Connie Mack

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. I thank the Chair. First, I want to address a point that was made a few moments ago, an argument that went something like this: If we were to open up our markets, that action would, in essence, allow terrorists or countries to buy more food products. I just think that is fundamentally wrong. I think in fact they are buying all of the product that they can afford to buy now. And I would make the case that if they buy the product from us at a cheaper price because of it being subsidized, we are in fact subsidizing terrorist states. So I just fundamentally disagree with where the proponents of this amendment are going.

Mr. MACK. Sure.

Mr. MACK. Again, I say to my colleague who has raised this question that I do find it strange that at just the time when Members are coming to the floor and asking the American taxpayer to come to the aid of the American farmer, they are at the same time asking us to lift sanctions to allow them to sell products to terrorist states. I think, in fact, there is a connection between what is happening today--that is, some $6-$7 billion, depending on what this bill finally turns out to produce, $8-$9 billion in aid to American farmers, just after a few months ago with the additional aid to the American farmer-- that you would find it appropriate to say to the American taxpayer: Now that you have given us this aid, we would like to have permission to sell our product to terrorist countries. I just find that unsupportable. I thank the Senator for raising the question.

Mr. MACK. It clearly is a subsidy to the American farmer. What kind of effect it will have on the world price I do not think I am qualified to say. But it seems to me it is clear that if in fact there is a subsidy being received by the American farmer, that farmer could sell the product at a lower price. I thank the Senator for his question. Mr. President, I oppose trade with tyrants and dictators, and I emphatically oppose subsidized trade with terrorist states. Again, make no mistake, that is exactly what this amendment does. Specifically, with my colleagues from Florida, New Jersey, and the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, we oppose the amendment to prevent any action by this body to limit the President of the United States' ability to impose sanctions on terrorist states. We had a similar vote last year, in which 67 Senators voted to oppose trade with terrorists. At the risk of stating the obvious, let me try to explain once again why the Senate should not change this position. Freedom is not free. I know my colleagues understand this simple axiom--this self-evident truth. But today we hear from our colleagues that the farmers of our Nation are undergoing a difficult time. So today, they have put before us a fundamental question: Does this great Nation, the United States of America, support freedom, or do we support terror? A few weeks ago, as I was preparing a statement on another issue, I came across a letter from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama of Tibet. In this letter the Dalai Lama says, and I quote, ``America's real strength comes not from its status as a `superpower' but from the ideals and principles on which it was founded.'' How may times have my colleagues been with me when a visiting head of state delivered to us the same message as the Dalai Lama's? I will provide one example. Last summer, the President of Romania addressed a joint session of Congress. He began his remarks by reminding us that Romania considered the United States the country of freedom and the guardian of fundamental human rights all over the world. He went on to say: Throughout its history, your country has been a beacon of hope for the oppressed and the needy, a source of inspiration for the creative, the courageous and the achieving. It has always been, and may it ever remain, the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are a nation founded on principles--the principles of freedom, liberty, and the respect for human dignity. And our commitment to these principles gives us our real strength today. It is that simple. I began this statement by posing a question on freedom versus terror. We know, even take for granted, the answer to that question--the United States opposes terror. But what about the strength or our commitment to these principles? On occasion, a short-term crisis can blind us--cause us to lose sight of our values and their importance to who we are and from where we derive our strength. Today's debate typifies one such moment. The poster which has been shown on this floor indicates the issue before us with respect to terrorist nations and their leaders--Qadhafi, Castro, and others. In exchange for very limited market expansion, some would take away the President's authority to restrict trade with six terrorist regimes--six countries whose combined markets represent a mere 1.7 percent of global agricultural imports; yet these minor importers perpetrate or harbor those who commit the world's greatest acts of terror. Some would have us open trade in agricultural products with these terrorists--in effect placing our principles up for sale. So what is the strength of our commitment to these principles? If we are to choose freedom over terror, what price should we expect to pay? There can be no doubt in anyone's mind the value of our commitment to freedom certainly exceeds the U.S. share of 1.7 percent of the world's agriculture market. But for those who may actually find this less clear than I do, it gets easier. The request by those who wish to trade with terrorists gets more extreme. With this amendment to language providing subsidies of U.S. agriculture, we are in effect being asked to subsidize global terrorism. The supporters of this amendment are asking the taxpayers of the United States to subsidize American farmers, who will then sell to terrorist states. The United States must not subsidize terrorist regimes. I find it unconscionable that we would even consider such a proposal. When two countries engage in a trade, even if just one commodity is being exported, both countries benefit from the exchange. So by opening agriculture exports to Iran, Sudan, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea, we are offering direct support to the regimes in power. If they chose to purchase from the United States, they would be doing so because they see it as being in their best interest. Their benefit would be greater in this case because the products sold to terrorists would be subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Terrorism poses a direct threat to the United States. The terrorist threat was considerable during the cold war when the Soviet Union and its allies often backed movements or governments that justified the use of terror. The threat is even greater today, when chemical or biological weapons, no bigger than a suitcase, can bring