Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a common sense piece of legislation that would prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United States by the Government of the Russian Federation until the President of the United States certifies to the Congress that Russia has ceased all operations and permanently closed its intelligence facility at Lourdes, Cuba. Currently the Government of the Russian Federation maintains a signals intelligence facility in Lourdes, Cuba from which it conducts intelligence activities directed against the United States. The Secretary of Defense has reported that the Russian Federation leases the Lourdes facility for an estimated $100 to $300 million every year. This is several hundred million dollars flowing to support a brutal tyrant for the purpose of supporting espionage. Mr. President, the United States should prohibit debt rescheduling and forgiveness for a country that is conducting espionage activities against America, while infusing Castro's despotic government with between $100 million and $300 million per year. I am pleased to have my colleague from New Jersey as a cosponsor of this legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly pass this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a common sense piece of legislation that would prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United States by the Government of the Russian Federation until the President of the United States certifies to the Congress that Russia has ceased all operations and permanently closed its intelligence facility at Lourdes, Cuba. Currently the Government of the Russian Federation maintains a signals intelligence facility in Lourdes, Cuba from which it conducts intelligence activities directed against the United States. The Secretary of Defense has reported that the Russian Federation leases the Lourdes facility for an estimated $100 to $300 million every year. This is several hundred million dollars flowing to support a brutal tyrant for the purpose of supporting espionage. Mr. President, the United States should prohibit debt rescheduling and forgiveness for a country that is conducting espionage activities against America, while infusing Castro's despotic government with between $100 million and $300 million per year. I am pleased to have my colleague from New Jersey as a cosponsor of this legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly pass this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise with my friend and colleague Senator Graham to introduce the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act. This bill is identical to legislation that passed the House on May 4, 2000 by a vote of 411-7, and would provide Federal resources to help improve and maintain one of our Nation's real treasures, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The Florida Keys are a spectacular natural resource of international significance. Within the Florida Keys lies the only living coral reef bed in the United States and the third largest living coral reef in the world. The reef is home to plants and animals unique to this area and that comprise a rare and sensitive ecosystem at the southern end of the Everglades ecosystem. While the spectacular coral reef is the Keys' most popular feature, they are also known for native seagrass beds, lush tropical hardwood hammocks, mangrove forests, rocky pinelands, the endangered key deer, and a wide array of aquatic life. The Florida Keys marine ecosystem is dependent upon clean, clear water with low nutrient levels for its survival. Water quality experts have found that the inadequate wastewater treatment and storm water management systems are major contributors of pollution in the nearby waters off the Florida Keys. This increased pollution has had devastating effects on the marine environment, and is threatening the reefs on the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unless decisive action is taken to stop the flow of pollution, scientists warn the ecosystem will continue its decline towards total collapse. The source of the problem is clear. The Keys have almost no water quality infrastructure. Lacking adequate technology, untreated wastewater now travels easily through porous limestone rock into the near-shore waters. Polluted stormwater also flows from developed land into the same near-shore waters. Our bill is a natural extension of the Federal commitment to the Florida Keys made under the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Protection Act approved by Congress in 1990. This legislation established a Federal role in the research and protection of the Keys marine ecosystem. The Act directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Florida to establish a Water Quality Steering Committee which was charged with developing a comprehensive water quality protection program. In fulfilling this directive, the steering committee worked closely with dedicated citizens, scientists, and technical experts. In the final analysis, it found that inadequate wastewater and stormwater systems are the single largest source of pollution in the Keys. This bill authorizes Federal assistance to help local officials afford the necessary improvements to protect the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. It establishes a grant program under the Environmental Protection Agency for the construction of treatment works projects aimed at improving the water quality of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The administrator of EPA, after consultation with State and local officials, would be authorized to fund treatment works projects that comply or are consistent with local growth ordinances, plans and agreements, as well as current water quality standards. Projects funded under this program would be cost-shared, with local sponsors providing a minimum of 25 percent of the project costs. This bill authorizes $213 million in Federal funding for the deployment of water quality technology throughout the Keys. To make the necessary wastewater improvements, the estimated cost to improve near- shore water quality in the Florida Keys is between $184 million and $418 million. To make the necessary storm water management improvements, the estimated cost is between $370 million and $680 million. The Federal government is not going to bear the entire cost, even though this is a national resource. The State of Florida is obligated to come up with 25 percent cost share. Moneys authorized by this bill will be utilized to replace the dated, inefficient system of sludge ponds and septic tanks currently being used in the Keys with modern waste and storm water treatment works. By ensuring that the nutrients associated with such wastes are not discharged or released into the surrounding waters, we can prevent further damage to the marine environment and achieve dramatic improvement to the water quality in the National Marine Sanctuary. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable approach to maintaining an essential national resource. I hope there will be a broad, bipartisan support for this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Breaux, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Breaux, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I am glad to let my colleague go first.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, let me make just a couple of comments before I give my prepared remarks. It is interesting how this debate is being engaged rather vigorously so quickly and so early this morning. I remind my colleagues that this is basically this same amendment that was adopted by the Senate 63-35 in the last Congress. I imagine the reason for it is that all of my colleagues received a letter from the National Education Association, the teachers union, in opposition to this amendment. This letter from the National Education Association on behalf of its 2.5 million members strongly urges opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Abraham and myself. They are opposed to it because it authorizes ``federal funds for [the purpose of] testing of current teachers, tenure reform, and merit pay.'' I find it interesting that the NEA previously came out in support of testing--NEA President Bob Chase has said the NEA: . . . wholeheartedly supports and endorses the recommendations of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future's new report, ``Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching.'' The report recommends: Teachers should be licensed based on demonstrated performance, including tests of subject matter knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching skill. The report recommends: To encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill, we should develop a career continuum for teaching linked to assessments and compensation systems that reward knowledge and skill. That sounds to me like a broad endorsement of the concept of testing teachers to understand where they are with respect to the knowledge they have in the courses they are going to be teaching. I think it clearly indicates the idea of moving away from pay being based on someone's seniority to one based on merit--pay should be based on the ability to teach, the ability to be able to show, in testing, that they have the knowledge in the areas in which they are teaching. So I make that comment to begin. Further, with respect to questions about merit pay, again, my colleague already referred to the fact there have been States experimenting with this idea since the late 1960s. But Denver, CO, has a merit pay system. Interestingly enough, the Secretary of Education, Secretary Riley, when he was Governor of South Carolina, endorsed merit pay. In Florida, we encourage teachers to participate in what I believe is the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. If a teacher in the State of Florida successfully completes that process and becomes certified by this board, they are going to receive a bonus. I think that is merit pay. So this idea that I think the Senator from Massachusetts tried to imply, that this is something no one is pursuing and there is no value to it, I would say, is not accurate. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Abraham, to offer this critically important amendment. It focuses on the single most important, yet most overlooked, aspect of education-- the quality of America's teachers. Education is the engine of social and economic progress, and the ladder of opportunity. The rungs of that ladder must be supported by exceptional teachers. I have little doubt that the American spirit of ingenuity and innovation will continue to lead the world in providing new economic opportunities, expanding medical research and improving the quality of life for everyone. But there is a catch. For our children and grandchildren to achieve the high standards we expect of them, we must provide them with the tools they need to help them excel. The economic security of our children depends upon the quality of their education. Each time we debate education reform in America, there is a growing sentiment that continued viability of the American dream could slip away simply because our children are unprepared to face tomorrow's challenges. The academic performance of America's students in international exams can hardly be considered world class. In fact, the longer our students attend American schools, the further behind they fall in performance. Consider these statistics: While America's 4th graders score above the international average in math tests, they continue to trail students in countries like Austria, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Singapore. By the 8th grade, American students barely meet the international average, and by the 12th grade, American students lag far behind their international peers. In science, U.S. students score above the international average in both 4th and 8th grades. But, in 4th grade, U.S. students are outranked by only one country--Korea. By the 8th grade, thirteen countries outrank U.S. students. Again, that is an indication that the longer they are in school, the further behind they fall with other countries in the world. In international physics tests, American 12th graders ranked sixteenth, and far behind countries like Russia, Slovenia, Latvia and the Czech Republic. In both math and science, the performance of U.S. 12th graders is among the lowest in the industrialized world. Of the 21 countries that participate, the United States placed 16th in science and 19th in math skills. Our students will be denied basic opportunities because they have not been adequately equipped to face a new, competitive, and global economy. We can and must do better. Without qualified teachers in America's classrooms, all other attempts at reform are meaningless. We have long focused on the need to hire more teachers--as many as two million over the next decade. Our focus shouldn't be on the number of teachers, but rather, on the quality of those teachers. As long as students are compelled to attend school, we should be compelled to staff those schools with the best and brightest teachers. Parents all over the state of Florida, and I imagine the same is true around the country, are concerned that the success--or failure--of their child's entire academic year will be determined by the quality and expertise of their child's teacher. Studies show that the most important factor in determining student success on standardized tests is the teacher's ability to present the material. As States are taking important steps to challenge their students with high-stakes tests for promotion and graduation, we must encourage states to step up to the plate and provide students with teachers who are better prepared than ever before. Further complicating the situation is the shortage of teachers nationwide, which has led many school districts to assign teachers to subjects for which they have no formal training. Four million American students