Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading.

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill granting Elian Gonzalez American citizenship. What it means is that the most important decision in this young boy's life will not be made by a political bureaucracy--but by a family court. Mr. President, neither the President of the United States, his Attorney General, nor the dictator ruling Cuba is qualified to decide the fate of this little boy. The United States is a country of laws, and we zealously believe in the rule of law. Elian deserves access to the legal protections of our family courts. These courts are in the business of considering family cases day after day. And they would consider ``what is in the boy's best interest.'' Today, the only concern of the INS is ``who speaks for the boy,'' not about his future. The primary purpose of this legislation is to ensure Elian has access to America's family courts: a court that will consider the choice that his mother made when she gave her life for freedom. Mr. President, we will continue this debate sometime later in the week and make no mistake, I believe that Elian should remain here in the United States where he can live in freedom. But it is not my purpose to make that decision; that is the function of a family court. This bill is intended to allow a family court to settle this dispute based upon the best interests of Elian Gonzalez. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 2 p.m. under the same terms as previously ordered.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem that ought to be a concern to all of us: natural disasters and the exposure of the private insurance industry to catastrophic risks. In my state of Florida, we have a particular concern about hurricane risk, but many areas of the country are exposed to the risks of other major catastrophes--whether they be volcanoes, earthquakes or tornadoes. Increasingly, I am concerned about the state of the private insurance industry and its ability to withstand a major catastrophe--a catastrophe of Hurricane Andrew size ($15 billion in insured losses) or greater. Today, I am introducing legislation to help address this problem and strengthen disaster protection for homeowners and businesses while protecting the interests of the taxpayer. I am pleased my friend from Texas, Senator Hutchison, has joined me in this effort. I believe our approach is an innovative, private-sector solution to the problem of catastrophic risk and I encourage my colleagues to review this proposal carefully. Consumers of property and casualty insurance must be able to rely on their insurers for protection against the risk of catastrophic loss. However, protection for policyholders in today's system is weak; a major future catastrophe could leave consumers without protection and-- if past experience is any indication--the government would intervene to ensure the people in the disaster areas receive timely compensation. It is important to note that current law actually poses a disincentive for insurers to set aside special reserves for catastrophic events. Any money set aside to cover potential risk is considered taxable income. To fix this flaw in America's insurance system, we need to provide incentives for insurers to set aside a portion of their policy premiums in secure reserve funds that will be available to meet policyholder needs in the event of future catastrophes. Our bill does just that. The typical property and casualty insurance company in the United States is exposed to multiple forms of catastrophic risk. This risk can take the form of major disasters that occur only once in a decade or once in several decades (e.g., severe earthquakes, major hurricanes). These can also be in the form of localized natural disasters (e.g., tornadoes, wildfires, floods, winter storms) that cause unusually large policyholder losses in a region and imperil the ability of smaller insurance companies to help their policyholders in the area. The nation's exposure to these large natural disasters is staggering. While millions of families and small businesses rely on insurance payments to recover from natural disasters, it is important to remember that--under our current insurance tax and regulatory systems--many private insurers may not be able to pay all claims arising from a major disaster. Hurricane Andrew and the Northridge Earthquake opened our eyes to the country's massive exposure to catastrophic losses. Insured losses in my state from Hurricane Andrew exceeded $15 billion. But if this storm had passed over Miami, rather than Homestead just 40 miles south, insured losses could have reached $50 billion, leaving the Florida economy crippled and more than a third of all insurers in that market insolvent. There is always the potential for a major disaster in any given year in the United States. Estimates of insured losses from highly probable events range from about $75 billion in California and Florida to $100 billion or more in areas of the Midwest. The Gulf, Intermountain West, and Atlantic states all face exposures of approximately $20 billion or more. Unfortunately, our current system of tax laws and accounting rules work against consumers and taxpayers because they discourage private market preparation for future major disasters. Present tax laws do not permit portions of consumers' insurance policy payments to be set aside and tax deferred in order to provide for the risk of truly catastrophic loss events. Ironically, our tax system allows insurers to set aside funds on a tax-deductible basis to address disasters that have already happened but it gives them no incentive to prepare for those major disasters that have not yet happened. Policyholder premiums needed to fund policyholders' catastrophic losses in future years are subject to current tax if not used