Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Senate Resolution 287, expressing the sense of the Senate regarding U.S. policy toward Libya. It is of grave concern to me that the United States is currently considering a change in its ``Travel Ban'' policy with Libya, prior to the resolution of the Pan-Am 103 Bombing trial. Libya is a state sponsor of terrorism and a global agent of instability. Two Libyan intelligence operatives, with prior terrorist activity convictions, are now on trial for the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 and the loss of 270 lives, 180 of them Americans. Libya is engaged in one the most advanced Bio-Chemical efforts in the third world, including the acquisition of delivery vehicles. It has repeatedly engaged U.S. military forces, including an attempted missile attack on U.S. military installations in Italy in 1986. Taking into account its past behavior, we all agree that Libya has a long way to go to become a member of the family of law-abiding nations. Libya must take concrete actions to provide its sincerity. It must show complete adherence to the Pan Am 103 Judicial Authorities in Hague. If a conviction is reached, Libya must accept responsibility for any court judgement and make full payment to all judgement creditors. It is my sense that Libya must prove its vigilant and sincere cooperation in anti-terrorism efforts. U.S. policy towards Libya must remain balanced. The ``Travel Ban'' is an important tool and should not be abandoned without clear justification. A verdict is not yet at hand; I urge you to await the conclusion of the Pan Am 103 trial, and calculate our steps from there.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there was an interest here, certainly. There are some who have discriminated against one group or another, who have not spoken out for one group and have spoken out for another. In my career representing the State of Florida and the Senate, I have spoken out for every group looking for honest and fair treatment, whether they be Cuban, whether they be Nicaraguan, or whether they be Haitian. I have done that. I am proud that I have done that. Some of those positions have not been particularly popular in my State. But I have always taken that position. Again, I think the right thing to do is to ask a very simple question: What is in the boy's best interest?

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to tell a story--a modern day tragedy about a mother, Elizabeth, who so loved her son, Elian, that she tried to bring him to the shores of the United States of America from Cuba--to the shores of freedom. Had she succeeded, she would have joined her family members already in the United States: her cousin who arrived only last year; her son's great uncle and his family who have been in the United States for many years; and another cousin who has been here for over fifteen years. She would have been reunited with many other relatives who must today remain anonymous for fear of retribution by Castro against those still trapped in Cuba. Instead, she met with tragedy in the Florida straits. Elizabeth died. Her five-year- old son survived. Let me be a little more specific. On November 21, 1999, a group of 14 Cuban citizens boarded a boat bound for the United States and the shores of freedom. The motor failed shortly after departing and the group was forced to return to Cuba. Think of the anxiety at this moment, having to return after risking everything. The anticipation. The disappointment. The fear. When the boat returned to Cuba, one of the other female passengers, Arianne Horta, placed her young daughter back on the shore of Cuba. She then wanted to make sure that Elizabeth was positive in her decision to take Elian. And despite the fact that Elian had a father in Cuba, Elizabeth brought her son back on the boat to set sail for the second time that night--seeking freedom on the shores of America. If you are interested in what Elian's mother really wanted, think about the act of choosing to keep her son on the boat, while Arianne took her child off the boat. This is as clear a message as a mother can send that she wanted freedom for her child. She wanted freedom despite the risks involved, despite a failed attempt to flee hours earlier, and despite the fact that the father remained in Cuba. Think about that moment of choice for Elizabeth--put my son on the beach and he can live with his father, or keep him with me so we could have the hope of freedom. It is clear to me that she valued freedom above everything. Now think--if that was you, and you died, would you want the child returned to Cuba? Think of yourself in Nazi Germany. A mother successfully smuggles a child out, but dies in the process at the hands of the Nazis. The father, probably under duress, demands the return of his child. Would we contemplate returning him? Would we return a child under the same circumstances to Saddam Hussein's Iraq? If a mother and child were scaling the Berlin wall and the mother was shot, but the child was pushed over--would we send the child back? Absolutely not. On the night of November 21, this group of Cuban nationals repaired their boat and set sail a second time. On the following night, the boat capsized. The survivors clung to anything that would float and hung on for dear life. After a day struggling for her life, Elizabeth died. But before she passed on, she told a fellow passenger who did survive, Nivaldo Fernandez, to make sure that Elian touches land, to make sure he touches dry land. As many of my colleagues know well, if a Cuban refugee reaches American soil they will not be sent back to Cuba. Every Cuban knows that reaching ``dry land'' means they will be free from Castro's iron fist. Elizabeth's dying wish was for her Elian to reach dry land. There can be no doubt about what she wanted for her son. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with great disappointment-- disappointment in this Administration and disappointment in the Attorney General. Elian Gonzalez's mother's death will be in vain and this little boy's struggle for freedom, his struggle to live in America, simply is being dismissed if the boy's best interests and the family's legal rights are not considered. Many will say that this is a simple decision, the INS and the Department of Justice should merely reunite a father with the son he loves. I think all of us recognize the intense and profound bond between parent and child. It is to be respected and cherished. It is a natural instinct to want to reunite parent and child. But these are by no means ordinary circumstances. I ask the American people to look beyond the headlines, to understand the intense pressure this father is under. It is unlike anything you or I will ever experience in a free America. I have no doubt the father loves his little boy. But how many of us have stopped and thought about why this father did not come to his son the day he was found, exhausted and dehydrated having survived a treacherous trip at sea. Consider why he has not come for almost 5 months to support his son, hug his son, comfort his son. Again, I would suspect it is not out of lack of concern for his boy. I would suspect it is because Castro would not let him. Is it possible the father wants the boy to remain with his family in Miami and live in freedom? My understanding is that the father knew Elian and his mother were coming to this country and even told other family members that he would get to America if he ``had to do so in a bowl.'' I can't imagine anyone disagrees with the notion that Castro controls the father's words and actions through duress--through intimidation. The fact is that none of us knows the true wishes of this father. Castro has used this father and son to manipulate both Cuba and the United States. Today, the United States is not about to reunite a boy and his father, instead we are about to reunite a child and his dictator. And we are doing so against his mother's wishes. We may be doing so against his father's wishes, as well. Last week, a spokesman of the Cuban embassy stated ``Elian Gonzalez is a possession of the Cuban Government.'' In Castro's Cuba, the state always has the last word in how a child is raised--it does not matter if a parent disagrees. According to Cuban law, any parent who questions the regime or takes any action deemed to run contrary to the revolution's goals could be imprisoned or executed. Let me quote a former Cuban Government official from a recent Washington Post op-ed. Within Cuba, the return of Elian will not be seen as an act of justice by the U.S. government, but rather as yet another victory for the bully-boy tactics of Fidel Castro. This is why the dictator is trying to recover Elian--to convert him into a different kind of symbol--a symbol of the Revolution-- even though for that to happen, Elian would have to renounce his mother, the family in Miami that took care of him and even in fact, his father, Juan Miguel. Because upon returning to Cuba, he will not belong to his family. He will be another son of the Revolution. If Cuba were a free country, this situation would have been easily resolved. But Cuba is not free, it is a police state. In fact, Article 8 of Cuba's Code for Children and Youth states: ``Society and the State work for the efficient protection of youths against all influences contrary to their communist formation.'' Make no mistake, in Cuba, Elian will not have a normal childhood. In Cuba, Elian will be allowed to live with his father until he is eleven; thereafter he will be sent to work in a farm-labor camp for 45 to 60 days per year. In Cuba, Elian will face compulsory military service until he is 27. In Cuba, Elian will be indoctrinated in the glories of ``the revolution'' and taught to regard any Cubans who reject Castroism-- including his dead mother--as counterrevolutionaries and traitors. In Cuba, Elian will be allowed to attend college only if his ``political attitude and social conduct'' satisfy the regime in Havana. Returning Elian to Cuba means returning him to Fidel Castro. When I was a child, my parents had the last word in my upbringing. In Cuba, Castro's wishes carry the day--he can override any parent. Be assured Castro will begin his manipulation of Elian from the day of his return. I can see the images now--parades and banners, welcoming home the young defender of the ``Communist Revolution.'' Elian may remain closer to Fidel than any other child may be forced to suffer. The boy may get better treatment as a result, but this will be only on the surface. This innocent child will be captive--a prisoner in his own homeland. The regime cannot afford for this boy to return to Cuba only to renounce Castro's ways. Elian will be treated, not as a child, but as an opportunity to exploit. His home, his education, his father's salary, everything, will be provided as Fidel dictates. The pathetic efforts of a desperate tyrant to legitimize his method of oppression will make Elian a test. My colleagues, he is a child. Instead of Fidel's cruelties, he needs compassion. There is a reason Elian's mother and countless others have risked everything and have given their lives in the hope that their children will taste freedom. And while Elian's mother's voice cannot be heard now, her actions were loud and clear. I would not be so angry if we were truly reuniting a parent and child. But if we return Elian, the United States will be caving to the demands of the last tyrant in the Western Hemisphere and will be sending a six-year-old boy to a place that Human Rights Watch states has a ``highly developed machinery of repression.'' And the United States will be doing this without providing basic civil rights to Elian--without permitting his legal options to play out. Instead, our Government is short circuiting justice for political expediency and we will have to live with that. The outrage and fury I feel toward the administration, the Department of Justice and the INS for the manner in which they have handled the Elian Gonzalez case is overwhelming. The United States is a Nation committed to the principles of freedom, justice, democracy and respect for human dignity. We are a nation built upon a rich diversity of heritage. We celebrate the uniqueness of our roots, family traditions and cultural experiences. And while this rich diversity is the strength of our great country, we, as Americans, share a common bond that is even stronger. That common bond is our precious freedom. Freedom to pursue our dreams, freedom to raise our children, freedom to speak our minds, and freedom from a government that dictates what we say, where we should live, and what we will become. These principles strengthen our democracy, our nation. These principles are what continue to draw people to America's shores. Our democracy is designed to preserve and protect the rights of the weak and the strong. Our judicial system is designed to promote access to justice for all Americans. But