are currently being taught English, Math, or History by teachers who have neither a college major or minor in the subject they are teaching. Four million kids! Mr. President, maybe I have a slightly different perspective in looking at these numbers today than I would have, say, 5 or 6 weeks ago. Priscilla and I were just blessed with our first granddaughter. We already have three grandsons, but this is our first granddaughter. While all of us in the family are engaged in the early days of raising that little baby and trying to get through the night, we are also concerned about the future for little Addison. Is she going to be among the one out of five students in America being taught English by a teacher who doesn't have a major or minor in English? Think about that for a moment. I think one out of four math students are being taught by teachers who do not have a minor or major in that subject. So when I think about little Addison's future, and I realize the competitive world in which we live today, and how much more competitive it is going to be in the future, I know she is not going to be able to compete and have the same opportunities we all have enjoyed if she doesn't have an education second to none. Frankly, that can only come about as a result of having high-quality teachers in the classroom--teachers who my son and his wife, Ann, can be comfortable in knowing have the knowledge and expertise to provide that education. Requiring secondary school teachers to earn a major or minor in their subjects might make sense if there were not a clearly superior policy that could be adopted instead, such as requiring teachers to pass a subject knowledge test for the subject areas they teach. Teacher testing is an important first step toward upgrading the quality of instruction in the classroom. Testing provides a valuable opportunity for teachers to demonstrate knowledge of subjects for which they do not hold a major or minor degree. It will also enable principals to evaluate their staffing needs and to staff classrooms with the most qualified teachers. You simply can not teach what you don't know. Common sense also dictates that we should not focus solely on under- performing teachers. We must also recognize that there are many great teachers who are successfully challenging their students on a daily basis. Teaching is one of the most important and challenging professions. While many excellent, enthusiastic, and well prepared teachers already work in America's schools, their work often goes unrecognized and unrewarded. Salaries for teachers lag far behind other professions for which a college degree is expected or required, and as a result, many exceptional teachers leave the profession and others who would be exceptional teachers never even consider teaching. We have created a system of clear incentives for our best teachers to leave the classroom. Instead, we should be enacting policies to keep the best and brightest teachers in the classroom. To do this, we need to evaluate and reward teachers with a compensation system that supports and encourages them to strengthen their skills and demonstrate high levels of performance. That, in turn, will enhance learning for all children. Today, schools compensate teachers based almost solely on seniority, not on their performance inside the classroom. It rewards underperforming teachers and penalizes exceptional ones by grouping them together in a single pay scale based primarily upon length of service. Merit-pay would differentiate between teachers who are hard- working and inspiring, and those who fall short. It is true that good teachers cost money. But the fact is, bad teachers can cost more because they limit the education of a child and his or her ability to contribute to society. We hear quite often that merit pay won't work in public schools because it is too difficult to compare the accomplishments between teachers teaching smart, wealthy, well-disciplined, well-fed children versus those teaching poor, inattentive, hungry and unruly children. These conditions are no different than the differences faced by other professionals like doctors or lawyers who face both unwinnable cases or deadly diseases. Teachers should also be rewarded proportionately to their accomplishments in enhancing student learning, attitudes, and behavior. This is not to suggest that simply throwing more money at schools and teachers will rescue schools from mediocrity. Some suggest we try throwing more money at the problem, although I would point out that we have already tried that. The United States spends more money per pupil than any other industrialized nation, and as I mentioned earlier, our children are not achieving high levels of performance on international standardized exams. The reality is that no amount of money will save mismanaged, bureaucratic, red-tape ridden schools from failure. And no amount of money will rescue a student who is placed in a classroom led by an unprepared, unenthusiastic, and uninspiring teacher. This debate is less about money and more about giving teachers a greater stake in the education they provide. We can do this by offering them real incentives to do their best so that their dedication and expertise will be recognized and rewarded. This will benefit all students. Our amendment, known as the MERIT Act, will enable states to use their limited federal dollars on a number of initiatives to enhance teacher quality. First, this amendment provides funding for states to develop rigorous exams to periodically test elementary and secondary school teachers on their knowledge of the subjects they are teaching. Secondly, this amendment provides funding to states to establish compensation systems for teachers based upon merit and proven performance. Finally, this amendment provides states with resources to reform current tenure programs. This broad approach will enable states to staff their schools with the best and most qualified teachers, thereby enhancing learning for all students. In turn, teachers can be certain that all of their energy, dedication and expertise will be rewarded. And it will be done without placing new mandates on states or increasing the federal bureaucracy. Last Congress, the Senate passed a similar amendment with bipartisan support by a vote of 63-35 during debate on the Education Savings Account legislation. Unfortunately, the President vetoed that bill, despite his previous support for teacher testing. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue the fight to give dedicated professionals, who teach our children, a personal stake in the quality of the instruction they provide. I hope there will again be broad, bipartisan support for this amendment. I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, that is a story I remember very well. To cut it short takes away, I think, the strength of its message. So maybe a little bit later on in the debate we can discuss it, but I would be glad to yield the time back to the Senator so she can continue.