in a particular year. This diminishes the power of insurers to protect policyholders against future losses. This structure is inadequate for assuring that property-casualty policies will protect consumers from future major catastrophic losses. The tax law should be revised in order to make accommodation for disaster protection reserves and bring about a more practical, and sensible, system for insurance companies and consumers. Under the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act, insurers could set aside portions of policyholder payments in a tax-deferred disaster protection fund. Amounts from this fund used to pay for losses from a major disaster would be subject to taxation. This concept is similar to programs presently in place in many other developed countries. I believe this legislation would result in greater stability for insurers providing catastrophic coverage and fewer insolvencies after a major disaster. A recent study by a major U.S. accounting firm determined that approximately $21 billion in pre-funded reserves would be accumulated within the first ten years of the program. Also, the tax incentive in the bill will encourage insurers to serve disaster-prone areas in a responsible manner by setting aside funds to pay for major losses. The treatment of the fund by insurers would be closely regulated. Following is a general description of the provisions of the bill: Insurers would be able to set aside special tax-deferred reserves to cover potential catastrophic events. The maximum amount any insurer could set aside in a given year would be determined by reference to each insurance company's exposure to the risk of catastrophic loss events. Deductible contributions to disaster protection funds would be voluntary, but would be irrevocable once made (except to the extent of ``drawdowns'' for actual catastrophic loss events, or drawdowns otherwise required by state insurance regulators). No company could use these funds to shelter income from taxation. The maximum allowable reserve for any given company will increase or decrease as they enter or exit lines of business that pose catastrophic risk. Insurers would only be allowed to drawdown the disaster reserves if the loss event in question is declared an emergency or disaster by certain recognized bodies or government officials (for example, a disaster declared by the President under the Stafford Act) and that losses in a year exceed the specified high level. The amounts distributed from the fund are added to company's taxable income for the year in which the drawdown occurred. Insurance companies would pay taxes on income generated when funds in the disaster reserve are invested. This income would be distributed out of the fund to the insurance company and taxed to the company on a current basis. The maximum reserve (or ``cap'') would be phased in at the rate of five percent per year over 20 years. Industry estimates indicate private reserves of $40 billion would be built up over this time. Various concepts to address the problem of catastrophic losses have been proposed over the years. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to craft a comprehensive solution to both the short-term and long-term problems presented by the risk of catastrophic disasters. In my view, the private-sector focus of this bill, which puts a strengthened private insurance market for consumers in the forefront of disaster protection, is an approach designed to ensure disaster relief is efficient and cost-effective for taxpayers. While the federal government may still need to provide last-resort safety net for disaster victims, it is important to do what we can to ensure private insurance is available, affordable and secure for those citizens in those areas of the country at risk to a catastrophic disaster. This bill will help to bring precisely that availability, affordability and security to insurance policyholders throughout the country, and I believe it is worthy of support and consideration. The bill we're introducing today mirrors a bill introduced by Congressman Foley and Matsui in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by taxpayer, homeowner, consumer, business and emergency service organizations, as well as local and state policy makers and insurance organizations. I believe it is a sensible approach and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem that ought to be a concern to all of us: natural disasters and the exposure of the private insurance industry to catastrophic risks. In my state of Florida, we have a particular concern about hurricane risk, but many areas of the country are exposed to the risks of other major catastrophes--whether they be volcanoes, earthquakes or tornadoes. Increasingly, I am concerned about the state of the private insurance industry and its ability to withstand a major catastrophe--a catastrophe of Hurricane Andrew size ($15 billion in insured losses) or greater. Today, I am introducing legislation to help address this problem and strengthen disaster protection for homeowners and businesses while protecting the interests of the taxpayer. I am pleased my friend from Texas, Senator Hutchison, has joined me in this effort. I believe our approach is an innovative, private-sector solution to the problem of catastrophic risk and I encourage my colleagues to review this proposal carefully. Consumers of property and casualty insurance must be able to rely on their insurers for protection against the risk of catastrophic loss. However, protection for policyholders in today's system is weak; a major future catastrophe could leave consumers without protection and-- if past experience is any indication--the government would intervene to ensure the people in the disaster areas receive timely compensation. It is important to note that current law actually poses a disincentive