Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I believe, if I can respond, and perhaps I can find the language, if you read further on in the act, you will find some language that has to do with some cost sharing of the area that the Senator is referring to as identifying certain aspects of the bill, but there are other references in there about following precedent with respect to cost sharing. There is, as I read in my statement, a whole series of things in which there is even 100-percent participation at the Federal level for operation and maintenance.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I respond to the question raised by the Senator from Virginia when we were talking about cost share. I suggested to Senator Warner, if he looked in other places in Public Law 104, which is referred to as the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, he would find other language different from the language to which he was referring. That is found in section 316, central and southern Florida Canal, 111. Under ``Operation and Maintenance,'' it says: The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance cost of the improvements undertaken pursuant to this section shall be 100 percent; However, if you go on, it says: . . . except that the Federal Government shall reimburse the non-Federal interest with respect to the project 60 percent of the cost of operating and maintaining pump stations that pump water into Taylor Slough and in the Everglades National Park. I wonder what the argument was 14 years ago about changing precedent. People want to refer to precedent. The reality is that Congress does what the Congress believes is necessary to carry out an important project. I think it is pretty clear. In fact, my colleagues who oppose this cost share have indicated they are going to support the resolution, or support the act; therefore, I think, accepting the notion of the significance and importance of what we are doing. And therefore it is reasonable for the Senate to determine on this particular project because of its unusual, unique circumstances, that somehow we should, in fact, have a 50-50 cost share. I do not find that stunning, and I am not impressed with the fact that for the last 14 years which some want to refer to that there has been a precedent established. There are all kinds of indications that we have had different cost shares, to the extent that we find in some areas the Federal Government is picking up 100 percent of the cost of operation and maintenance. I again say to my colleagues, I hope they will support Senator Graham and I and Senators Smith and Baucus and defeat this amendment.

Mr. MACK. I echo the sentiments of the Senator from Florida about the Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program. As this is a long-term plan spanning almost 25 years in execution, it stands to reason that research will yield new information and technology changes will yield new solutions. The Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program is critical to ensuring that this new information is incorporated into our planning process for this project. The type of collaboration described by my colleague from Florida will ensure that resources are wisely spent by utilizing and expanding monitoring programs already in operation.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the future of U.S. trade relations with China and the impending vote on China's PNTR status. The prosperity that this nation has enjoyed for the past 50 years has been a result of our commitment to free trade and opening markets. Free trade benefits all--it enhances prosperity and develops markets, essential elements to the spread of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. China's entry into the World Trade Organization will also enhance American competitiveness, further our national interests, and benefit our trading partners. But we must enter into this agreement with our eyes open. China must comply with this agreement for it to have meaning. The United States must vigilantly seek enforcement of all agreements with China, including those addressing national security and human rights. I share the concern of my colleague, Senator Thompson, regarding China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. On August 9th of this year, the Director of Central Intelligence reported that China remained a ``key supplier'' of weapons technology and increased-missile related assistance to Pakistan as recently as the second half of 1999. In the last year it has been reported that China transferred missile technology to Libya and North Korea and may still be providing secret technical assistance to Pakistan's nuclear program. U.S. Intelligence has also provided evidence that the PRC has provided Iran with nuclear technology, chemical weapons materials, and missile technology that would violate China's commitment to observe the MTCR and U.S. laws. I do not suggest that because of these violations we should cut off trade with China, but we must address the fact that they are supplying rogue nations with weapons of mass destruction. This threat to our national security has made my decision on this vote a difficult one, and that has been compounded by my concerns with China's repeated human rights abuses. I suspect that each of my colleagues has had some opportunity over the years to hear about the human rights abuses taking place in China. I think one of the more eloquent spokesmen for the struggle for freedom has been Wei Jingsheng. He reminds us that those of us who live in the luxury of freedom should not forget those who are still struggling for liberty and freedom. Mr. President, because of these very strong conflicting views, the importance of open and free trade on the one hand, and the importance of human dignity and the pursuit of freedom on the other, this has been a difficult decision for me. But, after due consideration, I conclude that moving toward open and free markets advances freedom in China, so long as China is willing to abide by the rules of the WTO. By exposing China to global competition and the benefits it has to offer, Chinese leaders will be both obligated and empowered to more quickly move their country toward full economic reform. And by virtue of their business relationships, over time the Chinese people will be exposed to information, ideas and debate from around the world. This in turn will encourage them and their leadership to embrace the virtue and promise of individual freedom. The reason I am willing to embrace it has much has to do with the kinds of changes we have seen taking place in China over the years. If they were still committed to the ideology of the 1950's and 1960's, I do not think we would be here today. But, they have clearly moved toward opening their economy, and we should continue to push to open the country to freedom. So I think it is time for us to respond to these changes by saying to the Chinese people--we want to be engaged in free trade and competition with you. I think, in the end, humanity will benefit. So I will cast a vote in favor of this legislation. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the 10 days since his sudden passing and the outpouring of expression from many different directions have given me the opportunity to reflect on Paul's life, the gifts he brought to the Senate, and the impact his life had on people. I want to focus my remarks on Paul Coverdell's humility, which I think was his defining quality, his greatest gift, and one which had the greatest impact on the lives of others. Many people might say that humility, sometimes defined as freedom from pride or arrogance, is a quality not found often in our society today. No one disputes, however, that Paul Coverdell possessed a deep sense of humility. During the past 10 days, Paul Coverdell has been described as: Serious and low key; self-effacing; uncomfortable in the limelight; a humble public servant who became a political giant through selfless dedication and quiet civility; a very gentle and courteous person; a person people went to, felt really comfortable with, and opened up to; a person who really cared for what happened to others; a person many regarded as the Senate's leading mediator; a person of scrupulous integrity and unblemished character; a person with an unsurpassed work ethic and standard of personal ethics and devotion to what he was doing; a person who always kept his word and was someone you could count on--just to mention a few characterizations. How many of us would like to be known as individuals who possess these qualities? Too often we think success results from aggressive, enterprising, pushy, and contentious behavior. In the case of Paul Coverdell, his success resulted from his combination of humility and energy which enabled him to be known as the person who was the cornerstone of the Georgia Republican Party and whose objective was to make his State party credible and viable in what had been virtually a one-party State; who was a political mentor to a number of politicians on both sides of the aisle; who was said by former Senator Sam Nunn to be ``the person who makes the Senate work;'' and finally, Democrats in his State have said that Paul Coverdell's legacy is one of actions and deeds, not words and glory; friendship and trust, not cynicism and betrayal. There is no question that the outpouring of sentiment of Paul's humility, humanity, and his contribution to his State and to his Nation would have overwhelmed him. He would have been embarrassed by all of the adulation and attention. Paul was the personification of Proverbs 22:4: ``the reward for humility and fear of the Lord . . . is riches and honor and life.'' Paul Coverdell surely conducted his life in a manner that resulted in great riches and honor of public opinion. The Book of Revelation, 20:12, states: ``and I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also, another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books.'' Our earthly judgment of Paul Coverdell will surely be confirmed in heaven. Paul's works and his hard-working qualities were legendary. I want to take a moment to speak about a passion of Paul's. He often talked of the importance of freedom, challenging each of us to do our part to ensure that the legacy of 1776 endures for generations to come. I picked out a few of his quotes concerning freedom from some of his speeches, and I want to repeat them today. From a Veteran's Day speech: In the end, all that any of us can do with regard to this great democracy is to do our part . . . during our time. From a speech to an annual meeting of the Georgia Youth Farmers Association: You live by the grace of God in the greatest democracy in the history of the entire world. And each of us has our own personal responsibility to help care for it, to love it, and to serve it. From a speech to an ecumenical service at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: Several years ago I was in Bangladesh, the poorest country in the world, on the day they created their democracy. A Bangladeshi said to me, ``I don't know if you or your fellow citizens of your country understand the role you play for democracy everywhere. It is an awesome responsibility and I don't envy you, but I pray, sir, that you and your fellow citizens continue to accept it. Finally, from a speech at an Andersonville, GA, Memorial Day ceremony: I am sure that each of you, like me, has wondered how we can ever adequately honor these great Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for the preservation of our nation and the great Americans who suffered and endured on these hallowed grounds as prisoners of war. We look across these fields and see monuments. We have heard an elegant poem written by a young American. We have tried through movies to somehow express our gratitude. Nothing ever quite seems to meet the challenge. I have finally concluded in my mind and in my heart that the only way to appropriately express our gratitude is through duty and stewardship to this great nation. Paul Coverdell truly expressed his gratitude to his country in the manner in which he lived his life--through his service and stewardship to our Nation. Perhaps the ultimate compliment for a politician was accorded Paul Coverdell by one of his constituents, who simply said: He gave politics a good name. Paul was an unsung hero, the glue that bound us together, particularly on the Republican side, but he also had an unusually fair presence in the entire body of this Senate. We are blessed and better off because of the impact of Paul's humility. I hope I have learned something from him about life. God sent him so many friends--and he recognized us all and embraced us. We are thankful and grateful for his presence in our lives. And the loss of Paul Coverdell has made me realize just how much I am going to miss each of you when I leave the Senate in a few months. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I am very pleased to have this confirmation, and to know the Senators' personal interest and support. As the Senator is aware, one of our major objectives for this center, an objective supported by the leadership of SOUTHCOM, is to greatly enhance our nation's drug traffic interdiction capability.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it was for the purpose of securing a clarification of their intent on this matter that I sought this colloquy. I thank them for their support, interest, and leadership.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and my colleague from Florida in a brief colloquy concerning the South-Florida based Advanced Tropical Remote Sensing Center and its Synthetic Aperture Radar [SAR] facility.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I, too, express my appreciation for the beautiful words of the Senator from West Virginia this morning. And to Father Acker: On behalf of the entire Senate, we welcome you today and appreciate greatly your words of prayer. This is a special day for all of us, as the Senator from Nevada indicated. We will be swearing in a new Senator from Georgia. We do so with heavy hearts, however. I seek recognition now for a few moments to say a few words on the life of our colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on these bills at this time.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., for those Senators who wish to make final statements in remembrance of our former friend and colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. Following morning business, Senator designate Zell Miller will be sworn in to serve as United States Senator. After the ceremony and a few remarks, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the energy and water appropriations bill. At the conclusion of the vote, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany the Department of Defense appropriations bill, with a vote to occur at approximately 3:15 p.m. For the remainder of the day, the Senate is expected to begin postcloture debate on the motion to proceed to the energy and water appropriations bill. It is hoped that a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the PNTR China legislation can be moved to occur at a time to be determined during today's session. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I would like to join my colleague in thanking Senators Gorton and Byrd and the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for their support for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Twenty percent of all loggerhead sea turtle and 35% of all green sea turtle nests in the United States occur in this twenty mile zone. Nesting densities of 1,000 nests per mile have been recorded. Approximately half of this area is available for acquisition. The funds in this legislation will be critical in our ability to move forward on these acquisitions.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join us to reduce the marriage penalties in the tax code. This bill will provide married couples the relief that President Clinton denied them last year with his veto of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. President Clinton's action last year increased taxes by close to $800 billion and imposed a marriage penalty on middle class American families. There is no place in the Tax Code for marriage penalties. Marriage penalties are caused by tax laws that treat joint filers relatively worse than single filers with half the income. It has of late become common practice to use the Tax Code for purposes of social engineering, discouraging some actions with the stick of tax penalties and encouraging others with the carrot of tax preferences. But there is no legitimate policy reason for punishing taxpayers with higher taxes just because they happen to be married. The marriage penalties in the Tax Code undermine the family, the institution that is the foundation of our society. I view this bill as just a start. Our Tax Code will not truly be family-friendly until every single marriage penalty is rooted out and eliminated, so that married couples with twice the income of single individuals are taxed at the same rates, and are eligible for the same tax preferences--including deductions, exemptions, use of IRAs and other savings vehicles--as those single filers. This bill is an important step toward that ultimate goal. The Democrat criticisms of our bill are misplaced. They argue that our bill contains complicated phase-ins, in contrast to their simple approach. But anyone who reads the bill and their alternative would see that this is false. The Finance Committee bill contains percentages in it, sure enough. And it phases in the relief, that is true. But the percentages and the phase-ins are instructions to the Treasury and the IRS, to make adjustments to the tax brackets. The only people who have to make any new calculations under the Finance Committee bill are the bureaucrats who make up the tax tables, not the taxpayer. By contrast, the Democrat alternative, in phasing in its relief, requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes as joint filers, then calculate their taxes as if they were single--a complicated process that requires the allocation of various deductions and credits. Next, the taxpayer would have to determine the difference between these two calculations and then reduce this by a certain percentage. That is supposed to be simple? The Democrat substitute adds to the headaches of tax filing and the demand for tax preparers and tax preparation software. The Democrats also complain that the Finance Committee bill does more than address their narrow definition of the marriage penalty. They invoke the so-called ``marriage bonus.'' But the ``marriage bonus'' is a red herring. What they call a ``marriage bonus'' results from adjusting tax brackets for joint filers to reflect the fact that two adults are sharing the household income. Under the Democrat approach, single taxpayers who marry a non-working or low-earning spouse should pay the same amount of taxes as when they were single, even though this income must be spread over the needs of two adults. This approach is fundamentally flawed. The Democrat approach would enshrine in the law a new ``homemaker penalty.'' The Democrats would make families with one earner and one stay-at-home spouse pay higher taxes than families with the same household income and two earners. But why discriminate against one-earner families? Why would we want a tax code that penalized families just because one of the spouses chooses the hard work of the household over the role of breadwinner? The Democrat alternative discourages parents from staying home with their infant children, and penalizes a person who works longer hours so that a spouse can care for elderly parents. That is just plain wrong. The Finance Committee bill reduces the marriage penalty in a rational, sensible way, by making the standard deduction for joint filers twice what it is for single filers, and by making the ranges at which income is taxed at the 15 percent and 28 percent rates twice for joint filers what they are for single filers. This recognizes that marriage is a partnership in which two adults share the household income. Our approach cuts taxes for all American families. The Democrats call this a ``bonus.'' We call it common sense.