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to do this. A number of years ago, my wife and I visited a school called the Marcus Garvey School in Los Angeles. I went there because I was trying to learn more about the different types of schools in America--what works, what does not work. While I am going to be talking about the Marcus Garvey School, I am not endorsing or embracing everything the school does. But the thing that stood out to me was the role of the teacher in this school. So this is what happened. I went to the Marcus Garvey School and met the administrator, the principal, the owner of the school--all one person, Anyim Palmer, who was in a room probably no bigger than 10 by 10, filled with furniture that was probably 35 or 40 years old. The phone was on a stack of papers. There was no secretary. When the phone rang, he answered it. The point I am making is there were not a lot of amenities. This is basic stuff. This is a building with rooms in it, an administrator, teachers, and students. He said: I want to take you down and show you what some of our students are doing. Unfortunately, the school is not filled today because of the time of the year it is. Priscilla and I went down to a room where there were three different groups of children being taught in the same room. The first group of students we saw were 2-year-old children. Again, I emphasize 2-year- olds, not second graders; 2-year-old children. There were eight of them sitting at a little table. The teacher said to the children: Show the Senator and Mrs. Mack how you can say your ABCs. You can imagine the cute little voices of those children as they recited their ABCs. When they finished that, the teacher said: Now that you have done it in English, do it in Spanish. So then these little 2-year-old children went through their alphabet in Spanish. When they finished that, the teacher then said to them: Now do the alphabet in Swahili, and they did that as well--2 years old. We went across the room to where 3-year-old children were doing math problems. The teacher said to me: Give one of the students a math problem. As I would suspect most people would have done, I gave a problem such as 5 plus 8--you know, pretty straightforward. But, again, 3 years old. She said: No, no, no, give them a tough problem. So I said something like 325 plus 182. And this 3-year-old child, standing at the board, put down little dots, wrote down a number, another series of dots, wrote down a number and got the right answer at 3-years-old. We went across the room where 4-year-old children were reading. We were told that these children were reading at the second, third, and fourth grade level. They were 4 years old. We went into another room in this facility where there were 5-year- old children. A little boy was asked to stand up and recite for me, in the proper chronological order, every President of the United States. That little fellow stood up, looked me right in the eyes, and he rattled right through every President of the United States in the proper order. I must admit I knew he did that because they gave me a cheat sheet to look at. He was 5 years old. Every time we went to a different area and saw these students, these children at work, Priscilla and I would say to this person who was taking us around: How can this be? How can this possibly be? What makes this work? Every single time we asked the question, the answer was: It is the teacher. It is the teacher. It is the teacher. Anyim Palmer challenged what was then considered the best private school in Los Angeles County, their sixth grade against his third grade students. I think it was in math and English. You know who won--Anyim Palmer's third grade beat the sixth graders. How did he do it? What he said to me was: It was the teacher. What I found out later is Anyim Palmer was a public school teacher in California who became so frustrated and angry that the system was failing to teach children in his community that he quit the public schools and started his own school. Do you know what he did? He also trained his own teachers. He said: Forget everything you have learned. I am going to train you. I am going to teach you how to teach. Again, I thank the Senator for asking me to restate that story. It made a major impression on me. We can talk about all these other things, but we must focus on how to make sure that the teacher standing up in front of our children and grandchildren has the knowledge in the subject they are teaching--this is not fancy. We are not asking for special degrees. I am asking a very simple question. If a teacher is standing in front of my little granddaughter, Addison, a few years from now, I want my son and his wife to know the person who is teaching their little daughter has the knowledge in the subject they are teaching. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request to make. I thank the Senator for asking the question. I yield.