what we have seen in the past several weeks from our own Justice Department in its' handling of the Elian Gonzalez case shakes the very foundation of our American principles. Instead of defending these principles, this Administration has intimidated Elian's American family with the sheer weight, power, and force of the United States Government. This Administration has chosen to grind down this family's emotions and trample on the family's rights. In the process, the best interests of this boy have been undeniably neglected and his mother's wishes ignored. This Administration's treatment of a young child has evolved into an exercise of cruel and unusual punishment to preserve a pre-determined outcome and to placate an old and bitter dictator. The United States is a free country. We have a Bill or Rights, a code of laws, and a separation of powers which guarantees no administration shall be able to sidestep the law. We are a country in which the judicial system should be permitted to work without presidential influence for political expediency--and certainly without bringing the mighty weight and power of the government down on the weakest of all people--a child. But, in the last four months, this administration, our United States Government, has overstepped its bounds. Mr. President, I am disillusioned by the present status of this struggle for freedom. Disillusioned that these calls to honor freedom have fallen on deaf ears. But, then I think of the Cuban parents who so loved their children that they sent them unaccompanied to the United States in the 1960's in what became known as ``Operation Pedro Pan.'' Fourteen thousand and eighty-four children were sent away from the clutches of Castro by their loving parents to go to America to live in freedom. These parents willingly sent their children in order to escape Castro-- in order to escape oppression. Many, if not most, of these children had no family in the United States. But they were sent to the United States with their parents wish for freedom--freedom at all costs. We know Elian's mother sought freedom for her son--and she paid the ultimate price. We know many in Elian's family had already come to the United States; some recently, some long ago. But we have taken the sad, sad action of assuming a man whose very life and that of his family, depends upon the goodwill of a tyrant, has the ability to speak freely. What a tragedy that this man cannot speak openly and freely about his true desire. What a sad day in the history of the United States of America. Our founding principle--our Declaration of Independence--declares, ``we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' We, the inheritors of this legacy, must not force people into tyranny. I appeal to the President and the Attorney General to resolve this in such a manner that Elian's struggle and his mother's tragic death will not have been in vain. Perhaps we, the United States of America, will realize that if we don't, we are making a tragic mistake in the handling of this case. It is not too late, though, to do the right thing for this little boy. I call on the President of the United States and the Attorney General once again, to consider what is in the little boy's best interest.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I hope that our colleagues across the aisle will not prevent us from reducing 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 adjustment 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 people who sacrifice income in order that they can care for their 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% and 28% 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 calm it common sense.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I intend to speak on another issue. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate to speak about an incident that occurred just before Thanksgiving Day 1999, when a mother who so loved her son that she tried to bring him to the shores of the United States of America from Cuba. Had she succeeded, she would have joined her family members already in the United States. Instead, she met with tragedy in the Florida straits. The mother died. The five- year-old boy survived. Now, we are being forced to consider young Elian's future. Today, the freedom sought by a mother for her son is being mocked. Elian Gonzalez finds himself in the middle of a struggle between his Miami family and the Department of Justice, an agency unwilling to consider what is in the best interest of the child, an agency continually impairing a fair presentation of the merits of this case. I ask my colleagues to open their minds and their hearts and listen to why the current process being used by the DOJ and the INS represents a grave injustice and denies a decision that should be based upon Elian's best interest. Remember when Elian first arrived, the INS stated that the matter was a custody decision for a Florida state family court. Forty-eight hours after Castro threatened the United States, the decision flipped, and continues to bend to Castro's will. Now the administration wants to rush an appeals process to send him back to a country that Human Rights Watch states has ``highly developed machinery of repression.'' In the past week, the Department of Justice has put unrealistic demands on the family of Elian to expedite the appeal of the federal district court decision. The Department of Justice has repeatedly threatened to revoke Elian's parole and remove the child to Cuba if the family fails to agree to their demand that both sides have an appellate brief prepared in one week. These unprecedented tactics short-circuit and dismantle the judicial process in which an appellate is typically allotted a minimum of 30-60 days to prepare a brief. This is plain and simple--Elian's family's civil rights are being denied. This past Monday, the family under great pressure filed a motion with the Eleventh Circuit to expedite the appeals process, and still, the government's threats have continued. In a letter sent to the family at 10 p.m. on Monday night, the government demanded that the family's attorneys appear for a meeting on Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. with INS officials to discuss the revocation of Elian's parole. The government has continually dictated the terms of all meetings and has bulldozed over the right of Elian and his Miami family. Today, the Department of Justice has summoned Elian's great-uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, to