for insurers to set aside special reserves for catastrophic events. Any money set aside to cover potential risk is considered taxable income. To fix this flaw in America's insurance system, we need to provide incentives for insurers to set aside a portion of their policy premiums in secure reserve funds that will be available to meet policyholder needs in the event of future catastrophes. Our bill does just that. The typical property and casualty insurance company in the United States is exposed to multiple forms of catastrophic risk. This risk can take the form of major disasters that occur only once in a decade or once in several decades (e.g., severe earthquakes, major hurricanes). These can also be in the form of localized natural disasters (e.g., tornadoes, wildfires, floods, winter storms) that cause unusually large policyholder losses in a region and imperil the ability of smaller insurance companies to help their policyholders in the area. The nation's exposure to these large natural disasters is staggering. While millions of families and small businesses rely on insurance payments to recover from natural disasters, it is important to remember that--under our current insurance tax and regulatory systems--many private insurers may not be able to pay all claims arising from a major disaster. Hurricane Andrew and the Northridge Earthquake opened our eyes to the country's massive exposure to catastrophic losses. Insured losses in my state from Hurricane Andrew exceeded $15 billion. But if this storm had passed over Miami, rather than Homestead just 40 miles south, insured losses could have reached $50 billion, leaving the Florida economy crippled and more than a third of all insurers in that market insolvent. There is always the potential for a major disaster in any given year in the United States. Estimates of insured losses from highly probable events range from about $75 billion in California and Florida to $100 billion or more in areas of the Midwest. The Gulf, Intermountain West, and Atlantic states all face exposures of approximately $20 billion or more. Unfortunately, our current system of tax laws and accounting rules work against consumers and taxpayers because they discourage private market preparation for future major disasters. Present tax laws do not permit portions of consumers' insurance policy payments to be set aside and tax deferred in order to provide for the risk of truly catastrophic loss events. Ironically, our tax system allows insurers to set aside funds on a tax-deductible basis to address disasters that have already happened but it gives them no incentive to prepare for those major disasters that have not yet happened. Policyholder premiums needed to fund policyholders' catastrophic losses in future years are subject to current tax if not used in a particular year. This diminishes the power of insurers to protect policyholders against future losses. This structure is inadequate for assuring that property-casualty policies will protect consumers from future major catastrophic losses. The tax law should be revised in order to make accommodation for disaster protection reserves and bring about a more practical, and sensible, system for insurance companies and consumers. Under the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act, insurers could set aside portions of policyholder payments in a tax-deferred disaster protection fund. Amounts from this fund used to pay for losses from a major disaster would be subject to taxation. This concept is similar to programs presently in place in many other developed countries. I believe this legislation would result in greater stability for insurers providing catastrophic coverage and fewer insolvencies after a major disaster. A recent study by a major U.S. accounting firm determined that approximately $21 billion in pre-funded reserves would be accumulated within the first ten years of the program. Also, the tax incentive in the bill will encourage insurers to serve disaster-prone areas in a responsible manner by setting aside funds to pay for major losses. The treatment of the fund by insurers would be closely regulated. Following is a general description of the provisions of the bill: Insurers would be able to set aside special tax-deferred reserves to cover potential catastrophic events. The maximum amount any insurer could set aside in a given year would be determined by reference to each insurance company's exposure to the risk of catastrophic loss events. Deductible contributions to disaster protection funds would be voluntary, but would be irrevocable once made (except to the extent of ``drawdowns'' for actual catastrophic loss events, or drawdowns otherwise required by state insurance regulators). No company could use these funds to shelter income from taxation. The maximum allowable reserve for any given company will increase or decrease as they enter or exit lines of business that pose catastrophic risk. Insurers would only be allowed to drawdown the disaster reserves if the loss event in question is declared an emergency or disaster by certain recognized bodies or government officials (for example, a disaster declared by the President under the Stafford Act) and that losses in a year exceed the specified high level. The amounts distributed from the fund are added to company's taxable income for the year in which the drawdown occurred. Insurance companies would pay taxes on income generated when funds in the disaster reserve are invested. This income would be distributed out of the fund to the insurance company and taxed to the company on a current basis. The maximum reserve (or ``cap'') would be phased in at the rate of five percent per year over 20 years. Industry estimates indicate private reserves of $40 billion would be built up over this time. Various concepts to address the problem of catastrophic losses have been proposed over the years. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to craft a comprehensive solution to both the short-term and long-term problems presented by the risk of catastrophic disasters. In my view, the private-sector focus of this bill, which puts a strengthened private insurance market for consumers in the forefront of disaster protection, is an approach designed to ensure disaster relief is efficient and cost-effective for taxpayers. While the federal government may still need to provide last-resort safety net for disaster victims, it is important to do what we can to ensure private insurance is available, affordable and secure for those citizens in those areas of the country at risk to a catastrophic disaster. This bill will help to bring precisely that availability, affordability and security to insurance policyholders throughout the country, and I believe it is worthy of support and consideration. The bill we're introducing today mirrors a bill introduced by Congressman Foley and Matsui in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by taxpayer, homeowner, consumer, business and emergency service organizations, as well as local and state policy makers and insurance organizations. I believe it is a sensible approach and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my good friend Senator Gramm, chairman of the Committee on Banking, on section 507 of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. I want to confirm that section 507 is intended to apply only to the amendments made by subtitle A of title V of the bill, and that section 507 is not to be construed, under any circumstances, to apply to any provision of law other than the provisions of subtitle A. For instance, subtitle A of title V relates only to disclosure of nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties. This means that section 507 of the bill does not supersede, alter, or affect laws on the disclosure of information among affiliated entities. In particular, section 507 does not supersede, alter, or affect the provisions of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (or FCRA) regarding the communication of information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, nor does section 507 supersede, alter, or affect the existing FCRA preemption of state laws with respect to the exchange of information among affiliated entities. I yield to my friend.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report accompanying S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. And I want to begin my remarks today by congratulating Senator Gramm, my friend and the chairman of the committee. We would not be here without his hard work, dedication, and skillful negotiation and he deserves the lion's share of credit for the fine bill we have before us today. We are making history here. It has been 66 years since Congress passed the Glass-Steagall banking act in the depths of the Great Depression. It has been at least twenty years since determined efforts began in the Congress to repeal this outdated law and modernize the country's banking code. Today--finally--we have come to the end of the road. As we stand on the verge of passing this bill, we have a great view both backward and forward. We can see a past in which the country's financial services industry led the world despite an archaic code recognized by everyone to be insufficient. And we can look ahead into a future that offers the American financial consumer: New and innovative products, better choices, information and service, and workable regulations that allow our financial firms to compete in the global marketplace to an even greater extent than today. This much-needed legislation modernizing our nation's banking laws is happening none too soon. I want to spend some time talking about the two reasons I believe we're here. The first is the transformation of our economy over the past 20 years, and by extension the remarkable changes in our financial services sector. And the second is the tremendous impact of the technological revolution on the banking industry. We are currently in the eighth year of the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. When you look at the data, there is only one conclusion to draw: we are now reaping the economic benefits of the hard decisions on economic fundamentals we made back in the 1980s. Under the leadership of President Reagan, we dramatically lowered marginal tax rates, began the rollback of burdensome and overlapping regulations, promoted openness to trade and investment around the world, lowered interest rates, and defeated the inflation menace that crippled our economic competitiveness. In the 1990s, Congress finally completed the job by producing the first balanced federal budgets in a generation. You cannot overestimate the impact of these fundamental economic victories on the prosperity the nation is enjoying today. One of my biggest concerns, as I think about the history of this era, is people will be left with the impression that President Clinton's 1993 tax increases created this economic expansion. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must not forget the hard--and ultimately correct-- decisions made on fundamental questions like taxes, regulation, interest rates, and inflation in the 1980s that freed up the marketplace and allowed American businesses to capitalize on their inherent advantages. The country's financial sector has certainly shared in this prosperity. We have witnessed a revolution in the delivery of financial services during the 1990s as the traditional barriers between banking, insurance and securities began to come down. Freedom and our free enterprise system ensured that new financial products and alliance emanated from America to service the demands of the global economy. These products and alliance provide American businesses, investors, and consumers with the ability to secure more easily the capital they need to finance their hopes and dreams. As this new economic and financial dynamic became more clear, it was also apparent our existing banking code was outdated and in need of change. As part of the new economy, it is hard to overstate the impact of the technological revolution on the financial marketplace. Earlier this year, during hearings on the bill before us, Chairman Greenspan noted the financial sector: . . . is undergoing major and fundamental change driven by a revolution in technology, by dramatic innovations in the capital markets, and by the globalization of the financial markets and the financial services industry. Indeed, the financial marketplace is changing with lightning speed. In September, we held a high-technology summit at the Joint Economic Committee. One of those who testified before our committee was a twenty-nine-year-old entrepreneur who created an electronic stock trading network. Nine of these electronic trading networks make up about twenty percent of the NASDAQ market and are posing a serious challenge to more traditional stock exchanges and markets. Mortgages and traditional banking services are available over the internet. And anybody who watches television advertisements knows a new generation od web-based businesses are transforming the traditional image--and, incidentally, the fee structure--of stock brokers and stock trading. These businesses and the many others who have gone online to challenge the existing orthodoxy are prompting sweeping changes in the financial marketplace. And they are creating yet another imperative for this bill. As the American financial industry seized on technological advances to lead the world into new financial markets and new financial products, they awoke from their long slumber of lobbying wars and turf protection and realized it was in everybody's best interest to pass this bill. If our financial firms are to lead and compete in the world marketplace, they must be able to compete from a position of strength. And they must compete from the foundation of banking laws that reflect the new realities of the world marketplace. The end game on this legislation was by no means easy. During the eleven months we spent writing this bill, we had to continually strike careful balances between the broad, over-arching goals of the bill and the temptation to tinker with the marketplace and predetermine the shape of future financial products and services. The fast pace of change presents a difficult choice for policymakers. We are often too cumbersome in the Congress to lead, we can be irrelevant if we follow, and some among us believe it could be risky to get out of the way. In the face of this dilemma, some of our colleagues wanted us to anticipate every possible side-effect of this financial transformation and write the laws accordingly. This is just not possible, and the resultant regulatory burdens would have stopped this financial revolution in its tracks. In the bill before us today, we tried to embrace the following principles: First, banks, insurance companies and securities firms should be able to enter one another's business and create a financial dynamic for the next century; Second, new banking products should be regulated by the regulator that knows them best. Third, institutions should disclose to customers what they are doing with their sensitive personal information--both within and outside the financial firm. And customers should be able to stop these companies from sharing their information with third parties. Next, new financial activities conducted through subsidiaries of banks should be conducted so as to ensure taxpayer guaranteed deposits are not threatened. And finally, the burdensome regulations on banks with respect to community lending should not be increased as a result of what we're doing in this bill. There are sensible guidelines and I'm satisfied we've created the basis here for a safe, sound and flexible financial industry that will serve the interests of American consumers, investors and businesses well into the future. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are making history here. A hundred years from today, I believe the primary thing people will remember about this Congress is that we finally did the right thing and passed this bill. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks on a personal note. As I begin to recognize the reality that my service in the United States Senate will end in slightly more than a year, I find I am engaging in the occasional reflection. During the last 12 years of my 18 years in the Congress, I served on the Senate Banking Committee--the committee responsible for writing and overseeing the laws of the land that regulate the banking and financial industry. This has been special to me because I spent the first sixteen years of my career in the banking business. It was work I enjoyed as the years went by. It was also work I found increasingly frustrating because of the stifling regulatory burden placed on banks by the federal government. It was for these and other reasons I left my position as President and LEO of my bank in Cape Coral, Florida and ran for the Congress. I will not stand here today and claim the credit for the far-reaching and far-sighted bill before us today. My friend and colleague Senator Gramm deserves the credit on the Senate side. I nonetheless feel a strong sense of pride and institutional accomplishment for the legacy we are leaving to the United States in passing this bill. It will benefit the people, the industry, and the economy as a whole and it is truly a document we can all be very proud of. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Roth, for including in the manager's package an amendment by Mr. Sarbanes and myself expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the issue of debt relief for poor countries. Our resolution simply expresses the desire of this body to work with the President and the international community to forgive the debt owed to us by the world's poorest countries in exchange for commitments from these countries to reform their economies and work toward a better quality of life for their people. This follows on legislation we introduced earlier this month to accomplish this important objective. Our effort today is premised on the notion that we must help these poverty-stricken nations break the vicious cycle of debt and give them the economic opportunity to liberate their futures. This issue has united people of diverse interests and backgrounds from all around the world. There is a growing sense across the cultural and political spectrum that debt burdens are a major impediment to economic reform and the alleviation of the abject poverty facing the world's poorest countries. And there is increasing certainty that debt forgiveness--if done right--can be a positive force for change in the developing world. Our resolution makes clear that the objectives of debt relief should be the promotion of policies that promote economic growth, openness to trade and investment, and the development of free markets. I am glad the full Senate is joining us in this endeavor. Today, Mr. President, the world's poorest countries owe an average of $400 for every man, woman, and child within their borders. This is much more than most people in these countries make in a year--in fact more than one billion people on Earth today live on less than a dollar a day. Debt service payments in many cases consume a majority of a poor country's annual budget, leaving scarce domestic resources for economic restructuring or such vital human services as education, clean water and sanitary living conditions. In Tanzania, for example, debt payments would require nearly four-fifths of the government's budget. In a country where one child in six dies before the age of five, little money remains to finance initiatives that would improve the country's economic prospects, its openness to trade and investment, or the standard of living of its people. Among sub-Saharan African countries-- many of the very countries we're looking to help in the trade package before us today--one in five adults can't read or write. Mr. President, the problems in the developing countries that yield such grim statistics will never be solved without a monumental commitment of will from their leaders, their citizens, and the outside world. We cannot solve all these problems today. Rather, we are simply affirming to the world that the small step of debt relief is one that can and should be taken without delay. The effort to forgive the debts of the world's poorest countries has been ongoing for more than a decade. During this time the international community and the G7 came to the realization that the world's poorest countries are simply unable to repay the debt they owe to foreign creditors. What's more, the payments that are being made are hampering progress toward more free, open, and economically vibrant economies. The external debt for many developing nations is more than twice their gross domestic product, leaving many unable to even make interest payments. We must accept the fact that this debt is unpayable. The question is not whether we'll ever get paid back, but rather what we can encourage these heavily indebted countries to do for themselves in exchange for our forgiveness. In Uganda, for example, debt relief obtained under the existing debt forgiveness programs has cleared the way for a doubling of classroom size, allowing twice as many children to attend school as before. This type of benefit is real. It is tangible. And it will bring untold benefits to the country in future years. We must do more to encourage these types of programs and debt relief is one vehicle that can help effect real change in the developing world. Prudent debt relief is in all of our best interests. It is an investment in the commitment of the world's poorest countries to implement sound economic reforms and help their people live longer, healthier and more prosperous lives. Our amendment today is another step toward this goal and I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the very important trade package that the Senate is currently considering. At a time when our global marketplace is expanding faster than ever, we need to ensure that the poorest countries around the world are not left behind. This comprehensive package uses trade to promote economic self- sufficiency, at the same time allowing for broader access to American goods and services to these markets. While many believe the economic and financial answer for these underdeveloped countries may lie in direct financial assistance, I believe the answer is found by facilitating direct private investment. I want to share with colleagues the plight of one of these countries which I experienced firsthand this past weekend. I spent 2 days in Haiti meeting with political, business, and humanitarian groups. By far, the most dramatic portion of my trip was witnessing the extreme poverty and despair that grips that Nation. I saw the face of an economy suffering from 17-percent inflation and unemployment of between 60 and 80 percent. Let me tell the story of one little boy I met. Only through a humanitarian organization and through the support of private donations is this 9-year-old boy able to obtain an education. As a tool to economic and democratic stabilization, aid is simply not enough. Many children just aren't able to stay in school. They are required to work in order to contribute to their families' survival. Again, I make the point that for a good number of the people in Haiti, their per capita income is around $50 a year. A straight calculation of the per capita income is about $500. But if you look at the makeup of that distribution, you can see easily that there are literally millions of people in Haiti who live with a per capita income of around $50. If these children are to have a future, revitalization and expansion of economic opportunities are needed to reach the goal of economic self-sufficiency. By creating a framework for using trade and investment as a development tool, the United States will be fostering reform at the economic base of these countries, taking direct aim at lowering unemployment and high inflation rates. This legislation creates this framework by extending enhanced trade benefits to the countries of the Caribbean Basin. Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S. imports from Caribbean countries have been at a distinct disadvantage. The measure would build on the existing Caribbean Basin Initiative program, often referred to as CBI, by providing additional trade benefits to Caribbean countries similar to that which Mexico and Canada currently enjoy. Since its inception, CBI has had a significant positive economic impact on both the United States and the Caribbean countries, helping to promote regional security and stability of our Caribbean neighbors. Opening this market even further, particularly following the recent devastation inflicted by hurricanes, will help to stimulate job growth by increasing exports and expanding market access to these countries for U.S. businesses. Another important component of this trade package establishes U.S. support for economic self-reliance in sub-Saharan Africa. The United States stands to benefit a great deal from a strong and prosperous Africa. By fostering growth-oriented economic policies, we will help support broader access to African markets for American goods and services. Sub-Saharan Africa makes up a market of more than 700 million people and is potentially one of the largest markets in the world. As economic reforms and market-opening measures spur growth in Africa, it will create new and bigger markets for U.S. exporters. A particularly sensitive, albeit important, provision included in both the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act deals with textiles. The textile and apparel industries have historically provided the first step toward industrialization in many countries. This is because production is fairly simple, can be done on a small scale, and often uses locally abundant raw material. In seeking to address the concerns raised by the U.S. textile industry, this legislation has sought compromise by restricting preferential treatment to apparel produced by U.S. fabric and yarns. Additionally, this legislation provides strong protections against illegal transshipment of goods through Africa or eligible CBI countries. We need to ensure that these countries do not become stop-over points for products from countries not eligible for preferential treatment under the legislation. International trade has been an important part of the growth we have enjoyed in the United States. Since 1994, international trade has created more than 11 million American jobs, and accounts for 30 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. Imports have helped to hold down inflation, lower the cost of production, provide greater choice to consumers, and have given incentives to raise productivity. As emerging markets seek to grow, it is important that the United States take the lead in offering these countries incentives to continue their economic reforms. By doing so, we will be providing the citizens of these emerging countries with more jobs, more opportunities and genuine hope. I believe a strong trade relationship is the best form of ``foreign assistance'' we can offer another country. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 28, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on U.S. National Security Implications of the 1999 NATO Strategic Concept.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 28, 1999 at 10:30 and 3:00 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Thursday, October 28, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing on the nomination of Joshua Gotbaum to be Controller, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 28, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, October 28, 1999 beginning at 1:30 p.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Manufacturing and Competitiveness Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 28, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. on challenges confronting machine tool industry.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 28, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. on E-Commerce.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 28, for purposes of conducting a Water and Power Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the Federal hydroelectric licensing process.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to the memory of our friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee. Senator Chafee was the living embodiment of Senate decorum. He always honored this body through his thoughts, deeds and actions. His ideas and messages were delivered thoughtfully and respectfully. He truly followed his heart and soul while representing the people of Rhode Island and this great nation. His honorable service in both World War II and the Korean Conflict, as well as his distinguished tenure as Secretary of the Navy, reflect his profound respect for America's armed forces and his deep love of country. I am especially appreciative for all he did to advance causes near and dear to the state of Florida. He took time to visit the Florida Everglades, and his work on this important issue will ensure the preservation of this unique natural system, and will always be a part of his lasting legacy. Senator Chafee devoted his life to public service. He will be remembered as a thoughtful and patriotic American who cared passionately about those he served, the issues he fought for, and the institution of the United States Senate. He was not only a fellow Republican, but a colleague who was respected on both sides of the aisle. He will be sorely missed in the U.S. Senate. My heartfelt sympathies go to his wife Ginny, to their five children and 12 grandchildren, and to his staff here in Washington and throughout Rhode Island.