer could be afforded, because they went spiraling out of control as a result of uncontrolled debt. It is interesting how people react to this story. They think this could never happen in America. This is America. This is the Nation that led the world through World War I, and World War II. We defended freedom all over the world. We are looked upon as the beacon of hope and opportunity around the world. This could never happen in America. I guess the reason that I wanted to come back to this is because of what is happening in Mexico today. To draw the conclusion that the price that Mexico is paying for its economic disorder is not a price that we would have to pay for our economic disorder is fundamentally unsound. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can continue on this binge. We are fooling ourselves if we think we will solve the problem just by trying the same old process that has failed us year after year after year. Mr. President, I conclude my remarks by saying that this is a fundamental debate which is taking place here in the U.S. Senate. It is a debate about those who believe more government will solve our problem, and those spending, will give more freedom. I have concluded that freedom is the core of all human progress. It must be defended. The only way we can defend it economically is to put into place a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, President Clinton arranged a financial package for Mexico. The package involves the exchange stabilization fund, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve, and other international organizations and governments to help Mexico get through its liquidity crisis. There is no doubt that the United States has a great interest in the health of Mexico's economy. We are concerned about Mexico, not only as a trading partner but as a good neighbor. This particular financial package expands that relationship. Indeed, it puts U.S. tax dollars at risk, and Congress needs to play an oversight role. I am concerned that Mexico's problems leading to this financial arrangement were rooted in bad economic policies. Mexico's central bank violated sound money principles. Excessive money supply growth was the root cause of the devaluation of the peso. Followup policies of wage and price controls will drive away private investors and hurt Mexican citizens. My understanding is that Treasury Secretary Rubin has promised the House and Senate Banking Committees a ``detailed picture of developments in Mexico'' so that Congress can be fully informed of Mexican economic policies and therefore its ability to repay loan obligations. The Treasury is currently required to report to Congress on any disbursements from the exchange stabilization fund. Because of the magnitude of the current commitment, I feel it is necessary for Treasury to provide additional information to the Banking Committee regarding the condition of the Mexican economy and consultations between the Government of Mexico and the International Monetary Fund or the United States Treasury Department. That is why I, with several other Senators, am introducing the Mexican Loan Compliance Resolution. This resolution will make sure that the information Congress needs to evaluate the Mexican loan is the same information that will be provided by Treasury. The resolution asks for Treasury to provide: Information on monetary policy in Mexico, including potential devaluation plans and information on the Mexican money supply; information on the institution of wage and price controls, changes in tax policy, and privatization efforts; a list of planned or pending Mexican Government regulations affecting the Mexican private sector; and a full disclosure of all financial transactions directly involving funds disbursed from the exchange stabilization fund and the International Monetary Fund. Just as American voters made clear to our government in November that they wanted change, Mexican voters rallied for change in their election last Sunday. The Institutional Revolutionary Party [PRI], the party of President Zedillo, that delivered the devaluation of the Mexican peso, suffered a bruising defeat. The people in the Mexican state of Jalisco voted overwhelmingly for candidates from the National Action Party [PAN], electing a new governor, achieving a majority in the state legislature, and winning 90 of 124 municipal offices. While only the Mexican people can determine whether the PAN party will fully reflect their desire for change, the Mexican people recognized who was responsible for 40 percent of their purchasing power vanishing with the devaluation, and they held their leaders accountable. The new Congress elected in November recognizes that it's accountable too. By ensuring that Mexico follows policies that will help the Mexican people and strengthen its economy, we will fulfill our obligation to protect United States taxpayers whose dollars are on the line.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, last year I had the privilege of speaking before the Senate on the occasion of the dedication of the Ted Williams Retrospective Museum and Library. I rise to speak today because on February 8 and 9 the Ted Williams Museum is opening the Hitters Hall of Fame and an 85-seat theater. Ted has specifically chosen the 20 greatest hitters of baseball to be inducted in the inaugural class. Each subsequent year, two more hitting greats will be inducted into the Hitters Hall of Fame. The inaugural class of inductees includes: Babe Ruth, New York Yankees. Lou Gehrig, New York Yankees. Jimmie Foxx, Boston Red Sox. Rogers Hornsby, Saint Louis Cardinals. Joe DiMaggio, New York Yankees. Ty Cobb, Detroit Tigers. Stan Musial, Saint Louis Cardinals. Joe Jackson, Chicago White Sox. Hank Aaron, Milwaukee-Atlanta Braves. Willie Mays, New York Giants. Hank Greenberg, Detroit Tigers. Mickey Mantle, New York Yankees. Tris Speaker, Cleveland Indians. Al Simmons, Philadelphia Athletics. Johnny Mize, New York Giants. Mel Ott, New York Giants. Harry Heilmann, Detroit Tigers. Frank Robinson, Baltimore Orioles. Mike Schmidt, Philadelphia Phillies. Ralph Kiner, Pittsburgh Pirates. In addition to the annual induction of two new members, the Hitters Hall of Fame will recognize four active players, two from the National League and two from the American League, for their hitting prowess. This year the Hall would like to recognize Tony Gwynn, San Diego Padres, Jeff Bagwell, Houston Astros, from the National League; and Frank Thomas, Chicago White Sox, and Ken Griffey, Jr., Seattle Mariners, of the American League. As you know, Mr. President, my family has a long history of association with major league baseball. It is a great honor for me to be able recognize these heroes of America's national pastime, and I am proud that their memories will live on in the Ted Williams Museum in Hernando, FL.