Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, as Congress considers various plans to overhaul the current campaign finance system, I think everyone can agree on one fact: the status quo is indefensible. The system needs to change in order to restore the American people's faith in their government. The imbalances which exist in our election laws today were created by the Federal Election Campaign Act in the name of equality. They resulted in unfair advantages which are institutionalized in the name of fairness, protecting some forms of political speech while criminalizing others. Enacting more laws along the same lines will only lead us further down the path of destruction. Freedom matters. Freedom works. Free speech works. Free participation works. The current system does not. If we want real reform, we will scrap this bill, repeal current law, and start over. Campaign finance reformers think the solution is new regulations and methods that I believe work only to preclude participation in politics. They believe that new laws, more restrictions, and additional bureaucracy are the answer. This position is based upon the assumption that current laws are working and they just need a few modifications to make them better. I strongly disagree. Freedom of expression is an end in itself and can not be subordinated to any other goals of society. Information is the backbone to freedom, ignorance is the backbone to oppression. Reformers tolerate these inequalities because they believe they will result in lower-cost elections, less influence in the process by special interests, and will make the electoral system more accessible to challengers. Even if these goals could be achieved in this way, the trampling of the First Amendment in the process is unacceptable. The fact is, current laws do not work. Let's admit that. We wouldn't be debating this issue if they did. They were passed in haste, as a knee-jerk reaction to the Watergate era, and while they were enacted with good intentions, their result has been a disaster. We should recognize that a mistake was made when the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted, and no modifications to this law will improve the system. Campaign finance laws restricting free speech should be repealed, and the absolute freedom to engage in the political process should be promoted and defended. The American people should know that their participation is encouraged, respected, and welcome. If that participation includes fully disclosed contributions to candidates and parties, so be it. Disclosure is the key factor here. Let's give the American people some credit. They are smart enough to judge for themselves where conflicts of interest lie. They do not need the bureaucracy of the Federal Elections Commission to police their speech and thwart their involvement. The only job of the FEC should be the posting and reporting of all contributions in a timely manner so that the American people can judge for themselves. Current law is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Soft money is perceived as a loophole in current law. Banning soft money is only one more step toward the elimination of free speech in elections. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is not a loophole. It is a fundamental freedom that protects, among other things, political speech. Again, let Americans decide whether and to what extent they want to participate. We should be protecting freedom of speech over everything else. We should not enact legislation to preclude the public from voicing their opinions on the work we do here. We may not like what is said about us, but we can all agree that people have a right to speak their mind, especially their political mind. This bill also recognizes that current law does not protect working Americans' ability to decide which causes they will support. While this bill codifies the Beck decision which enables non-union workers to request a refund for the portion of their union fees used for political causes. If it does not address the concerns of union members who are forced to participate in political causes without their consent. No American should be faced with the direct or indirect threat of losing their job because of their political beliefs. No one should be forced to participate in advocating for a cause or causes they find repugnant. The rights of individuals to be free certainly extends to their political beliefs and the way in which they choose to participate or not to participate. No forced participation under any guise should be tolerated or encouraged. Let individuals make choices for themselves. That is the most fundamental freedom in a democracy. A vibrant democracy depends on the ability of all voices to be heard, and how loudly one may wish to speak should be limited only by that individual, not by government. If an individual can and is willing to expend over $1,000 in support of a candidate, they should be able to do so. If they wish to express their support with their time or in any other fashion, then this, too, should be applauded and encouraged. And if individuals wish to ignore the political process altogether, then this, too, is a right to be defended. To tinker with this fundamental right gives power to some at the expense of others. Finally, I would submit, that we need to re-examine our attitude toward money in the electoral process, and I would propose that spending money to communicate one's message is not the root of all evil in politics. Candidates for public office have the important task of getting their message out to the voters. In statewide races across the country, candidates must spend substantial amounts of money for print and electronic media, since it is the best current method of reaching the maximum audience. Take a moment and think about the power of the media today-- television, newspapers and radio frame the debates of important issues. A candidate must be able to raise enough money to get his or her message out to the public. When I was campaigning for my Senate seat back in 1988, I faced enormous opposition from the newspapers. Newspapers have vast resources to openly campaign for a candidate. Had I not had the freedom and ability to counter their message, I would not be a Senator today. True reform will not strip candidates, parties, or individuals of their ability to counter the messages in the media. True reform should recognize the imbalance current law has created, and would seek to level the playing field between candidates and the media. Remember, the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but it also protects the freedom of individuals to speak loud and clear. Madam President, I believe in the First Amendment. Protecting that right must be our primary goal.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, to introduce the Debt Relief for Counties Act of 1999. This bill simply forgives much of 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. Our effort today is premised on the fact that we must help these poverty-stricken nations break the vicious cycle of debt and give them the economic opportunity to liberate their futures. I ask my colleagues to join me in this worthwhile effort. Today, 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. 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 public health programs. Among Sub-Saharan African countries, one in five adults can't read or write, and it is estimated that in several countries almost half the population does not have access to safe drinking water. Mr. President, the problems that yield such grim statistics will never be solved without a monumental commitment of will from their leaders, their citizens, and the outside world. That is not what we propose to do here today. Our bill is only a small step in the right direction, but it is one we can do quickly and for relatively little cost. 