death and devastation to tens of thousands of people. The deaths in the World Trade Center bombing or in Pan Am 103 remind of us what terrorism can produce. Another important reminder is the image of American humanitarian aircraft being blown out of the sky by Cuban Air Force MiG fighters in the Florida Straits. We are moving from a world where terrorists use dynamite or rifles to one where they may use a weapon of mass destruction. The world today is more dangerous in many ways than it was 10 years ago, and the form of that danger is terrorism, which makes it even more dangerous for the United States to engage in trade with terrorist states. So where does this leave us? With this simple principle--the United States must not trade with any nation that supports terrorism in any way, direct or indirect. We must insist that there can be no business- as-usual approach to nations that threaten our national security and national interests. We are well aware of the counterarguments. If we don't sell, some other country will, so what is the point? Or why not sell food? You can't turn wheat into a bomb, can you? Well, maybe not, but it is possible for a government that supports terror to use our food exports to win popular support, and it is possible to use the money saved by purchasing subsidized American goods for yet more terror. We can all agree that the United States must stand for freedom and against terror, and I hope the strength of our commitment to this principled stand runs deep. Today we are being asked how deeply are we committed to opposing terrorism. Make no mistake, our principles provide the real source of America's strength. If we are serious about battling terrorism, there can be no compromise with terror and no trade with terrorist nations. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FITZGERALD addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Teacher Empowerment Act, which is legislation introduced by my friend and colleague Senator Gregg. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which responds to several critical needs facing American education. In particular, it addresses teacher quality and quantity. It addresses local control of educating our children. It requires accountability to parents and students. In short, it is a plan to ensure that every child in America is prepared for global competition in the 21st Century. The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the expertise of our state and local governments in educating our children. American parents trust their teachers and principals to make appropriate educational decisions for their children. In reality, Washington bureaucrats have called the shots for far too long. The results indicate that in lieu of achievement, we now have reams of paperwork and a myriad of programs to address local problems at the national level. We can and must do better. The Teacher Empowerment Act puts decision making authority back into the hands of local schools. It encourages states to implement innovative teacher reforms and high quality professional development programs to increase teacher knowledge and student achievement. Local schools would be encouraged to fund innovative programs such as teacher testing--a concept which I have strongly supported and which this body supported last year in a bipartisan vote--as well as tenure reform, merit-based pay, alternative routes to teacher certification, differential and bonus pay for teachers in high need subject areas, teacher mentoring, and in-service teacher academies. Our children are counting on us to ensure that they receive an education second to none. That starts with exceptional teachers and schools that are able to address the individual needs of its students. This bill returns to local schools the ability and authority to accomplish these goals. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Teacher Empowerment Act, which is legislation introduced by my friend and colleague Senator Gregg. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which responds to several critical needs facing American education. In particular, it addresses teacher quality and quantity. It addresses local control of educating our children. It requires accountability to parents and students. In short, it is a plan to ensure that every child in America is prepared for global competition in the 21st Century. The Teacher Empowerment Act recognizes the expertise of our state and local governments in educating our children. American parents trust their teachers and principals to make appropriate educational decisions for their children. In reality, Washington bureaucrats have called the shots for far too long. The results indicate that in lieu of achievement, we now have reams of paperwork and a myriad of programs to address local problems at the national level. We can and must do better. The Teacher Empowerment Act puts decision making authority back into the hands of local schools. It encourages states to implement innovative teacher reforms and high quality professional development programs to increase teacher knowledge and student achievement. Local schools would be encouraged to fund innovative programs such as teacher testing--a concept which I have strongly supported and which this body supported last year in a bipartisan vote--as well as tenure reform, merit-based pay, alternative routes to teacher certification, differential and bonus pay for teachers in high need subject areas, teacher mentoring, and in-service teacher academies. Our children are counting on us to ensure that they receive an education second to none. That starts with exceptional teachers and schools that are able to address the individual needs of its students. This bill returns to local schools the ability and authority to accomplish these goals. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Helms and Mr. Robb, in sponsoring the Medicare Return to Home Act of 1999. This legislation will ensure that senior citizens enrolled in Medicare+Choice health plans who normally reside in continuing care retirement communities or nursing homes have the opportunity to return to the same facility after a period of hospitalization. Many of the retirement communities contain fully licensed facilities established to provide skilled nursing services to their residents when required them. Often, people choose a continuing care retirement community because of the different levels of care that will be available to them as they age in that community. These living arrangements allow couples and individuals to maintain their independence by having the ability to move in and out of various levels of care according to their needs over time. People who are fully independent when they move into a residential community often require assisted living, skilled nursing care or some other assistance over the course of their lifetime in residence. An increasing number of seniors have chosen Medicare+Choice