a meeting where he is expected by the INS to sign a unilateral demand ``to comply with the instructions of the INS,'' yet the INS has failed to provide the attorneys and the family with what those instructions will be. After all this child has been through, is it too much to ask how the government plans on removing him from the only home he now knows? Should his family agree to having INS agents come to his Miami home and take him? Probably not. But one thing is for sure: they should know the details of what they are agreeing to. Keep in mind that this same agreement, if signed, destroys any shred of dignity left in our judicial process. It demands that the family's attorneys have a brief prepared to submit to the Supreme Court within 5 days of the appellate court decision, a time line virtually impossible to meet. In its effort to dictate terms for the family's appeal, the government has betrayed the very integrity for which the Attorney General is charged with defending--equal protection under the law and the right to pursue justice in a free America. In the past week, I've heard justice department officials say they are taking more aggressive action against the family because they want to prevent them from invoking more ``legal maneuvers.'' These ``legal maneuvers'' happen to be the legal rights of Americans--properly exercised in the middle of an appeals process. These ``legal maneuvers'' are tools in which all Americans are empowered to seek a fair hearing in the United States of America. I find it unconscionable that the justice department would so blatantly express their desire to dictate terms and influence the outcome of this case. My reason for coming to the floor today is express my sheer frustration and anger in the manner in which the DOJ and the INS has handled this case. The recent acts of these two agencies demonstrate that the administration is no longer interested in resolving this case in a fair, unbiased way. The offer by the Department of Justice is a deeply flawed offer, one that no American would ever accept, one that no person in America should ever have to accept. Elian's mother sacrificed her life for the freedoms of America, freedoms she never had in Cuba, freedoms she never thought our country would deny her son in his moment of need. We should all, despite our views on this issue, be deeply ashamed at any attempt to short circuit justice in order to reach a resolution in the quickest possible way. In the United States, we stand up to injustice in the world by zealously guarding our laws. We consistently and rightly argue that our strength and power come from our commitment to America's principles: freedom, justice, democracy and the protection of basic human rights. We are a nation founded upon these principles and we remain strong because we defend them. Mr. President, today and throughout the course of Elian's stay in the United States the INS and our Attorney General have not stood up for the one thing they are supposed to defend-- justice for all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for repealing the Social Security Earnings Test for working seniors. Many of my colleagues and I have been working together for the past 12 years to pass this legislation. At long last, the Senate is going to retire the Social Security Earnings Test. The Social Security Earnings Test is a 70 year old dinosaur of a law which was initiated to insure that Social Security benefits were granted specifically to retired persons. Today, unfortunately, economic reality dictates the need for many senior citizens to continue working in order to achieve a basic standard of living. The Social Security Earnings Test stands as a roadblock to independence for tens of thousands of seniors throughout the United States. Furthermore, America's seniors represent a wealth of talent and skill. A national policy which discourages them from working is simply counterproductive. Clearly, few other states have been as impacted by the unfair Social Security Earnings Test as the people in my home state of Florida. I've seen first-hand the impact upon Seniors of laws which limit income. We have already seen the impact caused by President Clinton's 1993 tax hike on Seniors, when he raised the Social Security benefit tax from 50% up to 85%. When are we, as a nation, going to stop penalizing success? It's not a group of greedy millionaires who are being impacted by the earnings test restrictions. It's lower and moderate income Seniors who need some relief from their government to simply survive. In Florida, we are talking about grandparents who live on Social Security plus any outside work they can get. And if you have grandma in the hospital or a nursing home fighting Alzheimer's Disease, and grandpa has go find some work to pay the bills, the Social Security Earnings Test is simply another hurdle they have to overcome. Several years ago, I was visiting a worksite in Safety Harbor, Florida where I met with a group of working Seniors. I asked them why they were working past the traditional retirement age. Some said they simply wanted to have a reason to get out of the house and do something productive. Others said they needed the additional income to take care of a loved one. Still others said they wanted to maintain a certain lifestyle without Federal interference. But I was most struck by one gentleman who said to me, ``Senator, we live in a throw away society. Don't let them throw us away.'' What this gentleman was saying was that the message the Earnings Test sends is that society no longer needs you. How can we, as a society, say such a thing? Clearly, we shouldn't. Finally, consider this thought. Baseball fans might remember my grandfather, Connie Mack, who spent many years in major league baseball. In 1929, he managed the World Champion Philadelphia Athletics. In 1929, he was 66 years old. Suppose he had succumbed to the idea that, at that age, there was no purpose for pursuing one's ideas, one's dreams in life. Suppose he had been told by our nation that he was no longer of value to society. He might not have had the opportunity to produce that great team. Fortunately, we didn't have a law which could have forced him into retirement. The Federal government is sending a message to working Seniors that they are over the hill. The only thing that is over the hill is the Earnings Test. We need to retire the Earnings Test, not our Seniors.