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. The external debt for many of the developing nations is more than twice their GDP, leaving many unable to even pay the interest on their debts. 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. Our bill requires the President to forgive at least 90 percent of the entire bilateral debt owed by the world's heavily indebted poor countries in exchange for verifiable commitments to pursue economic reforms and implement poverty alleviation measures. While roughly $6 billion is owed to the United States by these poor countries, it is estimated the cost of forgiving this debt would be less than ten percent of that amount. The U.S. share of the bilateral debt is less than four percent of the total, but our action would provide leadership to the rest of the world's creditor nations and provide some savings benefits to these countries as well. Our bill also requires a restructuring of the IMF and World Bank's Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). This program was begun in 1996, but to date only three countries have received any relief. While the premise of HIPC is sound, its shortcomings have become evident during the implementation. It promises much, but in reality it benefits too few countries, offers too little relief, and requires too long a wait before debt is forgiven. A process of reforming the HIPC was begun this year during the G7's meeting in Cologne, and our bill meets or exceeds the standards set out in the Cologne communique. Specifically, we shorten the waiting period for eligibility from six to three years. We extend the prospect of relief to more countries. And we ensure that savings realized from the relief will be used to enhance ongoing economic reforms in addition to initiatives designed to alleviate poverty. This is a sound and balanced approach to help these poor countries correct their underlying economic problems and improve the standard of living of their people. Mr. President, this legislation is not a handout to the developing world. Rather, it is an investment in these countries' commitment to implementing sound economic reforms and helping their people live longer, healthier and more prosperous lives. In order to receive debt relief under our bill, countries must commit the savings to policies that promote growth and expand citizens' access to basic services like clean water and education. We have included a strict prohibition in our bill on providing relief to countries that sponsor terrorism, spend excessively on their militaries, do not cooperate on narcotics matters, or engage in systematic violations of their citizens' human rights. We are not proposing to help any country that is not first willing to help itself. Mr. President, the debt accumulated in the developing world throughout the Cold War and into the 1990s has become a significant impediment to the implementation of free-market economic reforms and the reduction of poverty. We in the developed world have an interest in removing this impediment and providing the world's poorest countries with the opportunity to address their underlying economic problems and set a course for sustainability. I believe our bill is an important first step in this process and I look forward to the support of my colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague Senator Abraham, to introduce the Merit Act, which is legislation to ensure that every classroom in America is staffed with a competent, qualified and caring teacher. Last Congress, the Senate debated a number of initiatives to further this goal and passed this legislation as an amendment to a comprehensive education reform bill, which was vetoed by the President. Earlier this year, I joined Senator Gregg in cosponsor the Teacher Empowerment Act. Both the TEA, and the MERIT ACT are important reform bills to enable local schools to staff their classrooms with the best and brightest teachers. The 21st Century begins in just under 100 days. If our children are to be prepared for the challenges ahead, educational excellence must become our first order of business. As Congress continues to focus on a number of important reforms to federal K-12 education policy, I strongly believe that any real education reform must confront the most basic, the most important, and the most neglected aspect of public education: the quality of instruction in the classroom. Parents all over the state of Florida, and I imagine the same is true around the country, are concerned that the success --or failure--of their child's entire academic year will be determined by the quality and expertise of their child's teacher. Studies show that the most important factor in determining student success on standardized tests is the teacher's ability to present the material. Studies also show that when a student is assigned an ineffective teacher, the damage is not limited to one year. In fact, student test scores do not recover for three years, even if their subsequent teachers are excellent. America's classrooms are staffed with many dedicated, knowledgeable, and hardworking teachers. Nevertheless, the case for sweeping reform is not difficult to make. While the United States already spends more money per pupil than virtually any industrialized democracy in the world, our children frequently score near the bottom in international exams in science and math. Without exceptional teaching, no amount of resources will be able to turn bad schools into good schools. Throwing more money at the problem is no longer the answer. Our schools and classrooms should be staffed with teachers who have the appropriate training and background. Students deserve teachers with a thorough knowledge of the subjects they are teaching and the ability to convey complex material in ways that students can understand. One way to determine the competency of teachers would be to test them on their knowledge of the subject areas they teach. At a time when states are raising the bar for student achievement, few are raising standards for teachers. Today, seven states have no licensing exams for new teachers, and of the 43 states that do have licensing exams, only 29 require high school teachers to pass an exam in the subject they plan to teach. However, in many cases, these requirements are waived when there is a shortage of qualified candidates. We have a clear interest in ensuring that beginning teachers are able to meet high standards and are knowledgeable about the subject matter they are presenting, and a number of states have taken the initiative to test their prospective teachers. However, when you consider that many teachers--especially teachers in low income districts--do not even have a minor degree in the subject they teach, it is important to periodically evaluate the performance of all teachers. Schools are often strapped for good teachers and will simply staff a science class with a math teacher. These are cases where testing could provide valuable insight as to the mastery of the teacher in additional subjects, and would identify those teachers who need additional encouragement. Common sense also dictates that we should not concentrate all our attention on under-performing teachers. We must also recognize that there are many great teachers who are successfully challenging their students on a daily