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to vote to bury the death tax once and for all. This tax is anti-family and anti- capitalist, smothers the American Dream, and is rationalized only by the greed of government and envy of success. The debate over death tax repeal highlights, as much as any issue that we will consider, a fundamental difference in philosophy among members of this body, and between the Republican Congress and the current Administration. We in the majority believe that the federal government has no right to claims the lion's share of any person's wealth just because that person had the misfortune of dying. The proponents of the death tax think otherwise. At the root of this philosophical difference are two vastly different views of the nature of wealth creation and its role in society. The supporters of the death tax seem to harbor a pessimistic, zero-sum view of wealth--the belief that every dollar saved by one person is one less dollar for the rest of us. This belief makes it easier to argue that a ceiling be placed on the level of wealth attained by any individual or family in America--people justify the confiscation of wealth above this level by attacking as greedy any family that seeks to accumulate more at the expenses of the rest of society. But this view is flawed. There is no finite limit to the amount of wealth that can be created in a society. People become wealthy in a market economy by satisfying the wants of others. Wealth is not a windfall to people with natural intelligence or ability, or who happen to stumble across valuable resources; it is created by providing consumers the goods, materials, and services that they desire at a price that does not exceed their estimate of its value. When one understands this concept, the death tax cannot be justified. If Bill Gates had chosen a career as a government bureaucrat instead of being a software entrepreneur, the tens of billions of dollars he has amassed in wealth would not have been distributed to others in society--instead, this fortune would never have been generated. It came about because Mr. Gates has provided goods and services to the public that they valued as much or more than the price he charged. Every voluntary exchange between that free individuals in a market economy creates wealth, and the businesses that provide the most consumer satisfaction will create the most wealth. When those goods and services are not offered, this wealth is not created, and everyone in society is poorer because their preferred choice does not exist. Proponents of the death tax argue that the heirs and legatees of an individual's fortune did nothing to deserve this bounty. Since it is a windfall to these individuals, why shouldn't the government get a piece of the action? Some death tax supporters go one step further, and have argued on this very floor that, unlikely the heirs, the government has a claim to this wealth because it is responsible for the prosperous American economic environment. This argument amounts to the claim that, since government refrains from confiscating property while people are alive, the government is entitled to confiscate upon death. It makes no sense to terminate property rights at death as the price to pay for their protection while living. The inheritors of property have a right to the property not because of anything they have done, but because it is the will of the decedent. If people cannot leave to their family and friends the wealth they create, they lose the incentive to create it. The higher the rate of death tax falling on their estate, the smaller, the motive to invest in and build a business. The inheritors of property have earned the right to receive it, because they served as the motivation behind the creation of wealth beyond what decedents would consume in their respective lifetimes. It has been estimated that the death tax will cost the economy almost one trillion dollars over the next decade and almost 275,000 jobs in large part because it robs people of the incentive to invest. I regularly receive letters from older constituents explaining that they have no desire to reinvest profits in their business only to have the government claim 55 percent of the business's increase in value. I am sure all of my colleagues receive similar letters. The death tax robs people of the incentive to build up their businesses, smothering the American Dream. The death tax eliminates the jobs that these discouraged entrepreneurs would have created. The death tax reduces the savings pool, reducing capital investments and reducing future productivity. The death tax reduces the choices of goods and services available to consumers. And, perhaps worst of all, the death tax places the interest of government over that of families. Why do we have to impose a tax upon death? Every person spends a lifetime paying taxes on the earnings from which their life savings comes. The income from inherited assets, such as stock dividends or business profits, will be taxed as it is earned. And, under our death tax repeal bill, any capital gain above the exemption amount will result in capital gains taxes when the asset is actually sold. Why the hurry to impose a tax at the time of death, a tax which forces families to sell land, personal property, and business interests that had been in the family for generations? The only reasons are the greed of the government and the death tax supporters' disapproval of inherited wealth. Under current law, the federal government will be collecting over $4 trillion more in taxes than it is budgeted to spend in the next decade alone. It is the federal government that needs a limit to its ability to enjoy the fruits of the hard work of our taxpayers, not the families of these taxpayers. The supporters of the death tax seem genuinely puzzled that the American people, in poll after poll, overwhelmingly support repeal of the death tax. They cannot understand why do many people would oppose a tax that directly affects so few. But the American people understand economics much better than the death taxers. They recognize the loss of jobs and opportunity. They also harbor in their hearts the dream that one day they, too, might be so successful as to amass the wealth that is subject to the confiscatory rates of the death tax. But, most of all, they recognize that a tax may be unfair even though it targets a small segment of the population--indeed, a tax may be unfair because it does so. This part of the American spirit does not seem to be appreciated by the death taxers. Mr. President, the specter of the federal death tax should no longer hover over our citizens, waiting to swoop down and confiscate the savings that has taken a lifetime to build. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Death Tax Elimination Act.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Will the Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. MACK. I was most pleased to see that the Senate report accompanying this bill urged the Department to act in a timely manner to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to include psychology into the Graduate Medical Education program. As you know, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee have been working with the Department of Health and Human Services on this matter since 1997. Both the Conference Report on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Report 105-217 issued on July 30, 1997) and the Conference Report on last year's Omnibus bill (Report 106-479 issued on November 18, 1999) urged the Department to act favorably on this matter. In fact last year's Conference Report urged the Secretary to issue Notice of Rule Making to accomplish this modification before June 1, 2000. Mr. President, we thank you for including language in your report-- Report 106-292--to further support this effort. I am saddened to report that the advice the Appropriations Committee has given the Secretary is being given little notice, just like all the previous requests to her on this matter. Mr. President, at this point, I would request unanimous consent that a letter I wrote to Secretary Shalala, along with Senator Graham, Congressman Shaw, and Congresswoman Thurman on April 27, 1998 be published in the Record, following this colloquy. Mr. President, many letters have been written to the Secretary and Nancy Ann Min DeParle, the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, on this subject. Language has been included in two Finance/Ways & Means Conference Reports on this subject. Language has been included in the L-HHS Report. Despite all of these urgings, the desired result has not been produced. Would the Chairman of the Subcommittee consider including bill language in the final bill mandating this action if the Department has not issued the Notice of Proposed Rule Making by the time the Subcommittee goes to Conference with the House.

Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his response to our inquiry.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr, President, as many of my colleagues are aware, cancer has played a prominent role in my family's history. Some in our family--me, my wife Priscilla, our daughter Debbie--have been lucky enough to have fought cancer and won. Others in our family have not been so lucky. My father died of esophageal cancer, my mother died of kidney cancer and my younger brother Michael died of melanoma at the very young age of thirty-five. As a result, Priscilla and I have become very active in the fight against cancer and in spreading the message that early detection saves lives. It's a part of who we are as a family. And there are other families with their own stories. Michael J. Fox and his family are waging war against Parkinson's disease. Mary Tyler Moore and her family are fighting diabetes. Christopher Reeve and his family are searching for a cure to paralysis. And millions of other families across the United States are fighting their own battles against AIDS, sickle-cell anemia, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's and the many, many other diseases that take our loved ones away from us. What I've come to realize in my fight against cancer is the crucial role the federal government plays in funding basic medical research at the National Institutes of Health, and how important basic research is to finding breakthroughs not just for cancer but for all of the diseases which affect our families. For several years now, doubling funding at NIH has been a primary goal of mine in the Senate. The Federal Government, mainly through the NIH, funds about 36 percent of all biomedical research in this country, and plays an especially large role in basic research. Recently, the Joint Economic Committee, released a first-of-its kind study: ``The Benefits of Medical Research and the Role of the NIH,'' which examines how funding for the NIH cuts the high economic costs of disease, reduces suffering from illness, and helps Americans live longer, healthier lives. And I'd like to take a moment, Mr. President, to share with my colleagues some of the findings in this extensive report. According to the JEC, the economic costs of illness in the U.S. are huge--approximately $3 trillion annually, or 31 percent of the nation's GDP. This includes the costs of public and private health care spending, and productivity losses from illness. Medical research can reduce these high costs. But, the NIH is fighting this $3 trillion battle with a budget of $16 billion. That's just half of a percent of the total economic cost of disease in the United States. In addition to lowering the economic costs of illness, advances in medical research greatly help people live longer and healthier lives. A recent study found that longevity increases have created ``value of life'' gains to Americans of about $2.4 trillion every year. A significant portion of these longevity gains stem from NIH-funded research in areas such as heart disease, stroke and cancer. If just 10 percent of the value of longevity increases, $240 billion, resulted from NIH research, that would mean a return of $15 for every $1 invested in NIH. Also according to the JEC, NIH-funded research helped lead to the development of one-third of the top 21 drugs introduced over the last few decades. These drugs treat patients with ovarian cancer, AIDS, hypertension, depression, herpes, various cancers, and anemia. Future drug research holds great promise for curing many diseases and lowering the costs of illness by reducing hospital stays and invasive surgeries. In fact, one study found that a $1 increase in drug expenditures reduces hospital costs by about $3.65. We know that past medical advances have dramatically reduced health care costs for such illnesses as tuberculosis, polio, peptic ulcers, and schizophrenia. For example, the savings from the polio vaccine, which was introduced in 1955, still produces a $30 billion savings per year, every year. Medical advances will help cut costs by reducing lost economic output from disability and premature death. For example, new treatments for AIDS--some developed with NIH-funded research--caused the mortality rate from AIDS to drop over 60 percent in the mid-1990s, thus allowing tens of thousands of Americans to continue contributing to our society and economy. And medical research spending isn't just about reducing the enormous current burdens of illness. The costs of illness may grow even higher if we fail to push ahead with further research. Infectious diseases, in particular, are continually creating new health costs. The recent emergence of Lyme disease, E. coli, and hantavirus, for example, show how nature continues to evolve new threats to health. In addition, dangerous bacteria are evolving at an alarming rate and grow resistant to every new round of antibiotics. This report extensively shows the benefits of medical research and reaffirms the enormous benefits we achieve from funding the National Institutes of Health in our fight against disease. But there is still a lot more work to be done. I am hopeful my colleagues will take a few moments to look at this report and recognize the important work done by the scientists and researchers at the NIH. It can be read in its entirety on the JEC website at: jec.senate.gov. Funding for NIH is really about-- hope and opportunity. The challenge before us is great, but America has always responded when our people are behind the challenge. America landed a man on the moon. We pioneered computer technology. America won the Cold War. Now it is time to win the war against the diseases that plague our society. We have the knowledge. We have the technology. Most important, we have the support of the American people. I ask my colleagues to join me in the effort to double funding for the National Institutes of Health. It's good economic policy, it's good public policy, and most importantly, it's good for all Americans.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for the Everglades restoration bill introduced today by my friend, and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Bob Smith. This bill represents a tremendous amount of effort and hard work and I am grateful to all my colleagues who have joined Senator Graham and me in this effort. Today is an important day in the nearly twenty-year process of restoring America's Everglades. It is important because we are standing at last at the historic juncture between planning and action. It is important because now--at long last--we have a realistic chance of restoring, and protecting for future generations, a unique environmental treasure that is fractured, starved for water, and locked in a steady state of decline. And it is important because the bill we're introducing today represents the cumulative efforts of all those who did the work on the largest and most significant environmental restoration project in our nation's history. Why does this bill matter? Why are the Everglades deserving of Congress' time and effort? Let me offer a few reasons. This bill matters because in the last century a wonderful, pristine natural system in the heart of South Florida was systematically robbed of its beauty and uniqueness in the name of short-term human interest. This bill matters because the America's Everglades is a national treasure, unique in the world, and deserving of a better fate than what is currently written for it in the laws of this country. Our bill matters because we Floridians--after years of acrimony and conflicting goals-- have come together behind a balanced plan that fully reconciles the needs of the natural system with those of the existing water users. And the restoration matters--to us, as legislators--because past Congresses caused this problem, and we in our generation should fix it. It has been well documented how the Congress in 1948--acting under the pressures of the day--authorized the systematic destruction of the Everglades in the name of flood control, urban development, and agriculture. That is history and we cannot change that. Instead, we must respond to the needs and priorities of our own generation, and pass this good bill to restore America's Everglades. Let's be clear, Mr. President. Passing this bill, this year, is all that remains between the long years of study and the actual restoration of America's Everglades. The administration has done their part in devoting a tremendous amount of time and effort on the document before you. To Governor Bush's credit, the State of Florida has already written this plan into Florida's laws and arranged funding for Florida's share of the cost. There is only one task remaining: we in Congress must pass this plan, this year, and let the work of restoration begin. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the bill we're introducing today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for the Everglades restoration bill introduced today by my friend, and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Bob Smith. This bill represents a tremendous amount of effort and hard work and I am grateful to all my colleagues who have joined Senator Graham and me in this effort. Today is an important day in the nearly twenty-year process of restoring America's Everglades. It is important because we are standing at last at the historic juncture between planning and action. It is important because now--at long last--we have a realistic chance of restoring, and protecting for future generations, a unique environmental treasure that is fractured, starved for water, and locked in a steady state of decline. And it is important because the bill we're introducing today represents the cumulative efforts of all those who did the work on the largest and most significant environmental restoration project in our nation's history. Why does this bill matter? Why are the Everglades deserving of Congress' time and effort? Let me offer a few reasons. This bill matters because in the last century a wonderful, pristine natural system in the heart of South Florida was systematically robbed of its beauty and uniqueness in the name of short-term human interest. This bill matters because the America's Everglades is a national treasure, unique in the world, and deserving of a better fate than what is currently written for it in the laws of this country. Our bill matters because we Floridians--after years of acrimony and conflicting goals-- have come together behind a balanced plan that fully reconciles the needs of the natural system with those of the existing water users. And the restoration matters--to us, as legislators--because past Congresses caused this problem, and we in our generation should fix it. It has been well documented how the Congress in 1948--acting under the pressures of the day--authorized the systematic destruction of the Everglades in the name of flood control, urban development, and agriculture. That is history and we cannot change that. Instead, we must respond to the needs and priorities of our own generation, and pass this good bill to restore America's Everglades. Let's be clear, Mr. President. Passing this bill, this year, is all that remains between the long years of study and the actual restoration of America's Everglades. The administration has done their part in devoting a tremendous amount of time and effort on the document before you. To Governor Bush's credit, the State of Florida has already written this plan into Florida's laws and arranged funding for Florida's share of the cost. There is only one task remaining: we in Congress must pass this plan, this year, and let the work of restoration begin. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the bill we're introducing today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I begin by saying to my friend, Senator Dodd, how much I appreciate his comments at the beginning of his speech to the Senate. I appreciate the relationship we have developed. Certainly, one of the things I will truly miss as I leave the Senate at the end of this year is the relationships that have been developed and the opportunity to expand on those relationships with others. Again, it has been a delight. However, we do have very strong differences of opinion on this issue. I will begin by pointing at the chart that has been put up next to Senator Dodd. There is one very fundamental difference. Each of those leaders reached out; they wanted to bring about change. We have seen absolutely, positively none of that from Fidel Castro. There is no indication--not an iota of evidence--that Fidel Castro wants to change. Later today, we will be voting on this amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill, which is designed to establish a commission to review and report on the United States policy toward Cuba. I have spoken with many colleagues recently about this amendment and the idea of forming a commission. I understand from some Senators that they have concerns that they want a chance to discuss regarding Cuba. But the goal of those Senators seems to be either broad sanctions reform or the enactment of specific changes in our policies toward Cuba. But today we are debating an amendment on forming a commission. This commission is blatantly political, in my opinion, so much so that no serious effort can come from a commission designed to be so skewed. This commission accomplishes nobody's goal. Let me make three points: First, we don't need a national commission to study only Cuba sanctions; second, we should not tie the hands of the next President to set his own Cuba policy; and, third, we should not set policy through a partisan commission outside of the normal conduct of foreign policy by the executive branch. The legislation on which you are being asked to vote establishes a 12-person panel to review and report on various aspects of Cuba policy. But this is why we have a Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, an International Relations Committee in the House, and a U.S. Department of State. Why are we making Government bigger and more expensive than it needs to be? Especially, as my friend from Connecticut has argued, this amendment does not take a position or implement a policy. Let me highlight a few of the details. This commission is appointed as follows--and, again, I note that my friend indicated this is not a partisan issue, but we who have been around here for a long time all know these issues end up being influenced by politics. What we are going to have is a commission of 12 people, 6 appointed by the current President. The current President will put six members on a commission to tell the next President what his policy toward Cuba should be. And there will be three from each House--two majority, one minority. That means two-thirds of the commission would be appointed by Democrats; that is, 8 of the 12 members of the commission would be appointed by Democrats. One-third, that is, four members of the commission, would be Republicans. That is not the way to set foreign policy. Our current policy, set by the State Department and the President, has been endorsed by the Congress over the years with significant legislation. The only reason for this special commission is to try to change current policy through abnormal means. Let me talk for a moment about American foreign policy in general. I hear the rhetoric often that, after 39 years, clearly, our Cuba policy has not brought democracy to Cuba and therefore it must be abandoned as a failure. Think about that argument for a moment. What if Ronald Reagan had come into office and declared in 1980: After 40 years, since there is no democracy in the Soviet Union, our Soviet policy must be abandoned? Reagan did the opposite. He had the courage to call the Soviet Union what it was, an ``evil empire.'' His courage and commitment brought democratic reform to Russia. America's foreign policy must reflect America's commitment to the principles we believe in: freedom, democracy, justice, and respect for human dignity. My friend from Connecticut has stated that the policy is aimed at one man, Fidel Castro, but it denies basic necessities to the entire 11 million people of Cuba. The reality is that Cuba can purchase goods from the entire world. By closing the American market to Cuba, we are denying the people nothing. Fidel Castro keeps Cuba poor, not the United States embargo. By maintaining the current policy, however, of isolating Fidel Castro, we are doing as a Nation what we have done for so many generations: We are standing shoulder to shoulder with people struggling for freedom. We are standing for truth and dignity and supporting heroes when we oppose Fidel Castro and deny him the means to build up his resources. Since trade has been an important issue of discussion lately given the pending vote on trade with China, perhaps some more detail would be helpful on the differences between China and Cuba. Simply stated, China began policy changes and economic reforms as early as 1978. Today, they continue to open their economy, seek engagement in the community of nations, and look for investment and trade. Let me tell you about Cuba. I will provide details from a study conducted by the University of Miami: Cuba does not permit trade independent from the state; most of Cuba's exportable products to the United States are produced by Cuban state-run enterprises with workers being paid near slave wages; many of these products would compete unfairly with United States agriculture and manufactured products, or with other products imported from the democratic countries of the Caribbean into the United States; Cuba does not permit individual freedom in economic matters; investments in Cuba are directed and approved by the Government of Cuba; it is illegal for foreign investors to hire or fire Cuban workers directly and the Cuban Ministry of Labor does the hiring; foreign companies must pay the wages owed to their employees directly to the Cuban Government in hard currency; the Cuban Government then pays the workers in Cuban pesos, worth one-twentieth of a dollar, and the Government pockets 90 percent of the wages paid in by the investor; Cuba has no independent judicial system to settle commercial disputes. In short, Fidel Castro has failed to make any of the changes made by Beijing. An investment in China today can empower a Chinese middle class and move power away from the center. An investment in Cuba today benefits Fidel Castro and disadvantages the 11 million people struggling for freedom. It is that simple. As recently as 1997, Fidel Castro argued against the wisdom of economic reforms and reasserted the supremacy of Communist ideology. In addition, political parties remain outlawed. Dissidents are either exiled, banished to the far reaches of the island, or simply imprisoned. The church continues to complain that the promises made during the Pope's visit have not been complied with. The daily activities of the average Cuban citizen continue to be monitored by the state's notorious ``neighborhood watch committees,'' known as the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution. These have been in place for 40 years and continue in place today. Amnesty International counts at least 400 prisoners of conscience, but this does not include the thousands convicted under trumped up charges for political purposes. I am not simply arguing ideology here today. We have empirical evidence of the failure of the policy recommendation to trade with Cuba; we need only to look at Canada's recent experiences. After arguing for a policy of opening trade with Cuba, our neighbors to the North are now pulling out. I will quote from The Globe and Mail of June 30, 1999: The Canadian government had hoped that investing directly in the Cuban economy by building plants and infrastructure would not only deliver an economic return, but also lead to wider-ranging reforms. Those hopes have been largely dashed as Canadian companies report woeful tales of pouring good money into bad investments in Cuba. Mr. President, policies of so-called engagement with Castro have failed for those who have tried. We all shared great hope when the Pope visited Cuba in January 1998. The United States promised to respond positively to any changes made by the Castro regime following the Pope's visit. We expected to see more space for the Cuban people: freedom of speech and more freedom of religious expression. We know now that even these hopes have been dashed. The Pope just last December expressed his disappointment in the changes in Cuba. A December 2, 1999 Reuters wire story reports, The clear wording of the Pope's speech indicated that the Vatican felt that not much has changed on the predominantly Catholic island in two years. We know that President Reagan's wisdom remains true--after 39 years of isolating Cuba, we must not fear calling things as we see them. Fidel Castro is an evil tyrant. He impoverishes the Cuban people in spite of the efforts of many to open the society to freedom and the economy to investment. Fidel Castro denies his people the basic necessities for life, liberty, and happiness. Mr. President, I do not object to evaluating our policies, but we must be honest, this is not the way. When Cuba changes, the United States must also change. Until then, we must remain committed to our principles, because it is our principles which make us strong. No missile system, no fleet of warships, will keep the United States the shining city on the hill--the beacon of freedom which we all saw when Ronald Reagan was President. I hope that my colleagues will join me. And I hope that they will stand with me for freedom. stand with me for democracy, stand with me for justice, and stand with me for respect for the human dignity of the 11 million people in Cuba.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I merely seek recognition to move to table the Dodd amendment No. 3475, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MACK. I understand that vote will take place at 3:15 p.m. among three stacked votes, I believe.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to table this amendment. It is blatantly political in its nature. Of the 12 positions, 8 will be determined by the Democratic Party and 4 by the Republicans; 6 by the President, 2 by the majority in each of the Houses, 1 by the minority in each. That is 8 of 12--two-thirds. We should not, today, be telling the next President of the United States what his policy should be with respect to Cuba. This Congress and this President should not be doing that. Third, I only had the opportunity to speak with Frank Carlucci and Howard Baker. While they accept the concept of a commission, they don't support one that is so blatantly political, and they don't support one being established at this time. I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I move to table the amendment.