plans as the way that they wish to receive health care services under Medicare. These plans reduce the potential for substantial out-of-pocket costs for the very sick which might be the experience with the traditional original Medicare plan. One unfortunate consequence of the Medicare+Choice option involves the inability of seniors to return to their chosen community or nursing home where they resided following a period of hospitalization. Some Medicare+Choice plans will only permit patients to be discharged from the hospital to a facility with which the Medicare+Choice plan has a contract. Then, patients cannot return to the residential community that they selected, which may have been chosen because it included a skilled nursing facility. Nor can they return to the nursing home in which they had previously resided. This can be traumatic for frail elderly patients and may contribute to their disorientation and impede their recovery. It places them in an unfamiliar setting away from home, possibly separating them from a spouse and friends. Staff at their chosen retirement community or nursing home may also be familiar with their individual needs and habits which could only assist in their return to wellness. It makes little sense for them to be sent elsewhere upon discharge from a hospital. Passage of this legislation ensures the ability of Medicare+Choice beneficiaries to return to the residential home facility of their choice or nursing home in which they previously resided following hospitalization under the following conditions: 1. The enrollee chooses to return to the residential community facility where they had been living. 2. The facility is licensed and qualified under state and federal law to provide the required services. 3. The residential community or nursing home agrees to accept the managed care plan's payment which must be similar to the payment made to contracted facilities. This legislation provides for continuity in the lives of the elderly following a period of hospitalization. It does not increase costs to Medicare+Choice plans or to beneficiaries. It allows people to return to their loved ones in the facility where they have chosen to live. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to talk a few minutes about one particular provision in the tax bill we are debating, the extension of the Research & Development tax credit. Last week the Finance Committee took an historic step, and reported a bill which would have made the R&D tax credit a permanent feature of our tax code. Yesterday, unfortunately, every single member of the minority voted to sunset the provisions of the tax bill, so instead of a permanent R&D tax credit, we have a ten-year extension. Though the actions of our colleagues across the aisle prevented us from having a permanent R&D tax credit, I am pleased that the on-again, off-again nature of the credit will not undermine America's innovators for the next decade. I have long supported federal policies to increase the nation's R&D investment because of the central importance of scientific research to the health and well-being of our people, its positive contribution to our economic growth and our higher standard of living, and the improvements which add to our quality of life. Both business and government play important and complementary roles in making sure that America continues to lead the world in research and innovation. The federal role in R&D is focused on investment in long- term basic research. I will continue to do my best to increase federal R&D spending on basic research, particularly on biomedical research which leads to huge benefits to all Americans. Today, private industry plays the largest role in the nation's research effort, funding 65% of all R&D. Industry's role makes it clear . . . that if overall R&D is to increase, we must pursue policies which create a good business climate for firms to pursue long-term increases in their R&D budgets. We want America's leading-edge companies to hire new scientists, invest in new technologies and new research facilities--and the R&D tax credit provides that crucial incentive. To see the benefits of R&D, look no further than America's economic performance today. We are in the eighth consecutive year of non- inflationary growth, and technology industries deserve a large share of the credit. In fact, high-tech industries have accounted for about one- third of real GDP growth in recent years. Advancements from R&D lead to a huge number of improvements to our quality of life. The most dramatic impact of R&D on our quality of life is evident in biomedical research and health care. Here are some examples of the payoff to medical R&D: It used to be that patients with kidney failure had to undergo frequent transfusions, which are expensive, carry substantial risks, and leave many patients anemic. Many kidney patients had to cut back on work or quit their jobs, or go on public assistance. Through extensive R&D, one of America's top biotech companies created a new drug that allows the body to create red blood cells again and enables people to restore their energy. In the past decade, this drug has helped millions to remain productive. It has reduced transfusions in the United States by nearly one-fifth, and fewer people have contracted blood-born disease. Another example of the real-life benefits from R&D is the new class of drugs, developed in the late 1980s, which are giving millions of people who suffer from depression a new lease on life. Because of these new depression drugs, the cost of treating depression in the United States has plummeted--expensive psychiatric care and in-patient stays, which many could not afford, are now disappearing in favor of these new treatments. There are two telecommunications companies which invested in R&D to create new technologies to bring state-of-the-art medicine to previously underserved and remote locations. These new technologies allow transfer of high-resolution photographs, radiological images, sounds, and medical records from leading medical centers to physicians and patients in remote locations. These are just a few of hundreds of great success stories coming out of America's medical research labs--successes coming from companies responding to the R&D tax credit incentive. These examples make clear that R&D is not simply a dollars and cents issue. Federal R&D policy makes improvements to the quality of life across-the-board for all Americans. The R&D tax credit has proven its effectiveness. Numerous studies during the past decade have found that each dollar of tax credits generates between $1 and $2 of additional R&D. Therefore, taxpayers are getting a solid return on their investment in terms of greater economic growth, a higher standard of living, and in numerous cases--a longer and healthier life span. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, last month, along with Senator Bennett, I hosted a high-tech summit which brought together business leaders from all across the high technology industries. One issue everyone seemed to agree on was that a permanent R&D tax credit would advance the development of new technologies, leading to breakthroughs which benefit the environment, increase transportation safety, treat serious illnesses and save lives. And on top of all this, a Coopers & Lybrand study found that a permanent extension to the credit would raise American incomes due to higher productivity growth and contribute substantially to our economic growth. The R&D tax credit has proven its worth many times over. Mr. President, though I am pleased we have extended R&D for 10 years, it is my hope that the R&D tax credit will one day be a permanent fixture in our Tax Code so it can spur innovation and economic growth throughout the next millennium.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Helms and Mr. Robb, in sponsoring the Medicare Return to Home Act of 1999. This legislation will ensure that senior citizens enrolled in Medicare+Choice health plans who normally reside in continuing care retirement communities or nursing homes have the opportunity to return to the same facility after a period of hospitalization. Many of the retirement communities contain fully licensed facilities established to provide skilled nursing services to their residents when required them. Often, people choose a continuing care retirement community because of the different levels of care that will be available to them as they age in that community. These living arrangements allow couples and individuals to maintain their independence by having the ability to move in and out of various levels of care according to their needs over time. People who are fully independent when they move into a residential community often require assisted living, skilled nursing care or some other assistance over the course of their lifetime in residence. An increasing number of seniors have chosen Medicare+Choice plans as the way that they wish to receive health care services under Medicare. These plans reduce the potential for substantial out-of-pocket costs for the very sick which might be the experience with the traditional original Medicare plan. One unfortunate consequence of the Medicare+Choice option involves the inability of seniors to return to their chosen community or nursing home where they resided following a period of hospitalization. Some Medicare+Choice plans will only permit patients to be discharged from the hospital to a facility with which the Medicare+Choice plan has a contract. Then, patients cannot return to the residential community that they selected, which may have been chosen because it included a skilled nursing facility. Nor can they return to the nursing home in which they had previously resided. This can be traumatic for frail elderly patients and may contribute to their disorientation and impede their recovery. It places them in an unfamiliar setting away from home, possibly separating them from a spouse and friends. Staff at their chosen retirement community or nursing home may also be familiar with their individual needs and habits which could only assist in their return to wellness. It makes little sense for them to be sent elsewhere upon discharge from a hospital. Passage of this legislation ensures the ability of Medicare+Choice beneficiaries to return to the residential home facility of their choice or nursing home in which they previously resided following hospitalization under the following conditions: 1. The enrollee chooses to return to the residential community facility where they had been living. 2. The facility is licensed and qualified under state and federal law to provide the required services. 3. The residential community or nursing home agrees to accept the managed care plan's payment which must be similar to the payment made to contracted facilities. This legislation provides for continuity in the lives of the elderly following a period of hospitalization. It does not increase costs to Medicare+Choice plans or to beneficiaries. It allows people to return to their loved ones in the facility where they have chosen to live. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, although I agree with many of the specific provisions in the Democrat alternative tax package--including a few bills that I have introduced--I must rise in opposition to this amendment. The plain fact is that the tax cut offered is just too small. We have budget instructions to cut taxes by $792 billion over the next 10 years, and we should cut taxes by $792 billion. I am glad I have this opportunity to talk about tax cuts, one of my favorite subjects. We are in the midst of what should be a very easy task: reducing the tax burden on our citizens by $792 billion over the next ten years. After all, over the next decade, the federal government is on track to collect over $3 trillion dollars more than we have budgeted for spending. In other words, we will be overcharging the taxpayers by $3 trillion. You would think that the suggestion to return to the taxpayers a mere 25 percent of these overpayments would not be controversial. But we have heard, over the past few months, the defenders of the status quo, the advocates of big government, raise their voices in criticism of our tax cut goal. These critics say that tax cuts are not needed, that taxpayers do not deserve to keep more of their hard earned money. It has even been suggested that the tax burden on our families has been falling. Well, the facts could not be any clearer: the federal government will tax away 20.6 percent of our nation's gross domestic product this year. That is an all-time, peacetime record, a level that was only exceeded when we mobilized to win World War II. But even though the tax burden is a record high, even though we will be overcharging the taxpayers by $3 trillion over the next decade, every excuse under the sun is being raised against tax cuts. Some of these arguments are contradictory, and all are wrong. Some argue, from a Keynesian demand-side perspective, that tax cuts will overstimulate the economy. But even after a $792 billion tax cut, the federal government will run up over $2 trillion in surpluses over the next ten years--from a Keynesian viewpoint, $2 trillion in surpluses is not considered a stimulus. And with all of the lags, the delays, and the phase-ins, the bulk of the tax cuts will not arrive until years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Can anyone seriously suggest that, in a $9 trillion economy, a $4 billion net tax cut for fiscal year 2000 will overstimulate consumer demand? Or even a $25 billion tax cut in 2001? Would a $39 billion tax cut in 2002 overheat the economy, when this is only .004 percent of projected GDP? Clearly, the facts do not support the argument that our tax cuts will overheat the economy. In any event, from the demand-side perspective, the tax cut would be