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks regarding the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act. Floridians know all too well the impact of natural disasters on the agriculture community. While I am proud of the ability of our growers to rebuild their farms after such devastating losses, enormous disaster aid bills only serve as a band-aid fix to the problem. We must work harder to ensure that all farmers have access to the necessary risk- management tools. This bill encourages growers to purchase appropriate levels of crop insurance, hopefully avoiding the band-aid fix in future appropriation measures. Florida is the ninth leading agricultural state in the nation, with annual farm receipts totaling $6 billion. The industry employs over 80,000 people and generates more than $18 billion in related economic activity. In 1998, hard working Floridians produced more than 25 billion pounds of food, and more than 2 million tons of livestock feed. I am proud to say that Florida leads the nation in production of 18 major agricultural commodities including oranges, sugarcane and fresh tomatoes. With these statistics in mind, it is imperative to ensure that federal programs work with, not against, Florida's farmers. As an original co-sponsor of S. 1401, the Specialty Crop Insurance Act of 1999, I support the effort to reduce the dependence of the specialty crop industry on catastrophic loss insurance coverage by improving its access to quality crop insurance policies. By failing to account for the unique characteristics associated with farming specialty crops, current crop insurance policies do not include many specialty crop producers. Through promotion of affordable crop insurance policies, S. 1401 would increase specialty crop producer participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Today's legislation, S. 2251, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act, includes many of these specialty crop provisions. This legislation requires that 50% of the funds dedicated to research and development for the new crop insurance products are focused on specialty crop product development. At a level of $20 million per year, the legislation authorizes the Risk Management Agency to enter into partnerships with private and public entities to increase the availability of risk management tools for specialty crops. The expertise of outside agencies will most certainly help the Risk Management Agency develop sound specialty crop insurance policies. The Risk Management for the 21st Century Act also includes an expansion of Risk Management Agency pilot authority, removal of the Non-insured Assistance Program (NAP) area trigger, incentives for growers who purchase ``buy-up'' coverage, and it proposes a premium refund for low-risk producers. These reforms will ease our nation's growers dependence on short sighted disaster relief bills. This bill is the product of countless hours of negotiation, and I believe it represents an incredible opportunity to improve our Federal Crop Insurance Program. The Agriculture Committee has been extremely helpful in including the interests of specialty crop producers, and I thank them for their time and effort. I urge my colleagues to support the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, S. Res. 60, makes March 10, 2000 the Tibetan Day of Commemoration. This marks the forty-first anniversary of the 1959 Lhasa uprising over the course of which over 87,000 Tibetans were killed, arrested, or deported to labor camps by the People's Liberation Army. So tomorrow, we honor the memory of the more than 87,000 Tibetans who struggled for the preservation of Tibet. We also honor the 6 million Tibetans today who keep alive the hope of freedom in Tibet and the tens of thousands of exiles who hope to return home. The Dalai Lama of Tibet has issued a statement for this anniversary which I would ask unanimous consent appear in the record immediately following my remarks. My distinguished colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has also issued a statement in favor of this resolution and commemorating the 41st anniversary of the Lhasa uprising. From 1949, when the new communist government in Beijing sent an army to invade Tibet, through to the present, Tibet has been a victim of PLA tyranny, oppression, and cultural genocide. Unfortunately, there has been no respite from persecution over the past year and Tibetans in the world today are facing the very real and unfortunate threat of seeing their homeland and culture obliterated. According to the most recent State Department Report on Human Rights, ``Chinese government authorities continued to commit serious human rights abuses in Tibet, including instances of torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and lengthy detention of Tibetan nationalists for peacefully expressing their political or religious views.'' Things continue to get worse in Tibet, and this resolution recognizes their ongoing struggle with the PRC. President Clinton has demonstrated an interest in Tibet and has spoken to President Jiang Zemin both privately and publicly, urging him to begin serious negotiations with the Dalai Lama. I urge President Clinton in the final months of his administration to match his rhetoric with actions and do what he can to get negotiations started between the Dalai Lama and the People's Republic of China. I am pleased that we have acted today to formally recognize the continual denial of basic rights to the people of Tibet and to encourage a peaceful resolution between China and the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, as an entire body. We can agree unanimously and in a bipartisan manner that there should be a peaceful resolution to this situation and that this Senate can stand united in our support for the Tibetan people, the preservation of their culture, and the right for them to negotiate peacefully for an end to over 50 years of brutal rule by the PRC. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement of the Dalai Lama be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment 2827. This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Hatch and Murkowski, is very simple and straightforward. It eliminates the marriage penalty in the education savings accounts. Married couples should not suffer a tax increase just because they are married. The so-called marriage penalties in the Tax Code do just that. Married couples often have to pay higher taxes than the couple would owe if they were single filers. The House has recently addressed this issue in the broader Tax Code, and we will soon do the same. But it makes no sense to have marriage penalties built into newer programs we have created, such as the tax-free education savings accounts. Under this amendment, as under the administration's HOPE scholarship tax credit and Lifetime Learning credit, the income eligibility for joint filers would be double the amount for single filers. People who qualify for these accounts when they are single should not lose this valuable opportunity to provide for their children's education just because they got married. When the Senate first passed education savings accounts in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, all Americans were eligible to use these vehicles to save for their children's education. While that bill was in conference, however, income limits were added to this tax benefit, but these limits injected a marriage penalty into this provision. There is absolutely no policy justification for a marriage penalty in education tax benefits. This should not be a partisan issue. As I mentioned earlier, the administration's education proposal did not contain a marriage penalty, but the income limits the administration negotiated when the 1997 bill was in conference created a marriage penalty in the education savings accounts. Now is the time for us to eliminate this marriage penalty. According to my Joint Economic Committee staff, this amendment will allow over 2 million households to establish education savings accounts for their children. We should be looking to remove marriage penalties in the Tax Code instead of making them worse. Our amendment will ensure that married couples can save for their children's education on an equal basis, as single individuals can. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I wanted to put some information in the Record. It is unfortunate that all Members did not have the information as to what the cost of this amendment would be. It is nowhere near what was implied by my friend who just concluded his comments. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated the amendment will reduce taxes by only $7 million over 10 years. That is point one. Point two, the reason that is the case is because the individuals who would be affected by this already have the option to use prepaid tuition plans. Now, there seems to be agreement with respect to tuition tax plans of people of high income, as Senator Reid indicated a moment ago. We have all agreed it was fair to them. Why is it not fair to allow the same benefits to derive to them under the education savings accounts as under the prepaid tuition plan? So, again, the cost is $7 million over 10 years. Roughly 2 million families would be affected, not 20 percent of potential families. It is narrowly focused and it is addressing the issue of a marriage penalty; there is no place in our proposal, the education savings plan, for discriminating against those who are married. I thank the Chair for the time.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague Senator Graham to introduce a resolution contragulating Florida State University's football team on winning the 1999 Division 1-A Collegiate Football National Championship. As a Senator from Florida and the father-in-law of an avid Seminole, I join with all those in my home state and those across this country in honoring Coach Bobby Bowden, his staff, and the football team for this outstanding accomplishment. Not only is this a special achievement that will long be remembered by the coaches and the players but it is also a moment to savor for the students, alumni and supporters of Florida State University. Florida State University has one of the most exciting, prolific and successful college football teams in the country. In fact, they won 108 football games between 1990 and 1999, more than any other Division 1-A college football team during this timeframe. By finishing the 1999 season undefeated and untied, they have also extended their NCAA Division 1-A record streak of top-four finishes in the final Associated Press poll to 13 years in a row, the only football team to have accomplished this feat. But as impressive as all these achievements are, they have accomplished what no other football team has been able to do. The 1999 Seminoles are the first Division I-A collegiate football team in the country to be ranked number one for the entire season by the Associated Press since the preseason rankings began in 1950. 1999 will also be remembered fondly by my good friend Bobby Bowden for reasons other than surpassing the 300 victory mark, or winning his second football national championship, or for obtaining his first perfect season in 40 years as a head football coach. In 1999, Coach Bowden and his lovely wife, Ann, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Coach Bowden, Priscilla and I wish you and your wife our sincere congratulations on this most important milestone. The State of Florida is indeed fortunate to be the home to three of the finest college football teams in the nation: Florida State University, the University of Florida and the University of Miami. Together, these three schools have won seven Division 1-A college football championships since 1984. That's seven college football championships in the last 16 years. This proves that the road to the college football national championship goes right through the State of Florida. For those who love to wear the Garnet and Gold and do the Seminole Chop and the FSU War Chant, I am honored to introduce this resolution on their behalf, which honors the 1999 Florida State football team, the coaches and staff for winning the Division 1-A Collegiate Football national championship. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the names of the 1999 Florida State University football players, coaches and staff, along with their season schedule, results and final polls recognizing the Florida State Seminoles as the 1999 Division 1-A national champions.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I object.