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I extend a warm welcome to Father Dan this morning. He is our guest Chaplain this morning from Reynoldsburg, OH. I had the pleasure of meeting him a few moments ago, but in a sense I have known him for at least a number of years because my brother, Andrew McGillicuddy, is a member of his parish--Andy and Chris--and as a result of their request, Father Dan was able to join us this morning. He is the pastor of a church of 2,400 families, a great responsibility. We are delighted he is with us this morning.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the pending Harkin amendment to the partial-birth abortion ban bill. By previous consent, there are 2 hours of debate on the amendment. Therefore, Senators can anticipate a vote at approximately 11:30 a.m., unless the time is yielded back on the amendment. Senators should be aware future rollcall votes are expected in an attempt to complete action on the bill prior to adjournment today. Following the completion of the partial-birth abortion ban bill, the Senate may begin consideration of any legislative items on the calendar or any conference reports available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Fuel Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Act. This bill would create a simple mechanism to reimburse owners of concrete mixers and sanitation trucks for the Federal excise taxes that they pay on fuels used to power the off-road function of their vehicles. Today, IRS regulations impose the Federal fuels excise tax on ``single engine, dual-use vehicles.'' Two prominent examples of such single-engine, dual-use vehicles are concrete mixers and sanitation trucks. The IRS taxes the entire amount of fuel used in these vehicles, despite the fact that a substantial portion of the fuel consumed is used to power an off-road function--the trash compactor of a sanitation truck, or the rotating drum of the cement truck. Mr. President, the Federal fuels excise tax is meant to pay for our Nation's roads. If fuel is used for an off-road purpose, it is a well- established principle that we do not tax the fuel. In this case, fuels used to power the trash compactor or rotate the drum on a concrete mixer do not result in wear and tear on the roads and, therefore, should not be taxes. Contrary to this well-established principle, the IRS imposes the excise tax on single engine, dual-use vehicles. The simple reason given by the IRS for this distinction is administrative convenience. But the convenience of the IRS is no reason to overtax diesel fuel consumers. Mr. President, our bill corrects the discrepancy created under IRS regulations, and does so without creating any administrative red tape. The $250 income tax credit crafted in the bill would be easy to administer. While it will not fully and precisely compensate these truck owners for the taxes paid on fuel used off-road, this credit has been calculated based on industry data and using conservative estimates, and reduces a tax that these truck owners should not be paying in the first place. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Breaux and me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Fuel Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Act. This bill would create a simple mechanism to reimburse owners of concrete mixers and sanitation trucks for the Federal excise taxes that they pay on fuels used to power the off-road function of their vehicles. Today, IRS regulations impose the Federal fuels excise tax on ``single engine, dual-use vehicles.'' Two prominent examples of such single-engine, dual-use vehicles are concrete mixers and sanitation trucks. The IRS taxes the entire amount of fuel used in these vehicles, despite the fact that a substantial portion of the fuel consumed is used to power an off-road function--the trash compactor of a sanitation truck, or the rotating drum of the cement truck. Mr. President, the Federal fuels excise tax is meant to pay for our Nation's roads. If fuel is used for an off-road purpose, it is a well- established principle that we do not tax the fuel. In this case, fuels used to power the trash compactor or rotate the drum on a concrete mixer do not result in wear and tear on the roads and, therefore, should not be taxes. Contrary to this well-established principle, the IRS imposes the excise tax on single engine, dual-use vehicles. The simple reason given by the IRS for this distinction is administrative convenience. But the convenience of the IRS is no reason to overtax diesel fuel consumers. Mr. President, our bill corrects the discrepancy created under IRS regulations, and does so without creating any administrative red tape. The $250 income tax credit crafted in the bill would be easy to administer. While it will not fully and precisely compensate these truck owners for the taxes paid on fuel used off-road, this credit has been calculated based on industry data and using conservative estimates, and reduces a tax that these truck owners should not be paying in the first place. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Breaux and me in supporting this important piece of legislation.