irrelevant. If we do not cut taxes by $792 billion, it is safe to say that spending will increase by $792 billion over the next decade--spending by the government, that is. That is what President Clinton means when he says we cannot afford a tax cut--his bureaucrats are working overtime to dream up new ways to spend the money, as if the government has first claims to the fruits of our citizens' labor. What kind of spending initiatives can we expect? A few years back, as many of us recall, President Clinton's so-called stimulus package included spending on such urgent needs as building parking garages at the beach, resurfacing tennis courts, researching the sicklefin chub fish, renovating swimming pools, building golf courses, soccer fields, and softball diamonds, and constructing an ice skating warming hut. Now, the President is not the only source of such wasteful spending ideas--we in Congress are very susceptible to pressures to spend, spend, spend. But no one here doubts for a minute that if the $792 billion in taxes are instead brought to Washington, the money will all be spent. That is one very good reason why we must keep the money out of Washington in the first place. The argument is also raised that a $792 billion tax cut leaves no money to meet some other important government goals such as debt reduction. But we still have $1.9 trillion in social security surpluses that will be in a ``lock-box'' to retire debt and shore up our citizens' retirement security, and another $505 billion in non-social security surpluses that can be used for Medicare, National Defense, and our other priorities. It is my hope that these surpluses will be used for real priorities, not the ice skating warming huts and beach parking garages. It should be clear that this half-trillion dollars is more than enough to cover our priorities. The rest of the arguments against our tax relief goal are similarly mistaken. Some people argue that the money is needed to retire publicly-held debt--although, after the tax cut, the remaining 75% of the surplus is available for debt reduction. Even with our tax cut, publicly-held national debt will be reduced from 40% of GDP to just 12% of GDP by 2009. Other people argue that the Federal Reserve Board would react to the tax cut by tightening the money supply. I have already noted that the very small size of the tax cuts over the next two years--just .0015% of GDP--does not add up to a dramatic increase in consumer demand and, in fact, will not increase demand since government spending would have increased by that same amount were we to collect the taxes. And I will point out that, on many occasion, including today, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated that he believes that government spending is the worst possible use of the surpluses, and that he would support tax cuts if spending is the alternative. Furthermore, a tax cut that removes government barriers to savings and investment is not an ``artificial stimulus'' that should worry the Fed one bit. Inflation, after all, is caused by too many dollars chasing too few goods, not by too many investors creating wealth and opportunity. An even stronger economy, fueled by the freedom and enthusiasm of our entrepreneurs, is not something to fear. It is even argued that a sizable tax cut passed now makes a future economic downturn more hazardous, as if the tax cuts needed for an economic rebound will have already been wasted by our efforts this year. Of course, that argument makes the case for tax cuts, as any tax cuts that would succeed in getting us out of a recession should keep us out of one in the first place. That is why former Fed Governor Lawrence Lindsey considers a tax cut a good insurance policy against an economic downturn. When you consider all of the arguments, there really is no case against cutting taxes by at least $792 billion. Chairman Roth is to be commended for sticking to his guns and reporting out of Committee a bill that cuts taxes by that full amount, despite all of the pressure exerted by all of the advocates of big government, who would rather spend the money. One final point I want to make is that these abstract discussions tend to obscure the real reason we are here. Tax cuts are not about numbers, they aren't about aggregate statistics, they aren't about increasing demand by 4 thousandths of a percentage point--tax cuts are about people. We are cutting taxes because of the 67-year-old owner of a family business in Florida's panhandle, who is discouraged from reinvesting his hard-earned profits because the specter of the federal death tax is hovering, waiting to swoop down and scoop up 55% of the increased value of his business. We are cutting taxes because of the two-earner family, struggling to make ends meet, that has to pay over $1,000 extra in taxes just because they are married. We are cutting taxes so that waitresses, truck drivers, teachers and carpenters can put an extra $1,000 in their IRAs each year, to build a better nest egg for retirement. We are cutting taxes to enable a biomedical company to budget that one additional research project that just might lead to a breakthrough in the treatment of glaucoma or a cure for cancer. And we are cutting taxes to reduce government barriers to saving and investment, so the capital is available for the American entrepreneurs of the 21st Century to develop markets in technologies we cannot even imagine today. We need to cut taxes to get government out of the way and give people the freedom to pursue their own dream--not Washington's. I thank the Chair. I yield whatever time I did not use.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank my colleagues for this clarification and for their support of coral reef research. noaa activities in florida

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee if he would consent to discuss with me for a moment two issues of concern to me with respect to NOAA activities in Florida.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to engage the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee in a colloquy. First let me begin by thanking my friends for ensuring the committee report included $2 million under the National Ocean Service account to support scientific research and coral reef studies. It is my understanding this money is to be divided equally between the National Coral Reef Institute in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and the University of Hawaii. This research is critical to our understanding of the factors at work in the degradation of reef ecosystems around the world and I appreciate all my colleagues did in Committee to support this effort. I say to my colleagues, it is my understanding the Chairman's amendment contains additional funding for this account. Is it correct to say these funds are in addition to the $2 million currently provided by the Committee to the National Coral Reef Institute and the University of Hawaii?