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, State and local governments have been paying billions of dollars to comply with unfunded Federal mandates since the 1970's. As the Federal budget gets tighter it becomes more tempting to pass legislation telling State and local governments how they must spend more and more of their resources. According to the Congressional Budget Office roughly 10 to 20 bills that are reported out of committees every year contain unfunded Federal mandates of over $200 million each. This seemingly endless stream of legislation imposing greater burdens on our cities and States is what prompted me to introduce legislation in the 102d Congress similar to what is being considered today. The time is long overdue to focus attention not only on the benefits bestowed by legislation we pass, but also on the burdens imposed by the legislation. Some of this legislation, while noble and well-intended, has had the effect of thrusting Federal policymakers into the limelight as champions of a cause, while leaving the price tag for implementation with the State and local governments. Unfunded mandates place an unbearable strain on local budgets that are already burdened by local demand and, in effect, force back-door tax increases to cover mandated costs. State and local resources don't automatically rise whenever the Federal Government requires new spending. As a result, State and local priorities get subordinated. For example, suppose the top priority for the city of Tallahassee is combating drugs and crime, or they need to replace wornout firefighting equipment. When the Federal Government mandates that Tallahassee spend x dollars on housing and asbestos removal, or face heavy fines for noncompliance, they effectively scuttle the city's top priority. The dollars used to build housing or remove asbestos are not available for addressing drugs and crime or fighting fires. Some local governments have responded to the crush of mandates by raising revenue through imposing greater fee for building permits, water and sewer hookups, and subdivision approvals. Localities have also imposed development impact fees that total thousands of dollars. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that the impact fees in the State of Florida total $5,000 per home. In a State like Florida, the issue of unfunded Federal mandates is even more serious given the tendency by the Federal Government to ignore Florida's growth when determining the State's share of Federal funds. This legislation will help us focus on a problem that has been growing for decades. In the future we will not pass legislation without knowing what it costs and who is going to pay for it. It is simply unfair to force State and local governments to choose between complying with Federal mandates and their more immediate local needs. I urge the swift passage of this important bill.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota raises some worthwhile points. The formulation of monetary policy ought to be of interest to all of us, and he is right to raise questions. I, too, have questions about the Fed's operation of monetary policy. I've been concerned for a long time that the Fed, despite its independence, was forced to meet more policy goals than it is capable of meeting. In fact, Chairman Greenspan has told me in a public hearing that the Humphrey Hawkins Act forces the Fed to act in such a way that he believes is not in the long-term best interest of American jobs and the economy. For this and other reasons, I plan to hold hearings in both the Joint Economic Committee and the Banking Committee to examine amendments to Humphrey Hawkins. The Senator from North Dakota will, I'm sure, be very interested in changing Humphrey Hawkins because such changes should keep interest rates much lower than we have been used to. We ought to save this debate for a few more weeks and not delay passing the unfunded mandates bill. I can assure the Senator from North Dakota that the issue of monetary policy will be aired fully. The Dorgan amendment should be tabled, and I encourage my colleagues to do so.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it has consistently been my position that the Federal Government must assume greater responsibility for the costs associated with immigration, both legal and illegal. My colleague from Florida has offered an amendment which recognizes the problem of immigration costs as an unfunded mandate, and I believe this amendment is a positive addition to the bill. Absent this amendment, S. 1 categorizes only a select few immigration costs as unfunded mandates and ignores the myriad other expenses which accrue to the States, such as education and incarceration costs. These expenses and many others would not be borne by the States. Only because the Federal Government has failed to fulfill their duty to enforce our immigration laws is this amendment necessary. I urge the adoption of the Graham amendment as an essential step in recognizing the burdens which the Federal Government's policy of abdication and default has placed upon the backs of the States.