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commemorate four brave Americans. Theirs is a story of courage, it is a story of heroism, and it is a story of freedom. Four years ago today, on February 24, 1996, Fidel Castro sent Cuban MiG fighters into the Florida Straits and killed Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre, Mario de la Pena, and Pablo Morales. These men were members of a humanitarian organization known as ``Brothers to the Rescue.'' These volunteers search the Florida Straits for rafters. Too many Cubans die each year in their flight to freedom. The Brothers try to save lives. So my thoughts and prayers today are with the families of the brave and courageous humanitarians who lost their lives 4 years ago. I know this day must be especially difficult for the families--today reminds them of the terrible loss suffered, and today also marks another year passed without closure. People need to be able to put the past behind them and move on. But when the President and his administration give assurances and advice, and American families trust and obey this advice only to be dragged along and let down, the administration commits a great injustice. Think for a moment about Armando's sister or Mario's mother, or any other family member. Think for a moment, how you would feel if your brother or son was murdered while volunteering with a humanitarian organzation--killed by state-of-the-art fighter jets flown by the air force of one of the world's last totalitarian dictators? I know the pain for me would be unbearable. I join with the families today in remembering these brave men. I want to tell their story of freedom, their story of courage, and their story of heroism. Armando came to the United States from Cuba as a child. He so loved his life here, his freedom, that he joined the U.S. Marine Corps and volunteered for a tour in Vietnam. He volunteered to fight for his adopted home. He survived his tour only to be murdered by Fidel Castro. He was 45 years old. His wife of 21 years and his daughter have now lived with the struggle for justice for 4 years. They are in our thoughts today. Carlos, a Florida native, was 29 years old when the Cuban government shot him out of the sky. He was always interested in aviation and dreamed of one day overseeing the operations of a major airport. He received his college degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and worked for the Dade County Aviation Department. His parents and sister today are in our thoughts. Mario, a New Jersey native, was only 24 years old when Castro's MiG's took his life. He was in his last semester at Embry-Riddle, working toward his dream of becoming an airline pilot. His parents and brother are in our thoughts today. Pablo left Cuba on a raft in 1992, and the Brothers to the Rescue saved his life. Indebted to these heroic pilots, he joined them and began training to obtain his pilot's license. Pablo often talked of his family still in Cuba and how much he missed them. Since his death, there are reports that they have been persecuted and discriminated against. Our thoughts are with his family in Cuba today. Remember, as you think of these men this afternoon, what they were doing when they lost their lives--they were working to save the lives of others. This humanitarian effort must have so enraged Fidel Castro that he ordered the interception of these small, unarmed aircraft by his huge fighter jets to be blown from the sky with air-to-air missiles. Two days after their murder four days ago, the President so moved by this tragedy said on national television; I am asking that Congress pass legislation that will provide immediate compensation to the families, something to which they are entitled under international law, out of Cuba's blocked assets here in the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two items which detail this President's request for legislation. First, a transcript of ABC Breaking News February 26, 1996, with Peter Jennings; and second, the White House press release dated February 26, 1996 in which the President requests this legislation from the Congress. I ask that this be printed immediately following my statement.

Mr. MACK. Two months later the Congress passed the bill--the Anti- Terrorism Act of 1996--and the President signed it in a large ceremony on the White House lawn. The Brothers' families wanted to understand the new rules before they chose to proceed with any civil suit. They met with officials from the U.S. State Department to clarify the meaning of the new law. In their meeting at the State Department, the families were told the U.S. Government encouraged them to file the civil lawsuit against the Cuban government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an affidavit by Maggie Khule which documents State Department support for the lawsuit be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, they took the Cuban Government to court. It took a long time, but eventually they won. In December of 1997, almost 2 years ago, a United States Federal court entered judgments against Cuba for the murders of their family members. Justice seemed to be won. The end appeared to be near. But the very same U.S. Government and the same Clinton administration that encouraged the families to postpone closure and pursue legal justice began to oppose them. They entered the lawsuit on the side of Fidel Castro. I quote from Maggie Khule's testimony of last October before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Maggie Khule is the sister of Armando Alejandre: No words can possibly explain our shock when we went to court and found U.S. attorneys sitting down at the same table as Cuba's attorneys. How can you explain to a mother who has lost her son, to a wife who has lost her husband, to a daughter who has lost her father, that their own government is taking the murderer's side? . . . The Clinton administration has shut its doors to us. Secretary of State Albright, for example, won't meet with us on any of our other concerns because, to quote an aide, ``We are on the opposing side of this civil action.'' Are we? We thought we were the victims' families, victims ourselves. We thought we were Americans entitled to protection from our own country. We thought Cuba was the terrorist, the guilty party. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to take a moment from their busy schedules today, on this fourth anniversary of the murder of four brave humanitarians, and think about the blight of terrorism and the cost it has extracted from too many families of our country. Think also this afternoon about what we ask to deter terrorism and promote justice. I want to read one more quote, this time from a Federal judge who heard the case brought by the families against Cuba. After observing this administration's change of position from support to opposition, he states the following in the March 1999 ruling: The court notes with great concern that the very President who in 1996 decried this terrorist action by the Government of Cuba now sends the Department of Justice to argue before this court that Cuba's blocked assets ought not to be used to compensate the families of the U.S. nationals murdered by Cuba. The executive branch's approach to this situation has been inconsistent at best. It apparently believes that shielding a terrorist state's assets are more important than compensating for the loss of American lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this section of the court's decision be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the story of these four brothers, the Brothers to the Rescue, is a story of heroism and freedom. These men risked their lives for their own freedom as well as for the freedom of others, and their families have fought tirelessly for justice. I hope my colleagues will think about these courageous families. We must, indeed, honor them and their memories and the memories of their loved ones this afternoon. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Transcript From ABC News, February 26, 1996 Exhibit 1 Announcer. This is a special report from ABC News. * * * * * Pres. Bill Clinton. Good afternoon. Two days ago, in broad daylight, and without justification, Cuban military aircraft shot down two civilian planes in international airspace. Search and rescue efforts by the Coast Guard, which began immediately after we received word of the incident, have failed to find any of the four individuals who were aboard the airplanes. These small airplanes were unarmed, and clearly so. Cuban authorities knew that. The planes posed no credible threat to Cuba's security. Although the group that operated the planes had entered Cuban airspace in the past on other flights, this is no excuse for the attack and provides--let me emphasize-- no legal basis under international law for the attack. We must be clear, this shooting of civilian aircraft out of the air was a flagrant violation of international law. Saturday's attack is further evidence that Havana has become more desperate in its efforts to deny freedom to the people of Cuba. Also on Saturday, the Cuban Council, a broad group that wants to bring democracy to Cuba, had planned a day of peaceful discussion and debate. Instead, in the days leading up to this gathering, scores of activists were arrested and detained. Two have already been sentenced to long prison terms. They join about 1,000 others in Cuba who are in jail solely because of their desire for freedom. Now the downing of these planes demands a firm response from both the United States and the international community. I am pleased that the European Union today strongly condemned the action. Last night, on my instructions, Ambassador Albright convened an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the Cuban action and to present the case for sanctions on Cuba until it agrees to abide by its obligation to respect civilian aircraft and until it compensates the families of the victims. Today I am also ordering the following unilateral actions. First, I am asking that Congress pass legislation that will provide immediate compensation to the families--something to which they are entitled under international law--out of Cuba's block assets here in the United States. If Congress passes this legislation, we can provide the compensation immediately. Second, I will move promptly to reach agreement with the Congress on the pending Helms-Burton Cuba legislation so that it will enhance the embargo in a way that advances the cause of democracy in Cuba. Third, I have ordered that Radio Marti expand its reach. All the people of Cuba must be able to learn the truth about the regime in Havana, the isolation it has earned for itself through its contempt for basic human rights and international law. Fourth, I am ordering that additional restrictions be put on travel in the United States by Cuban officials who reside here and that visits by Cuban officials to our country be further limited. Finally, all charter air travel from the United States to Cuba will be suspended indefinitely. These deliberate actions are the right ones at this time. They respond to Havana in a way that serves our goals of accelerating the arrival of democracy in Cuba, but I am not ruling out any further steps in the future, should they be required. Saturday's attack, was an appalling reminder of the nature of the Cuban regime--repressive, violent, scornful of international law. In our time democracy has swept the globe, from the Philippines exactly 10 years ago, to Central and Eastern Europe, to South Africa, to Haiti, to all but one nation in our hemisphere. I will do everything in my power to see that this historic tide reaches the shores of Cuba. And let me close by extending, on behalf of our family and our country, our deepest condolences to those in the families of those who lost their lives. Thank you very much.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 8. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed 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 10:30 a.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: The first 30 minutes under the control of Senator Durbin or his designee; the second 30 minutes under the control of Senator Thomas or his designee.

Mr. MACK. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, it is expected that the Senate will then begin consideration of the nuclear waste disposal bill. If that consent is not granted, then there is an understanding that a cloture vote will occur at 2:15 on Tuesday with respect to a committee amendment. Members should be aware that amendments to the nuclear waste bill are anticipated, and those concerned are close to reaching an agreement providing for a limited number of amendments and debate time. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate. It is hoped that Senators who have amendments will work with the bill managers in an effort to complete this legislation in a timely manner.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. 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. I understand that S. 2036, introduced earlier today by Senator Smith of New Hampshire, is at the desk and I, therefore, ask for its first reading.

Mr. MACK. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. MACK

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its first reading.