Mr. MACK. First, let me say I appreciate my friend from New Hampshire's hard work for the strong support he's given to the State of Florida in the bill before us today. But I would like to bring to the Chairman's attention an initiative undertaken by Florida's top three research universities: the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of Miami. These three institutions came together to ensure their extensive capabilities in the areas of marine, atmosphere and climate prediction research were focused on the needs of the entire Southeast region. They have especially come together to study the El Nino phenomenon. Their effort has been recognized by NOAA and they have become one of the agency's first regional assessment centers. My concern, Mr. President, is about the possibility that NOAA may reduce resources available to Florida and this valuable research initiative. Clearly, Florida and the Southeast region are significantly impacted by climatic developments. A strong and continued investment in Florida and the region--along with a balanced investment in the regional assessment centers--is essential. I would ask the support of the Committee to continue the base level funding of this important collaborative effort. The institutions had been receiving approximately $500,000 per year through the Office of Global Programs, and I would like the Chairman's assurances that this level of funding should and will be continued during the next fiscal year.

Mr. MACK. Yes. I know the chairman is aware of the Florida Congressional delegation's strong commitment to the restoration of the Everglades and Florida Bay. I have heard some concern, however, that internal reallocations within NOAA could result in at least a $1 million reduction in South Florida based Florida Bay activities. The administration asked for significant funding of the Everglades-Florida Bay initiative in both FY 99 and FY 2000 through the Coastal Ocean Science Program. But the concern I'm hearing from Florida indicates that NOAA may reallocate funds away from this initiative and toward other programs and purposes. I would like the Chairman to join me in stressing to the agency that funds in this bill currently allocated for critical Florida Bay initiatives not be depleted. I would like the Chairman to join me in working to ensure the NOAA contribution to the interagency program for Florida and adjacent coastal marine waters is continued at the current levels.

Mr. MACK. I appreciate my friend's comments with respect to these two issues. I thank him again for his continued support of Florida priorities. the las vegas special police enforcement and eradication program

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida. Barry University has a strong history of addressing important Miami community issues like urbanization, ethnic diversity, community development and cultural understanding. Recently the University announced the planning of an Intercultural Community Center which is designed to promote necessary neighborhood and small business revitalization. The facility will provide conference space, meeting rooms, executive seminars and continuing education courses related to international business and commerce. It is my understanding Barry University will be requesting an Economic Development Administration grant for this project from the Department of Commerce during the next fiscal year. I would appreciate the Chairman's support in recommending the Department of Commerce give strong consideration to the merits of University's grant application.

Mr. MACK. I appreciate my friend from New Hampshire's comments on this important initiative and for all he and the Senator from South Carolina have done in this bill for the citizens of Florida. epscot program

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, on this occasion of the almost annual debate on NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, we can and we must declare our commitment to promoting freedom in the world. Freedom often exacts a price--it indeed is not free. Ronald Reagan understood this when he created NED, as have successive Presidents and Congresses who have consistently funded NED. Freedom is sacred. It is to be honored, protected, and shared with the world. It is the core of all human progress, and therefore, the spread of freedom enriches us all. But let us not forget, the price of freedom can be great. Just as we focus in this body these days on our abundance we must not forget those who have come before us; we must not forget in whose shoes we are walking. How many Americans have died; have put their lives on the line in the glorious pursuit of that sweetest of goals--emancipation from oppression and tyranny. We are the direct benefactors of the dedication, selflessness, and even the spilled blood, of countless people. Should we be proud of those achievements? Of course, but we must also accept the weight--the responsibility--of this gift. The awesome responsibility which we have inherited. Because, when I said that freedom is not free, I was not only speaking of the cost to those currently suffering in the world to throw off the yoke of tyranny, but also the price to us, the benefactors of past actions. We are once again on the floor of the Senate to defend the National Endowment for Democracy. The last time we fought this battle, 2 years ago, 72 Senators voted to restore the funding to NED after the subcommittee zeroed the account. We are here today facing the same