Mr. MACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. MACK. I say to the Senator he is exactly right, there is no mandate. As strongly as I feel about it, I would like to, but I do not think that is our role. I think we can make some serious mistakes by mandating certain things, to say to a particular school district or a particular State they have to do what I say. They might say, what if we put this kind of testing program into effect but our concern is we need more computers. We need more books. We need--whatever. This is not a mandate. It never has been a mandate. It never will be a mandate, at least as far as the Senator from Michigan and I are concerned. It is merely a statement of importance and it says to the schools if they want to, these dollars can be used for the purpose of developing the concepts for creating tests, developing some merit pay program, or in reforming tenure, all three of which we think can in fact go to the heart of the matter about what is necessary to improve the ability of the teacher. The inference was made earlier that somehow or another those of us who are talking about this are out to degrade the teachers in this country. That is absolutely a false challenge. Most of us can remember those teachers who made a difference in our lives, who challenged us, who demanded from us that we do better. Each of us responded in a little bit different way. But we understand the importance of having good, quality teachers, and there are a lot of them. That is why we put the merit pay in, to recognize that. Again, as to this notion that somehow or another if we were to put in place a merit pay system that, highlights teachers who are doing well, and encourages those who are not teaching our children to do better and somehow or another people would know and there would be divisions that would take place, let me tell you something. There is probably not a school in America where every teacher doesn't know who is carrying the load and who is not. You do not need a merit pay program for students and teachers alike to know who the good teachers are. You can just hear the kids talking about it: Boy, I hope I don't get in so-and-so's class. It doesn't take a merit program. Merit pay is not going to do that. Children and parents already know the good ones and those who are not carrying their load. What we are trying to do is the right thing.

Mr. MACK. I certainly hope it would do that. I believe it would. As both of us have indicated, the State of Florida has developed a program that provides an incentive for teachers to get certification by a national board. If they receive that certification, they get a bonus. They also get a bonus if they encourage another teacher to do the same thing. What we are saying is, we are recognizing, not only through the dollars but through our interest, the importance of that individual teacher and the importance of the quality of that individual teacher. I believe it would encourage them to stay in the system longer. Most of the teachers love the children they are teaching. They want them to do better. We just need to give more encouragement to those teachers.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, in the early morning hours of Holy Saturday, a little piece of America died. America's shining beacon of freedom faded in the Florida sky as many of us grieved over the astounding actions of the United States Government. This administration betrayed America's past and joined history's inglorious list of governments that have chosen to use excessive force against its own law-abiding citizens. Our founding fathers believed in a Government of, for, and by, the people, a Government designed to serve and benefit the people, not to serve and benefit the needs of Government, and certainly not to substitute brute force for the rule of law. These are reminiscent of the tactics used by tyrants and despots. The decisions by this administration that led to the events of last Saturday will be remembered as a day of shame in our American history. My comments today are not directed toward the law enforcement officers who carried out the operation; I understand they are charged with a duty and must follow the directives of the Attorney General and the President of the United States. My comments today are not directed at the ultimate disposition of Elian's residency or custody, and they are not intended to be partisan or political, but they do go directly to the heart of who we are as a Nation and what we expect of our Government. As most people know, the Elian Gonzalez matter is pending in Federal court. Just last Wednesday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Elian Gonzalez must remain in the United States during the review of his Federal court case. The opinion of the court suggests the INS and the Department of Justice were wrong in not granting Elian an asylum hearing. In the final footnote of the opinion, the court encouraged the parties to avail themselves voluntarily of the Eleventh Circuit's mediation services. The court believed that mediation was an appropriate avenue to resolve this heart gripping situation. The Attorney General did not listen to the court. She was obsessed with reuniting Elian with his father at any cost. Perhaps she would have been wise to listen to the words of Daniel Webster: ``Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint.'' Perhaps she should have listened to her own words: ``I'm trying to work through an extraordinary human tragedy. And the importance of working through it is that we do so in good faith, without violence, without having to cause further disruption to the little boy.'' This statement was made nine days before the raid. The night before the raid, mediation between the Department of Justice, the Miami family and Juan Miguel Gonzalez had gone on all night and into the wee hours of Saturday morning. Even as the negotiations continued on the telephone with all parties, agents of the administration dressed in fatigues and masks exploded into the home of Lazaro Gonzalez with machine guns drawn--and one machine gun that was pointed dramatically in the face of a screaming child. The Government held all the power, and the Government used intimidation to force a family, a loving caring family, into a corner. Remember this is the family originally selected by the Attorney General to care for Elian. The administration offered ultimatums when fair mediation was needed. This administration resorted to the power of a machine gun to intimidate an American family. What possible benefit could come from this act? Tactics such as these deserve a full explanation. Why would the Department of Justice stage a raid when mediator Aaron Podhurst stated that a deal between the parties was ``minutes to an hour away''? Why would they be so impatient with a solution so near? The Attorney General said that they had a window during which to conduct the raid of Saturday through Monday. Why could they not have waited for negotiations to play out. What credible information existed to suggest this level of force needed to be used? Another question that deserves fuller explanation speaks to the impact of the raid on the boy. Wouldn't any psychologist or psychiatrist who actually examined the child say this action would further traumatize the boy? But sadly, the INS team of experts never did examine the boy to make an informed evaluation. How could such tactics possibly be in the best interests of a child who has suffered so much? What right did this administration have to add this trauma to the terrible loss Elian has already suffered? And why did he have to suffer at the hands of the people who are supposed to defend the rule of law, the INS, the DoJ, and the President of the United States. Let's think for a moment about the decision the father and the Justice Department made in putting Elian's life at risk with the plans for the pre-dawn raid. I have never questioned the father's love for the boy, but I cannot imagine any father would choose to put his son's life at risk a second time. But it is not an unloving father who put his son in harm's way-the father is as much a victim as Elian in many ways. The father had a simple choice: travel to a safe house in Miami and have Elian voluntarily transferred into his custody or insist on remaining in Washington and have the U.S. government seize his son in a violent, dangerous raid. Just as it wasn't the father's decision not to come to his boy's side for the first four months of this ordeal, it was not his decision to remain in Washington, forcing a raid at gunpoint. Castro would not allow the father to travel then and he would not allow him to travel last weekend. President Clinton promised my colleague Senator Graham that Elian would not be seized in the middle of the night, and now we must ask again, why did he promise one thing and yet do another? Elian deserves access to all of his legal options, Elian deserves an asylum hearing, and he deserves the protection of U.S. law. Yet that is for another day. The use of force must be dealt with today. Does the end justify the means? Will these means ever be justified? There have been accusations of playing politics with this issue. But perhaps we ought to recognize what several of the Attorney General's long-time supporters have said. The four mediators from Miami that were involved in the negotiations with Janet Reno have clearly challenged the administration's characterization of the events of last Saturday. They said they were close to an agreement and felt confident a peaceful solution could have been reached. We cannot simply sweep these issues away and dispense of them in the name of politics. This is a long, sad story and I'm sure many would wish it would simply fade away. But if we accept and commend the actions of our government for acting hastily in choosing excessive force over peaceful mediation, we have traveled down a very troubling road. We dare not condone such use of force to settle legal disputes. This strikes at the very heart of the balance of power and the integrity of our judicial process. This child and no child should face the intimidation and trauma of an automatic weapon in his face--especially when perpetrated by the American government--a government that has always stood for freedom and human rights throughout the world. As a father and grandfather, I am heartbroken for the frightened, vulnerable child in that photograph. My hope is that no other administration official utter the words, ``I am proud of what we did'' and instead express regret and sorrow for the trauma and pain suffered by the entire Gonzalez family. What happened saddens me as an American, a father, and a Senator. Mr. President, last Saturday morning, a little bit of America died in that raid and I hope we never again dim the light of freedom for those who look to us for hope. I yield the floor. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 297, submitted earlier by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and a statement of explanation appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, following the period of morning business, the Senate will conduct a cloture vote relative to the marriage tax penalty bill. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will remain on the bill under the provisions of rule XXII. Senators are reminded that second-degree amendments must be filed at the desk by 11 a.m. Thursday, under rule XXII. However, if cloture is not invoked, the Senate will resume debate on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 3, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to protect the rights of victims. It is hoped that the Senate will be able to proceed to that bill at a reasonable hour tomorrow. As a reminder, the Senate did receive the veto message with regard to the nuclear waste bill during today's session. By previous consent, debate on the veto override will begin on Tuesday, May 2, at 9:30 a.m., with a vote to occur at 3:15 that afternoon.

Mr. MACK

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 27. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 12 noon with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Lott, or his designee, from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.; Senator Durbin, or his designee, from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.; Senator Hutchison of Texas for up to 30 minutes; Senator Daschle, or his designee, for up to 45 minutes; Senator Thomas, or his designee, for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon the Senate proceed to the cloture vote relative to the marriage tax penalty bill.