basis. Today, our public schools compensate teachers based almost solely on seniority, not on their performance inside the classroom. Merit-pay would differentiate between teachers who are hard-working and inspiring, and those who fall short. The legislation we are introducing today, known as the MERIT ACT-- which stands for Measures to Enhance Results in Teaching --is the same legislation that passed the Senate last Congress with bipartisan support by a vote of 63-35. It rewards states that test its teachers on their subject matter knowledge, and pays its teachers based on merit. Here is how it works: we will make half of any additional funding over the FY 2000 level for the Eisenhower Professional Development Program available to states that periodically test elementary and secondary school teachers, and reward teachers based on merit and proven performance. There will be no reduction in current funding to states under this program based on this legislation. As funding increases for this program, so will the amount each state receives. Incentives will and should be provided to those states that take the initiative to establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. Again, I want to emphasize that all current money being spent on this program is unaffected by this legislation. Only additional money will be used as an incentive for states to enact teacher testing and merit pay programs. Finally, this legislation enables states to also use federal education money to establish and administer teacher testing and merit pay programs. This broad approach will enable states to staff their schools with the best and most qualified teachers, thereby enhancing learning for all students. In turn, teachers can be certain that all of their energy, dedication and expertise will be rewarded. And it can be done without placing new mandates on states or increasing the federal bureaucracy. It is interesting to note that as Governor of the State of Arkansas, Bill Clinton enthusiastically supported teacher testing, and as Governor of South Carolina, Secretary of Education Richard Riley advocated a merit-pay plan. In fact, then-Governor Clinton in 1984 said that he was more convinced than ever that competency tests were needed to take inventory of teachers' basic skills. He said, ``Teachers who don't pass the test shouldn't be in the classroom''. While President Clinton vetoed this legislation last year, I am hoping he will stand by his State of the Union address where he stated that new teachers should be required to pass performance exams and all teachers should know the subject matter they are teaching. I would also like to mention the important steps being taken by schools around the country to address the need for merit-based pay. Most recently, in Denver, Colorado, schools have reached an agreement with the unions to commence a two year demonstration program which will pay teachers based on performance. It is important to note the two largest unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, have approached the Denver plan with an open mind. In this program, teachers can earn an additional $1500 by the end of an academic year if a majority of the teacher's students ``improve.'' I am encouraged by the initiative taken by Denver's schools to implement innovative approaches to teacher compensation, and I look forward to the continued cooperation of America's teacher unions. Without their cooperation, reforms to education in America are often frustrated. In the end, I believe teachers, administrators, parents and students will be able to devise a system that is fair and one that works to improve teacher and student performance alike. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue the fight to give dedicated professionals who teach our children a personal stake in the quality of the instruction they provide. I hope there will again be broad, bipartisan support for this bill.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, Senator Graham and I rise again to introduce the Florida Coast Protection Act of 2000. This legislation will amend current law to give states the ability to have all pertinent environmental information on hand before they are forced to rule on oil and gas drilling development plans, and it would also implement a permanent ban on leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Mr. President, Floridians have always been justifiably concerned about the prospect of oil and gas exploration in the waters off our coast. We are well aware of the risk this activity poses to our environment and our economy because, in Florida, a healthy environment means a healthy economy. Millions of people come to Florida each year to enjoy the climate, our beaches, and our fine quality of life. The tourism industry in Florida provides millions of jobs and generates revenues in the billion of dollars. It would take only one disaster to end Florida's good standing as America's vacationland. We cannot afford to let that happen. Throughout my tenure in the Senate I have opposed exploration and drilling off Florida's coasts. My goal--and the goal of the entire Florida Congressional delegation--is to permanently remove this threat from Florida's coast. In recent years, we have stood together in opposition to drilling and have successfully extended the annual moratorium on all new leasing activities on Florida's continental shelf. While the opposition of Floridians to oil drilling is well- documented, the reality remains that leases have been issued, potential drilling sites have been explored, and it is likely that actual extraction of resources could take place within the next few years. In order to prevent a repeat of the past mistake of leasing in the OCS off Florida, our legislation makes permanent the ban on any new leasing activity within 100 miles of our coast. In addition, it gives states the flexibility to make a determination regarding the consistency of oil and gas development and production plans as required by the Coastal Zone Management Act after an environmental impact statement detailing the direct and cumulative impacts of the project is completed by the Minerals Management Service. It is this second provision which is so important. Many in this body may not be aware that my state is currently engaged in a battle to keep drilling rigs off its coasts. In the process, the government of the state of Florida was forced, by current law, to make a consistency determination on a pending development plan without the benefit of the environmental impact statement. In fact, the state was forced to conclude that the plan is inconsistent with its own coastal zone management program months before the environmental impact statement was concluded. As I stand here, the EIS for this development plan is still not finalized and its draft is currently the subject of public hearings. Without the benefit of this detailed study, the state is unable to accurately assess the primary, secondary and cumulative impacts drilling will have on our coast, estuaries, marine life and our economy. No state should be put in a similar position and our bill seeks to correct this. Mr. President, removing the threat of oil and gas exploration permanently from Florida's coast will require responsible leadership from the Congress. This reasonable legislation, in my view, will provide states with critical information needed to assess risks to my state's economic and environmental well-being. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile effort. We look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to meet this goal. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague Senator Abraham, to introduce the Merit Act, which is legislation to ensure that every classroom in America is staffed with a competent, qualified and caring teacher. Last Congress, the Senate debated a number of initiatives to further this goal and passed this legislation as an amendment to a comprehensive education reform bill, which was vetoed by the President. Earlier this year, I joined Senator Gregg in cosponsor the Teacher Empowerment Act. Both the TEA, and the MERIT ACT are important reform bills to enable local schools to staff their classrooms with the best and brightest teachers. The 21st Century begins in just under 100 days. If our children are to be prepared for the challenges ahead, educational excellence must become our first order of business. As Congress continues to focus on a number of important reforms to federal K-12 education policy, I strongly believe that any real education reform must confront the most basic, the most important, and the most neglected aspect of public education: the quality of instruction in the classroom. Parents all over the state of Florida, and I imagine the same is true around the country, are concerned that the success --or failure--of their child's entire academic year will be determined by the quality and expertise of their child's teacher. Studies show that the most important factor in determining student success on standardized tests is the teacher's ability to present the material. Studies also show that when a student is assigned an ineffective teacher, the damage is not limited to one year. In fact, student test scores do not recover for three years, even if their subsequent teachers are excellent. America's classrooms are staffed with many dedicated, knowledgeable, and hardworking teachers. Nevertheless, the case for sweeping reform is not difficult to make. While the United States already spends more money per pupil than virtually any industrialized democracy in the world, our children frequently score near the bottom in international exams in science and math. Without exceptional teaching, no amount of resources will be able to turn bad schools into good schools. Throwing more money at the problem is no longer the answer. Our schools and classrooms should be staffed with teachers who have the appropriate training and background. Students deserve teachers with a thorough knowledge of the subjects they are teaching and the ability to convey complex material in ways that students can understand. One way to determine the competency of teachers would be to test them on their knowledge of the subject areas they teach. At a time when states are raising the bar for student achievement, few are raising standards for teachers. Today, seven states have no licensing exams for new teachers, and of the 43 states that do have licensing exams, only 29 require high school teachers to pass an exam in the subject they plan to teach. However, in many cases, these requirements are waived when there is a shortage of qualified candidates. We have a clear interest in ensuring that beginning teachers are able to meet high standards and are knowledgeable about the subject matter they are presenting, and a number of states have taken the initiative to test their prospective teachers. However, when you consider that many teachers--especially teachers in low income districts--do not even have a minor degree in the subject they teach, it is important to periodically evaluate the performance of all teachers. Schools are often strapped for good teachers and will simply staff a science class with a math teacher. These are cases where testing could provide valuable insight as to the mastery of the teacher in additional subjects, and would identify those teachers who need additional encouragement. Common sense also dictates that we should not concentrate all our attention on under-performing teachers. We must also recognize that there are many great teachers who are successfully challenging their students on a daily basis. Today, our public schools compensate teachers based almost solely on seniority, not on their performance inside the classroom. Merit-pay would differentiate between teachers who are hard-working and inspiring, and those who fall short. The legislation we are introducing today, known as the MERIT ACT-- which stands for Measures to Enhance Results in Teaching --is the same legislation that passed the Senate last Congress with bipartisan support by a vote of 63-35. It rewards states that test its teachers on their subject matter knowledge, and pays its teachers based on merit. Here is how it works: we will make half of any additional funding over the FY 2000 level for the Eisenhower Professional Development Program available to states that periodically test elementary and secondary school teachers, and reward teachers based on merit and proven performance. There will be no reduction in current funding to states under this program based on this legislation. As funding increases for this program, so will the amount each state receives. Incentives will and should be provided to those states that take the initiative to establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. Again, I want to emphasize that all current money being spent on this program is unaffected by this legislation. Only additional money will be used as an incentive for states to enact teacher testing and merit pay programs. Finally, this legislation enables states to also use federal education money to establish and administer teacher testing and merit pay programs. This broad approach will enable states to staff their schools with the best and most qualified teachers, thereby enhancing learning for all students. In turn, teachers can be certain that all of their energy, dedication and expertise will be rewarded. And it can be done without placing new mandates on states or increasing the federal bureaucracy. It is interesting to note that as Governor of the State of Arkansas, Bill Clinton enthusiastically supported teacher testing, and as Governor of South Carolina, Secretary of Education Richard Riley advocated a merit-pay plan. In fact, then-Governor Clinton in 1984 said that he was more convinced than ever that competency tests were needed to take inventory of teachers' basic skills. He said, ``Teachers who don't pass the test shouldn't be in the classroom''. While President Clinton vetoed this legislation last year, I am hoping he will stand by his State of the Union address where he stated that new teachers should be required to pass performance exams and all teachers should know the subject matter they are teaching. I would also like to mention the important steps being taken by schools around the country to address the need for merit-based pay. Most recently, in Denver, Colorado, schools have reached an agreement with the unions to commence a two year demonstration program which will pay teachers based on performance. It is important to note the two largest unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, have approached the Denver plan with an open mind. In this program, teachers can earn an additional $1500 by the end of an academic year if a majority of the teacher's students ``improve.'' I am encouraged by the initiative taken by Denver's schools to implement innovative approaches to teacher compensation, and I look forward to the continued cooperation of America's teacher unions. Without their cooperation, reforms to education in America are often frustrated. In the end, I believe teachers, administrators, parents and students will be able to devise a system that is fair and one that works to improve teacher and student performance alike. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue the fight to give dedicated professionals who teach our children a personal stake in the quality of the instruction they provide. I hope there will again be broad, bipartisan support for this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, Senator Graham and I rise again to introduce the Florida Coast Protection Act of 2000. This legislation will amend current law to give states the ability to have all pertinent environmental information on hand before they are forced to rule on oil and gas drilling development plans, and it would also implement a permanent ban on leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Mr. President, Floridians have always been justifiably concerned about the prospect of oil and gas exploration in the waters off our coast. We are well aware of the risk this activity poses to our environment and our economy because, in Florida, a healthy environment means a healthy economy. Millions of people come to Florida each year to enjoy the climate, our beaches, and our fine quality of life. The tourism industry in Florida provides millions of jobs and generates revenues in the billion of dollars. It would take only one disaster to end Florida's good standing as America's vacationland. We cannot afford to let that happen. Throughout my tenure in the Senate I have opposed exploration and drilling off Florida's coasts. My goal--and the goal of the entire Florida Congressional delegation--is to permanently remove this threat from Florida's coast. In recent years, we have stood together in opposition to drilling and have successfully extended the annual moratorium on all new leasing activities on Florida's continental shelf. While the opposition of Floridians to oil drilling is well- documented, the reality remains that leases have been issued, potential drilling sites have been explored, and it is likely that actual extraction of resources could take place within the next few years. In order to prevent a repeat of the past mistake of leasing in the OCS off Florida, our legislation makes permanent the ban on any new leasing activity within 100 miles of our coast. In addition, it gives states the flexibility to make a determination regarding the consistency of oil and gas development and production plans as required by the Coastal Zone Management Act after an environmental impact statement detailing the direct and cumulative impacts of the project is completed by the Minerals Management Service. It is this second provision which is so important. Many in this body may not be aware that my state is currently engaged in a battle to keep drilling rigs off its coasts. In the process, the government of the state of Florida was forced, by current law, to make a consistency determination on a pending development plan without the benefit of the environmental impact statement. In fact, the state was forced to conclude that the plan is inconsistent with its own coastal zone management program months before the environmental impact statement was concluded. As I stand here, the EIS for this development plan is still not finalized and its draft is currently the subject of public hearings. Without the benefit of this detailed study, the state is unable to accurately assess the primary, secondary and cumulative impacts drilling will have on our coast, estuaries, marine life and our economy. No state should be put in a similar position and our bill seeks to correct this. Mr. President, removing the threat of oil and gas exploration permanently from Florida's coast will require responsible leadership from the Congress. This reasonable legislation, in my view, will provide states with critical information needed to assess risks to my state's economic and environmental well-being. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile effort. We look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to meet this goal. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Given the merits of the project, we were disappointed that Barry University was not included in the legislation before us that allocates funds to the ``Economic Development Initiatives'' for such purposes. Barry University's proposal meets the criteria established by the Subcommittee in terms of serving low-income populations. Our hope is that this project can be re-considered during final deliberations on the bill. Specifically, we would request that favorable language be included in this bill directing the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to spend a minimum of 1.5 million dollars from the Economic Development Initiative fund to finance this important program that promotes economic and social revitalization. We would appreciate the Senator's support, along with the Chairman's in the funding of the Barry University Intercultural Community Center in the Conference Report.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his assurances. water treatment

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Florida, Senator Graham, to engage the distinguished Chairman, Senator Bond, in a colloquy. Specifically, I wish to make the Chairman aware of an important priority for the State of Florida which was not funded in this bill. Last year, the public housing reform act passed by Congress contained authorization for the construction of a community services student union building at Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, Florida. Accordingly, we included this project as one of our important priorities for the legislation before us today.

Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his assurances. Reusable and Alternative Water Projects

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Florida, Senator Graham, to engage the distinguished Chairman, Senator Bond, in a colloquy. Specifically, I wish to make the Chairman aware of two critical projects in Florida that did not receive funding in this bill. The first is the City of West Palm Beach's water reuse project. This wetlands-based potable water reuse program is critical not only to the water supply of the City of West Palm Beach but also to the Everglades restoration effort. During dry season, the City takes water from Lake Okeechobee which is a critical primary source of water for the Everglades. West Palm Beach is attempting to eliminate this water use through their innovative water reuse project. The City has received federal support in each of the past three fiscal years. Work is progressing on schedule, but a final installment of federal funding is needed to complete the work and bring the project on line. I would point out to the Chairman that this project is funded in the House VA/HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. I would urge the Chairman to work with our House colleagues during the upcoming conference to ensure that funding for this critical project is completed in this fiscal year.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Florida, Senator Graham, to engage the distinguished Chairman, Senator Bond, in a colloquy. Specifically, I wish to make the Chairman aware of an important priority for the State of Florida which was not funded in this bill. The city of Sarasota, Florida has long been working with the federal government to address its water treatment system problems. Many of the city's residents are still on septic tanks and the federal government has been interested in addressing this problem because of polluted runoff into the Sarasota Bay National Estuary.

Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his assurances. northeast states for coordinated air use management

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. The Refuge currently co-exists with Florida's Space Coast. However, sea turtle nesting at this site is sensitive to impacts from development and human activity. To mitigate these impacts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates with the local and state governments regarding joint management of beaches, index nesting beach surveys, public education programs, and appropriate public use facilities.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me that time. Mr. President, the vote on our tax relief bill is nothing less than a vote of confidence, reaffirmation of our belief in the wisdom of the American people and of our faith in the capitalist system. It all boils down to one basic, fundamental question: who has first claim on the income of Americans--does it belong to the government or to the individual families who create the income through the sweat of their brows and the genius of their (brains?) The President and the vast majority of our friends on the other side of the aisle act like the money belongs to the government. They reject our tax relief bill as ``too big,'' as if taxpayers earn income at the sufferance of the government. Under this view, Uncle Sam does not live under a budget he sets the budget for every American family, which must be content with the table scraps after the enormous appetite for spending in Washington has been satiated. Two and one-quarter centuries ago, the rejection of this arrogant, government-comes-first theory of taxation was the impetus for the founding of our Nation. Our political forefathers would not stand for the notion that Americans were mere pawns of a distant court, which could raid their purses and pocketbooks at any whim. America was founded not on concepts that divide peoples, such as race, or geography, but on the American Idea that brings us all together: the inalienable right to liberty. From our Nation's very conception, this idea has served as a beacon for people of all creeds and colors seeking refuge from he heavy hand of meddlesome government. In America, the government serves the people, and must necessarily trust the people to do what is right by and for themselves. The government should not try to do it all. We provide a safety net for the least fortunate, those who cannot help themselves, but everyone else is trusted with the responsibility of providing for their own financial security. And by all accounts, this combination of liberty for our citizens and restraint on the part of the public sector has, in fact, succeeded. By the end of the 19th Century, America was in the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. By the mid-20th Century, despite the MIRE of a worldwide depression, the United States was able to mobilize its industries and its men to rout one own of the twin evils of tyranny in the Second World War. And by the close of this Century, we succeeded in defeating the other Soviet Communism, by the force of our will, the commitment of a strong Commander-in-Chief, Ronald Reagan, and the power of our competing idea of liberty. Our Nation is President Reagan's shining city on a hill, the economic envy of the world and the destination of all who yearn for freedom. But this President and his supporters in the Congress just don't get it. The tax burden on our citizens is at an all time, peacetime high-- 20.6 percent of the economy. Meanwhile, the federal government will be overcharging the taxpayers by more than $3 trillion over the next 10 years. A Nation that trusted its people, that protected their liberty, would not flinch from the right thing to do: cut taxes so that our families can enjoy the fruits of their labors, instead of greedy Washington programs. This tax bill does just that, leaving $792 billion in the hands of the people to whom it belongs. This tax cut is a measured, balanced response to the surpluses that will be flowing into the capital. It leaves 75% of the surpluses to be used to retire debt, and finance important priorities like Medicare and national defense. Every penny in the Social Security trust fund is left in a lockbox to be used to shore up the retirement security of our citizens. And the tax cuts are phased in over time, so the bulk of the cuts are in the last 3 years of the coming decade, when surpluses would otherwise skyrocket and tempt a government spending spree. But voices are raised in opposition to the tax cut. It is said that the government cannot afford a tax cut of this size. But that is exactly backwards: our taxpayers cannot afford to continue to shoulder a record-high tax burden. Back in 1993, without the vote of a single Republican member of Congress, President Clinton pushed through a tax increase totaling $241 billion over 5 years. The rationale for this tax increase was the need to reduce our budget deficit. Well, the budget deficit is gone and we now have surpluses as far as the eye can see. The on-budget, non-Social Security surpluses will exceed $1 trillion over the next decade. We propose to let the American people keep $792 billion of these overpayments. Is that too much? Not when you consider that the 5-year tax cut of $156 billion pales in comparison to the Clinton tax hike, imposed on what was then a much smaller economy. According to my Joint Economic Committee staff, the 1993 Clinton tax increases will take some $900 billion from the American people over the next decade. Our tax cut of $792 billion does not even offset the lingering ill effects of that tax hike. Are we being too generous? Or have the taxpayers been too generous for too long? It is hard to find fault with the specifics of our tax cut package. Is it right that we should double-tax business investments, so our innovators lack the resources for research and development? Is it wrong to extend the R&D tax credit, to liberate our scientists and engineers? Is it right that people should pay higher taxes just because they are married? Do we want people to build their own nest eggs for retirement security, or do we want to force everyone to rely exclusively on the Social Security system? This tax relief package helps everyone. We make health and long-term care insurance fully deductible, and allow a dependent deduction for elderly family members. Education is more affordable through enhanced savings vehicles--IRAs and pre-paid tuition plans. Tax rates are lowered across-the-board. We eliminate the marriage penalty for taxpayers in the lowest tax bracket and repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals. Most significant is what this tax relief does for our future. As we enter the 21st Century, America needs a tax policy that will facilitate, not smother, innovation and new technology. Our tax relief bill improves the environment for pioneers in new products and services. The R&D tax credit is extended for 5 years--the longest extension ever, so business can count on it. The R&D credit will continue to fuel innovation in new technologies, leading to health and safety breakthroughs, and enriching our quality of life. Capital gains tax rates are also cut to their lowest levels in 58 years. Lower taxes on capital gains will help our entrepreneurs find the seed capital they need to launch new businesses, create new jobs and provide new products and services. And capital gains are indexed, eliminating the tax on phantom gains due to inflation--ending the government raid on the savings of long-term investors, particularly retirees. We also eliminate the most unfair tax of all, the estate and gift tax. No longer will business owners be discouraged from reinvesting their hard-earned profits because the specter of the federal death tax is hovering, waiting to swoop down and scoop up 55 percent of the increased value of the business. By eliminating the death tax, cutting the capital gains tax, and expanding IRAs, some of the largest barriers to capital formation are pulled down, and the result should be a rising tide of investment that carries our economy through the coming Century of Knowledge. I want to commend Chairman Roth, and all of the conferees, for producing a balanced, thorough, and fair tax cut that benefits all taxpayers. High taxes are an infringement on the liberty of our families, who should not be struggling to make ends meet while their Federal servants hoard the wealth our families have created. When the question comes down to whether we trust the Federal Government or the family to use money wisely, I choose the family every time. I urge my colleagues to do the same, to side with the people, not the bureaucracy, and vote for the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, Mr. Graham, to address briefly the issue of Everglades restoration and land acquisition funding. We had joined with the President in requesting slightly more than $100 million for land acquisition in Everglades National Park, state assistance grants, infrastructure investment, and modified water deliveries to the Park and Florida Bay. This funding is critical to keep the restoration effort on budget, on schedule, and consistent with the Congress' commitment in 1997 to fully fund Everglades restoration.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the reservations of the Subcommittee are valid ones and my colleague from Florida and I are willing to be helpful however we can in addressing these concerns. I would say to the Chairman that we are making progress on these issues. The Department of the Interior tells me it is working closely with the State of Florida to remove the barriers to allocating the unobligated land acquisition and restoration balances. The Department assures these funds will be obligated by the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. MACK. I would ask the Chairman of the Subcommittee if he would be willing--given the movement toward resolving his concerns since release of the Committee's report--if he would be willing to work with us in Conference to increase the overall Everglades funding from the levels currently in the bill?

Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague for his response and assurances on this important issue. I would also like to mention briefly the funding level for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. It is my understanding the Task Force's funding has been kept steady at $800,000 since it was statutorily authorized in 1996. I want to bring this matter to the Chairman's attention because of the restraints this low funding ceiling is placing on the Task Force's ability to carry out its mission in South Florida.

Mr. MACK. I thank my friend from Washington and yield the floor. trout brook valley

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Mikulski, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Grams, in sponsoring the Medicare's Elderly Receiving Innovative Treatments (MERIT) Act of 1999. This legislation ensures that frail elderly persons residing in nursing homes continue to have the opportunity for improved quality of care and better health outcomes provided by the EverCare program. This program is reimbursed by Medicare on a capitated fee basis to managed care organizations that deliver preventive and primary medical care geared to the special needs of this population. Care is given by nurse practitioner/physician primary care teams which also coordinate care when the patient is hospitalized. Ideally, as much care as possible is provided at the nursing home thus preventing the expense of hospitalization. A major goal is to maintain stability in the patients' life by caring for them in their place of residence. The typical patient is over 85, 82 percent are female, 75 percent are on Medicaid and 70 percent have dementia. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) requires the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to establish a new risk-adjusted methodology for payments to health plans which is to go into effect on January 1, 2000. An interim risk adjusted payment will be based on inpatient hospital encounter data. However, an unintended consequence of this methodology may be a dramatic drop in EverCare payments by more than 40 percent, according to Long Term Care Data Institute study. This would jeopardize the program, which is currently comprised of demonstration and non-demonstration components, since providers could not afford to remain in business. HCFA recognized the possibly of this and did grant an exemption from the interim methodology for one year, 2000-2001. HCFA, however, has not yet presented a methodology that would be fair and adequate to ensure the continuance of EverCare. This legislation exempts programs serving the frail elderly living in nursing homes from the phased in risk-adjustment payment methodology and continues payments using the current system. It directs HCFA to develop a distinct payment methodology which meets the needs of these patients and to establish performance measurement standards. It also allows the frail elderly to join EverCare on a continual basis without regard to enrollment periods. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Mikulski, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Grams, in sponsoring the Medicare's Elderly Receiving Innovative Treatments (MERIT) Act of 1999. This legislation ensures that frail elderly persons residing in nursing homes continue to have the opportunity for improved quality of care and better health outcomes provided by the EverCare program. This program is reimbursed by Medicare on a capitated fee basis to managed care organizations that deliver preventive and primary medical care geared to the special needs of this population. Care is given by nurse practitioner/physician primary care teams which also coordinate care when the patient is hospitalized. Ideally, as much care as possible is provided at the nursing home thus preventing the expense of hospitalization. A major goal is to maintain stability in the patients' life by caring for them in their place of residence. The typical patient is over 85, 82 percent are female, 75 percent are on Medicaid and 70 percent have dementia. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) requires the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to establish a new risk-adjusted methodology for payments to health plans which is to go into effect on January 1, 2000. An interim risk adjusted payment will be based on inpatient hospital encounter data. However, an unintended consequence of this methodology may be a dramatic drop in EverCare payments by more than 40 percent, according to Long Term Care Data Institute study. This would jeopardize the program, which is currently comprised of demonstration and non-demonstration components, since providers could not afford to remain in business. HCFA recognized the possibly of this and did grant an exemption from the interim methodology for one year, 2000-2001. HCFA, however, has not yet presented a methodology that would be fair and adequate to ensure the continuance of EverCare. This legislation exempts programs serving the frail elderly living in nursing homes from the phased in risk-adjustment payment methodology and continues payments using the current system. It directs HCFA to develop a distinct payment methodology which meets the needs of these patients and to establish performance measurement standards. It also allows the frail elderly to join EverCare on a continual basis without regard to enrollment periods. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the amendment before us today by the Senator from Mississippi. While I know my friends who support this amendment have the best of intentions in offering the agricultural relief package, I must say I am concerned with the direction of this debate. We find ourselves today, Mr. President, in an increasingly familiar place. Once again, there is a crisis in farm country and the Congress is called on to construct a comprehensive package of relief and support. The amendment before us would spend more than $7 billion on-- among other things--direct cash payments to farmers. This follows our efforts last year when we provided just short of $6 billion in emergency payments to America's farmers. Since 1988 emergency supplemental acts and farm disaster acts have amounted to approximately $17 billion in emergency supplemental funding for USDA programs. Now I understand that much of this money was spent helping farmers who had suffered crop losses through drought, seasonal storms and other natural disasters. In fact, a portion of last year's emergency appropriations went to farmers who were harmed by weather conditions related to the El Nino phenomenon and other acts of God. In other words, we were attempting to help farmers in previous years because times were bad. What concerns me about this effort today is that we are helping farmers because times are good. Increasingly in these relief bills we are seeing the bulk of support going in response to low commodity prices. In fact, much of the rhetoric we're hearing is going to the issue of declining farm income and the difficulty farmers in the heartland and elsewhere are having finding markets for their goods. Today we're not addressing a crisis borne of declining productivity. It is not that America's farmer's aren't extremely good at what they do. Rather exactly the opposite. We are here because--stimulated by science and technology--farm productivity has persistently grown more rapidly than other sectors of the economy. More importantly, agricultural productivity has outstripped demand. And it leaves us faced with the one of the most basic economic functions: in the face of overwhelming supply and insufficient demand, prices will fall. In nearly all sectors, this phenomenon is a quiet one. The ``unseen hand'' of the market in most cases allocates resources among the population and prevents market saturation. But in the farm sector, Congress is often asked to intervene in this process and all too often in the past, we have. For far too long, we have allowed politics rather than economics to allocate agricultural resources and determine business success or failure. As seen by the overwhelming failure this century of centrally planned economies across the globe, political allocation leads to economic stagnation and long-term failure. It is for these reasons I fear our continued subsidization of the farm sector thwarts the free market process and will ultimately harm well-run farms by enabling continued market saturation. I understand the production of food is essential to the past and future of our country. I also recognize the instability and risk farmers face on a year to year basis and appreciate the need for occasional assistance. The New York Times, for example, contains an article yesterday discussing the drought disaster facing farmers in Maryland and West Virginia and the need for assistance in those areas. I do not discount the need for federal disaster relief. In Florida, Agriculture is a major part of our economy, and certainly there have been circumstances when we've called on Congress to assist us after hurricanes or winter freezes. These natural events warrant Congressional consideration and our best efforts. However, it seems our debate here is increasingly about politics rather than economics or weather-related disasters. In 1996, the Congress passed a Farm Bill which provided farmers of our major export crops with direct payments to transition them off the old subsidy programs and onto the free market. These direct payments were supposed to diminish each year until 2002. Instead, we are here-- for the second year in a row--considering legislation to increase these payments. Once again, Congress is using emergency payments to undo the 1996 Farm Bill and circumvent the free market. I hear my colleagues blaming the free market for price failures and I find this to be a somewhat misguided notion. In fact, the market is working all too well; the overcapacity in agriculture that was papered over by government price supports for generations is now in full view. And the results are evident in the low commodity prices we're seeing on the markets today. I support the ideals and practices of family farming. I do not, however, support continually subsidizing businesses that fail. This is wasteful and destructive. By paying farmers who are unable to make profits in farming, you only delay their ultimate failure, and deter them from seeking other alternatives for income and employment. In addition, these farms that would otherwise fail still can produce crops that dilute the market and drive prices down, thereby creating a vicious cycle that we are seeing realized in this year's crisis in farm country. This problem far outstrips any two-day debate on emergency cash payments for farmers. What we need, Mr. President, is long-term structural solutions that solve the underlying problems of oversupply in the face of insufficient world demand. One major impediment to the movement of people out of the farming sector and into other areas of the economy is the punitive capital gains taxes owed by farmers who sell their land. I will be introducing legislation soon to repeal the capital gains tax on the sale of farmland. This will allow farmers to realize an additional dollar in five on the sale of their land. They can then use this money to help them in the transition to non-farm businesses or work. While I agree with my colleagues that we need solutions to the crisis in American agriculture, I submit we need solutions that solve the underlying economic problems rather than patchwork measures that do little more than treat the symptoms and defer the problem to another year and another Congress. Mr. President, my opposition to this amendment is not based on a disdain or lack of appreciation for American agriculture. On the contrary, I believe it is a vital part of our economy and food security is clearly in our national interest. But the farming way of life is not served by government handout and bailouts of alarming size and regularity. Rather--like most other businesses--it is only preserved through sound business practices, hard work and an understanding of market fundamentals. Agriculture does not operate outside of the laws of supply and demand, and I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the long-term impact of continual subsidization on this important sector of the American economy. I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment and explore ways to help farmers who are facing natural disasters rather than price disasters. We cannot allow the short-term politics to deter us from the long-term effort to steer agriculture towards the free market. Nobody wants to see failure in America. Nobody wants to see families lose their farms. Nobody wants the agrarian way of life in America to fade from existence. For these very reasons, Congress has an obligation to stay the course and lay the free-market groundwork for a prosperous farm economy.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and I have offered on behalf of the Florida Center for Climate Prediction. The Center is a consortium between the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of Miami to study climate variability in the Southeast region. The objective of this unique partnership is to explore the potential value and practical application for long-term climate data and science to the agricultural community in my state and throughout the Southeast. The consortium's purpose is to develop and evaluate a useful set of tools and methodologies for assessing the regional agricultural consequences of the El Nino/La Nina phenomenons and applying these forecasts to agricultural decision-making. This is a truly innovative project and I am pleased this partnership is making good progress on these important agricultural issues. Our amendment will provide $300,000 in funding for the Center in the Federal administration section of the Cooperative State Research and Education, and extension Service [CSREES]--Research and Education Activities section of the bill before us today. I appreciate the support my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee provided this important research initiative.