circumstances. The good news with the regularity of this debate, if we look for the bright side, is that we know very well of the strong support in the Senate for NED. And let me explain why. The history is important. In 1983, Ronald Reagan outlined an initiative for the United States to publicly lead the struggle for freedom around the world. A policy which I remember well as a young House Member and in many ways continues to influence my thinking about American foreign policy. A fundamental pillar of that policy was the National Endowment for Democracy. Let me read to you from a letter by President Reagan, from July 4, 1993. On this 217th anniversary of our nation's independence, I am reminded that America's greatness lies not only in our success at home, but in the example of leadership that we provide the entire world. Our work, however, is not complete. As I look abroad, I see that the struggle between freedom and tyranny continues to be wages. Disappointly, in some places, it is autocracy, not freedom, that is winning the day. That is why I strongly support continued Congressional funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Ten years ago, at Westminster, you will recall that I outlined a new, bold initiative for our country to publicly lead the struggle for freedom abroad. As past of this effort, at my request, the National Endowment for Democracy was created. Mr. President, let me point out a few fundamental things. First, NED is not a ``cold war relic,'' as some critics argue. You will note that President Reagan did not say that the purpose was to defeat communism, to defeat the Soviet Union, or to contain any particular ideology. He said that the mission of NED was to support America's efforts to ``lead the struggle for freedom.'' You should also note that the letter from which I read is dated July 4, 1993--2 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. So let me be clear: NED is not about the cold war and has never been exclusively about fighting communism or the Soviet Union. The National Endowment for Democracy is about freedom. My second point is that the need for NED is as great today as it has ever been. We opposed communism because the flawed ideology oppresses people and empowers tyrants. Communism has almost disappeared as a threat today; but tyranny has not--oppression has not. Indeed, tyranny and oppression continue to rule in far too many places around the globe. If you accept that we were right in the past to oppose freedom's foes, then we have the same task today, perhaps even more complicated than in the past. This vote, therefore, comes down to a simple issue: does the struggle for freedom continue in the world and does the United States continue to have a role in the struggle for freedom abroad? Does tyranny still reign in far too many places on earth? The answer is quite obviously, ``yes.'' Let me address some critical questions others have raised. Does NED work? NED works extremely well by providing resources to the freedom-activists throughout the world. NED identifies people struggling for economic, political, labor, press, and other reforms and gets them the resources necessary to fight against local oppression. His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet says the following about NED: The National Endowment for Democracy furthers the goals of your great nation and has provided moral and substantive support for oppressed peoples everywhere. Its unique independent mission has brought information and hope to people committed to peace and freedom, including the Tibetans. I sincerely hope that this institution will continue to receive support, because America's real strength comes not from its status as a `superpower' but from the ideals and principles on which it was founded. So the final question which someone may rightly put to this debate: why not the State Department? Isn't NED redundant? To answer this question, I defer to some experts who understand the executive branch and State Department well. I turn to a bipartisan group of former Secretaries of State and National Security Advisors. In a 1995 letter, former National Security Advisors Allen, Carlucci, Brzezinski, and Scowcroft state that NED: . . . operates in situations where direct government involvement is not appropriate. It is an exceptionally effective instrument in today's climate for reaching dedicated groups seeking to counter extreme nationalist and autocratic forces that are responsible for so much conflict and instability. Let me emphasize that these National Security Advisors state that NED is operating where the U.S. government cannot. I also have a letter from former Secretaries of State, including Secretaries Baker, Muskie, Eagleburger, Shultz, Haig, Vance, and Kissinger. This distinguished group states the following: During this period of international change and uncertainty, the work of NED continues to be an important bipartisan but non-governmental contributor to democratic reform and freedom. We consider the non-governmental character of the NED even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding. Let me review the main arguments. First, NED's necessity did not end with the cold war, but remains an integral part of America's opposition to the enemies of freedom. Second, the world continues to need America's invaluable work in promoting freedom--perhaps even now more than ever. And finally, NED makes a unique contribution to America's initiative to ``lead the struggle for freedom abroad.''

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President today I am pleased to join my colleague, Mr. Breaux, in sponsoring The Medicare Home Health Beneficiary Equity and Payment Simplification Act of 1999. This legislation sets forth a fully developed prospective payment system for Medicare home health benefits that can be implemented easily using currently available data and can be accurately monitored to prevent fraud and abuse. Most importantly, the bill restores access to covered services for the sickest, most frail Medicare beneficiaries while providing incentives for efficient treatment of all patients regardless of the acuity of their medical condition. The bill provides for a simple four-category prospective payment system for home health services (similar to the four-category system which has been in place for hospice services since 1983) which is based on data from a 1997 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation on characteristics of Medicare patients in need of covered home health services. The Kaiser Foundation study found that Medicare patients in need of home health services historically have fallen into one of the following categories: 1. Post-hospital, short stay beneficiaries 2. Medically stable, long-stay beneficiaries 3. Medically complex, long-stay beneficiaries 4. Medically unstable and complex, extremely high use beneficiaries Beneficiaries who meet all eligibility and coverage requirements for Medicare will be assigned to the appropriate category by a physician who does not have a prohibited relationship with the home health agency as defined in the ``Stark II'' law. Beneficiaries who do not clearly fit in one of the four categories will be placed in the first, lowest rate category. Payment rates for each of the categories is the average cost of treating patients in that category in 1994 as determined by the Kaiser Foundation study. Those rates are adjusted for wage variations in different parts of the country and updated by the home health market basket for each fiscal year. The Secretary of HHS is given the authority to provide additional payments to certain agencies that have higher costs due to reasons beyond their control. The bill would eliminate the 15% cut in Medicare home health reimbursement which is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2000. The bill would also simplify the reimbursement system by making payments based on the location of the agency rather than the residence of the patient. The bill is intended to provide a ``fail safe'' prospective payment mechanism in the event that HCFA falls behind in its schedule to implement a prospective payment system by October 1, 2000 that can be administered efficiently and monitored effectively. I urge my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation. 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 colleague, Mr. Breaux, in sponsoring The Medicare Home Health Beneficiary Equity and Payment Simplification Act of 1999. This legislation sets forth a fully developed prospective payment system for Medicare home health benefits that can be implemented easily using currently available data and can be accurately monitored to prevent fraud and abuse. Most importantly, the bill restores access to covered services for the sickest, most frail Medicare beneficiaries while providing incentives for efficient treatment of all patients regardless of the acuity of their medical condition. The bill provides for a simple four-category prospective payment system for home health services (similar to the four-category system which has been in place for hospice services since 1983) which is based on data from a 1997 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation on characteristics of Medicare patients in need of covered home health services. The Kaiser Foundation study found that Medicare patients in need of home health services historically have fallen into one of the following categories: 1. Post-hospital, short stay beneficiaries 2. Medically stable, long-stay beneficiaries 3. Medically complex, long-stay beneficiaries 4. Medically unstable and complex, extremely high use beneficiaries Beneficiaries who meet all eligibility and coverage requirements for Medicare will be assigned to the appropriate category by a physician who does not have a prohibited relationship with the home health agency as defined in the ``Stark II'' law. Beneficiaries who do not clearly fit in one of the four categories will be placed in the first, lowest rate category. Payment rates for each of the categories is the average cost of treating patients in that category in 1994 as determined by the Kaiser Foundation study. Those rates are adjusted for wage variations in different parts of the country and updated by the home health market basket for each fiscal year. The Secretary of HHS is given the authority to provide additional payments to certain agencies that have higher costs due to reasons beyond their control. The bill would eliminate the 15% cut in Medicare home health reimbursement which is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2000. The bill would also simplify the reimbursement system by making payments based on the location of the agency rather than the residence of the patient. The bill is intended to provide a ``fail safe'' prospective payment mechanism in the event that HCFA falls behind in its schedule to implement a prospective payment system by October 1, 2000 that can be administered efficiently and monitored effectively. I urge my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation. 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 to speak for just a moment to express my profound sympathy and condolences to our colleague and friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, and the members of the Kennedy family, and for the Bessette family, as well. Although I know the pain of losing a loved one, I have little conception of the pain which Senator Kennedy and his family are feeling with the multiple losses of family members at such early stages in their lives, and under such tragic conditions. My heart is heavy with grief for the family, and my thoughts and prayers are with them. I can only pray that they realize and are comforted in some small manner by the love, affection, and support of the Members of this body, as well as people all across this nation, for whom the Kennedy family is a symbol of courage, achievement, and service to mankind.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Last year, I was meeting with Dr. Rosenberg to learn about a clinical trial he is conducting on a state-of-the art melanoma vaccine. During our conversation, Dr. Rosenberg mentioned that one of my constituents was at NCI participating in that clinical trial. I asked if I might meet him. Before we went to his hospital room at NCI, Dr. Rosenberg showed me photographs which had previously been taken. This patient had purple, bulbous melanoma lesions several inches in diameter down the side of his body. Dr. Rosenberg introduced me to my constituent, and we engaged in casual conversation. At one point I asked him how he was doing. To show me how he was doing, this brave man took off his hospital gown and showed me that these lesions of huge size on both his arm and his side were totally gone. That is why I think it is so important that we have this amendment included in the legislation, so that other cancer patients will have the same opportunity. To conclude, what is this amendment really about? Most importantly, it is about giving patients fighting cancer the hope that an experimental therapy being tested in a well-designed clinical trial might save their lives. In addition to providing hope, it paves the way for new therapies that will, one day, not only provide hope, but a cure. It is about allowing cancer patients to make what may be the final major health care decision of their lives--whether to participate in a clinical trial. Mr. President, I've met with many patients who were participating in clinical trials. To me, these patients are, in many ways, like America's astronauts. Later this month, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of man's landing on the Moon. Like the astronauts of Apollo, clinical trial participants are pioneers. They are heroes, who are helping to push science and medicine into new frontiers. We must provide hope to these brave Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Larry Kerr, a health fellow for the Judiciary Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights.