Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his remarks both here as well as in the committee when we dealt with this issue. I think he and other members of the other side on this debated in a very thoughtful fashion some of the issues at stake. In light of his comments, it is my hope, obviously, that we will agree to this cloture motion this morning overwhelmingly, and then hopefully the Senate can begin to discuss a list of potential amendments that might be debated on it for whatever time and we would then call the bill up. If there are others here who would like to speak at this point, I yield to them some time. I see there is one request. Let me yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for 1 minute to comment on the legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his support as well as for his work on a number of other related issues, including the one we will be debating here soon for the Senate. He has given leadership in a variety of areas--especially in the area of abortion rights, which has been, I think, a source of great strength to people who care deeply about this topic. We look forward to working with him later this week on a related matter that will come before the Senate. In light of the current floor situation, I don't think there will be other speakers joining us. I intend to make a few remarks now, and, at the end of that time, if no one else has come to the floor to speak, I will yield back the remainder of the time that has been afforded me by the minority and seek unanimous consent that we vote as originally planned. In light of Senator Leahy's comments, it seems that probably the motion to proceed will receive enough votes for cloture and then we can begin moving forward. As I said in my remarks to the Senate yesterday, this is an issue that would seem to me to be one that people, regardless of their view on the underlying issue of abortion rights, could agree on; that is, that the Supreme Court of the United States has deemed it to be constitutional for States to enact parental involvement statutes-- parental consent or parental notification statutes. Based on that decision, about 22 States have enacted such laws. The families in those States, the parents in those States, and the children in those States have a right to rely on those laws. Those laws have been enacted to protect young women who are minors who might consider an abortion. The reason for that is very simple. The abortion procedure is a serious medical procedure. The consequences of that procedure are very serious. There is no one in a better position, particularly with extremely young women, to know about their health considerations better than the parents. Of course, there are certain instances where parents may not be appropriate because of abusive situations. The States have addressed that. And the courts have permitted States to address that with bypass procedures and other mechanisms to allow young women to have options in those rare instances. But other than in those rare instances, these laws make sense. I think an overwhelming percentage of Americans support them. The problem is that these laws lack forcefulness. It is possible to circumvent them very easily by simply transporting the child across a State line for an abortion. Our legislation is simply an effort to clarify which laws would apply in the new jurisdiction where that abortion might be performed. This legislation says that the laws of the States which have enacted parental consent laws still have meaning, still have consequence, and the families in those States still have the ability to rely on those laws. I cited yesterday on the floor the case that was presented in our hearings of Joyce Farley who was victimized by just such a situation-- the Senator from Pennsylvania just alluded to it--where her 12-year-old daughter was raped by a neighbor, became pregnant, and then, in an effort to try to cover up that act, the neighbor's parent drove the child out of Pennsylvania, where parental consent laws are required, to the State of New York, where they had the abortion performed, falsified documents pretending she was the mother, brought the child back to Pennsylvania, and left her 30 miles from home in a very, very serious state of health. The child became very sick, finally got home, and finally told her mother what had happened. Only because her mother was a nurse was proper medical attention at that point applied and the little child's life saved. This doesn't, in my judgment, seem to me to be a situation where we can simply allow this to continue. For that reason, our legislation is aimed not at changing the underlying abortion laws of States, not at changing or in any way enhancing the parental notification laws, but simply saying that where the laws exist, they have to be enforced regardless of where the child is taken for an abortion. That is what the purpose of the legislation is. I hope today we can move forward on this motion to proceed. Then I hope we can work together, regardless of what people's position might be on the abortion question and the underlying question, to say that parents and families in these situations should be protected and shall be protected by this Congress. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I note there are no other individuals on either side of the aisle here to speak at this point, and so in that the hour of 10 o'clock, which was the original time that this vote was slated to occur, has arrived and there are no other speakers, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the most recent unanimous consent agreement that was entered into, yield back all remaining time, and proceed at this point to a vote on the motion to proceed.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be taken out of the minority side.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, because the first 4 minutes of this debate was lost due to other business before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that we extend the time for debate an additional 5 minutes, which would move the cloture vote to 10:05.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his kind remarks and look forward to working together on this and other legislation. At this point, I yield up to 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we have reached the time set aside for morning business. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at present, it is our expectation tomorrow morning to be voting on cloture on a motion to proceed forward on S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection Act. It is my hope that tomorrow we will find 60 votes so we might proceed to debate that issue. The fact is, we have not had an opportunity here on the floor to have much debate about this motion to proceed, or about the issue itself, so I would like to take the time today to begin to acquaint our colleagues with this very vital piece of legislation. Mr. President, the Child Custody Protection Act would protect State laws requiring parental involvement in a minor's important decision whether or not to undergo an abortion. If the minor's home State has a parental involvement law this legislation would make it a Federal offense to transport that minor across State lines to obtain an abortion, unless the parents have been involved as that law requires, or the requirement has been waived by a court. By protecting existing State laws this legislation would help protect parents' rights and the health and well-being of teen-age girls facing unexpected pregnancy. I know, Mr. President, that the abortion issue has been strongly debated in this Chamber and, indeed, throughout our country. But I believe we all should be able to agree on the need for this legislation. Whatever one's position on the underlying issue of abortion, the protection of parental rights, of valid State laws, and of our daughters' health and emotional well-being demand that we prevent non-parents and non-guardians from circumventing State parental involvement laws. The rationale behind this legislation is simple, Mr. President: States that choose to institute parental involvement requirements deserve to have those requirements respected. Mr. President, 85 percent of Americans surveyed in a 1996 Gallup poll favored requiring minors to get parental consent for an abortion. Americans quite reasonably believe that no teen should be left to face an unexpected pregnancy alone. As the Supreme Court noted in H.L. versus Matheson, ``the medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is immature.'' I believe the American people share this realization, and also realize that parents are almost always the ones most willing and able to provide their daughters with the guidance and support they need in making the life-changing decision whether or not to undergo an abortion. Thus it is not surprising that more than 20 States have instituted parental involvement requirements. These laws are on the books. They have been held constitutional, and they have the support of a strong majority of the American people. Unfortunately, parental involvement laws are being circumvented and undermined by non-parents and non-guardians taking pregnant, minor teens across State lines for secret abortions. This is a significant problem. The abortion rights Center for Reproductive Law & Policy reports that thousands of pregnant girls are taken across State lines by adults to obtain secret abortions. Indeed, a veritable interstate abortion industry seems to have grown up. Abortion clinics in States without parental involvement laws are advertising in States that do have these requirements. The advertisements inform anyone who cares to know that the clinics will perform abortions on minors without parental notification or consent. Many people are attracted by these advertisements, and the results can be tragic. During the hearing on this bill, the Judiciary Committee heard from Joyce Farley. Mrs. Farley told us how her 12-year-old daughter was given alcohol, raped, then taken across the State lines, by the rapist's mother, for a secret abortion. Understandably, Mrs. Farley was of the view that the abortion was undertaken to destroy evidence of her daughter's rape by a 17-year-old neighbor, who committed the act. Mrs. Farley's daughter was understandably frightened and embarrassed. She did not immediately tell her mother of either her rape or her pregnancy. Her rapist's mother took advantage of this situation. Without telling Mrs. Farley, she drove the girl from her home in Pennsylvania, which has a parental notification law, to New York, which does not. She took the girl to an abortion clinic, lied on the forms, claiming to be the girl's mother, and waited while the girl underwent an abortion. The rapist's mother then dropped Mrs. Farley's daughter off 30 miles from her home. This poor girl was bleeding and in pain. When she got home, Mrs. Farley asked her what was wrong and eventually was told about the abortion. She then called the New York abortion clinic and was told that the pain and bleeding were normal--to be expected. She was told to increase her daughter's medication. Luckily for her daughter, Mrs. Farley is a nurse, so she knew that this advice was dangerously wrong. As it turned out, the abortion was incomplete and this young girl, now just 13, had to undergo another procedure to complete the abortion. Mrs. Farley was understandably very upset at what had happened to her daughter. She also was upset at what had, and what had not, been done about it. The man who had gotten her daughter pregnant eventually pleaded guilty to statutory rape. But the rapist's mother, who claimed she was just ``helping out'' by taking a by-then-13-year-old rape victim across State lines for a secret abortion, may receive no punishment at all. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just accepted for review her challenge of Pennsylvania's prosecution of her under State law. She charges that Pennsylvania exceeded its constitutional authority. Moreover, courts, legislators and prosecutors face great difficulty in situations like this because it is unclear which State's laws should apply. The actions of the rapist's mother were arguably legal in New York, even though Pennsylvania has made them illegal within that State. It is this classic conflict of laws problem that the Child Custody Protection Act would address. Mr. President, Mrs. Farley deserves better protection than she currently receives. Her daughter certainly deserves better protection, and parents and teens all across America deserve better protection against this kind of interference in the most important and most private decisions people can make. Any parent with minor daughters--and I have two of my own--should be concerned about what happened to Mrs. Farley, and especially what happened to her daughter. State parental notification and consent laws exist to protect girls from predators. They also exist to protect families. Today, any child is at significantly increased risk of drug abuse, crime, poverty and even suicide. That is why it is crucial that we help States that want to protect the rights of American parents to be involved in important decisions affecting their children. Only by being a part of their lives can parents provide their children with the guidance they need and maintain the mutual trust necessary to teach them how to lead good, productive lives. Parents also are almost always the people best able to support their daughters in facing an unexpected pregnancy. Bruce Lucero, a physician who has performed over 45,000 abortions and who also supports this legislation, explains the situation this way: Parents are usually the ones who can best help their teen- ager consider her options. And whatever the girls' decision, parents can provide the necessary emotional support and financial assistance. What is more, Lucero argues, a girl who avoids telling her parents about her pregnancy too often will wait too long, then have to: Turn to her parents to help to pay for a . . . riskier second-trimester abortion. Also, patients who receive abortions at out-of-state clinics frequently do not return for follow-up care, which can lead to dangerous complications. And a teen-ager who has an abortion across state lines without her parents' knowledge is even more unlikely to tell them that she is having complications. This is why we must help States that want to protect families from the consequences of secret abortions. Children must receive parental consent for even minor surgical procedures. Indeed, Mr. President, many schools now require parental permission before they will dispense aspirin to a child. The profound, lasting physical and psychological effects of abortion demand that we protect States that guarantee parental involvement in the abortion decision, and that means seeing to it that outside parties cannot circumvent State parental notification and consent laws with impunity. Our families deserve this protection, our State laws deserve this protection, and most especially our daughters deserve the protection provided by the Child Custody Protection Act. I would like at this point to simply outline the provisions of the bill. To begin with, the legislation adopts each relevant State's definition of a minor. It would deem transportation of a minor across State lines in order for that minor to obtain an abortion, in abridgement of parental rights under a State's parental involvement law, to be a misdemeanor Federal offense. The legislation defines this abridgement of parental rights as the performance of an abortion on the minor without the parental involvement that would have been required if that minor had stayed in State. The Federal offense applies only to the non-parental, non-guardian adult who so transported the minor. The minor who obtained the abortion and her parents are specifically exempted from civil and criminal liabilities. Further, in this legislation ``parent or legal guardian'' includes an individual standing in loco parentis who has care and control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly resides. In this way the bill addresses the situation of children living in the care of their relatives and other unique situations. The legislation also includes as an affirmative defense to the misdemeanor prosecution or civil action, that the defendant reasonably believed, based on information the defendant obtained directly from a parent of the individual or other compelling facts, that the minor had obtained appropriate consent or notification. Anyone convicted under this legislation would be subject to a fine or imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both. As I have said, Mr. President, this is a narrowly crafted law, intended specifically to aid in the enforcement of already existing, constitutionally valid State laws requiring parental involvement, or judicial waiver of that requirement, in any minor's decision whether or not to undergo an abortion. It is a modest law that does not seek to change States' underlying laws regarding abortion. It simply seeks to see to it that existing State parental involvement laws are protected from improper evasion and circumvention. I am aware, however, that there are a number of arguments floating around this Chamber and elsewhere against this legislation. It is to these arguments, each and every one of which I believe is clearly inaccurate or irrelevant that I would like to turn. First, some people have argued that this legislation is not constitutional on the grounds that it puts an improper, undue burden on the constitutional right to abortion. This is simply not true. The Supreme Court has long upheld most State laws requiring parental involvement in minors' abortions against challenges of this type. The Child Custody Protection Act would only apply where the State has in place such a constitutional State law. A Federal law that simply helps enforce State laws that themselves do not violate the right to an abortion cannot itself violate that right. Continuing on the issue of constitutionality, it has been argued that the Child Custody Protection Act violates the constitutional right to travel. But this argument misconstrues this legislation, the Constitution, and the constitutional right to travel. The courts have never held that the right to travel limits Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The right to travel limits States' powers to discriminate against newcomers and out-of-State residents. It does not limit Congress' power to protect State laws by prohibiting people who would circumvent them from using the channels of interstate commerce or travel. Presumably that is why nobody has doubted the constitutionality of the recently enacted Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, which makes it a felony for anyone to travel in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to evade a support obligation to a child or spouse. Like the Child Custody Protection Act, it is constitutional because Congress is free to withdraw the channels of interstate travel from those seeking to evade valid State laws. Next, at a level only one step removed from constitutional issues, some have put forward the argument that this legislation would undermine the ability of States to serve as ``laboratories of democracy'' in our Federal system. What this argument overlooks is that in a Federal system there will always be conflicts between the laws of different States. And Congress has a responsibility to help resolve these conflicts in the interests of interstate commerce, and in the interest of maintaining fair and full application of the laws. What is more, it makes sense to handle the problem in this way because these conflicts are frequently resolved in favor of application of the law of the State of residence over the law of the State where some part of the conduct at issue has occurred. In particular, it has long been an accepted tenet of our Federal system that the State with primary policy making authority with respect to parent-child relations is the State where the parent and child reside. The Child Custody Protection Act essentially simply reinforces this well-established rule. Finally, I have heard from a number of sources the complaint that this legislation is unfair because it would not allow grandparents or other close relatives to stand-in for absent or abusive parents. Frankly, I find this complaint somewhat puzzling because there is nothing in the Child Custody Protection Act that in any way interferes with the proper role of grandparents and other close relatives in any child's upbringing. Parents, close relatives and, I might add, close friends, can and should play a role in helping minor girls face an event as important as an unexpected pregnancy. If the pregnant girl for some reason, including abuse, cannot talk to her parents on her own, her other relative or friend should help her go through her State's procedure for bypassing parental notification, or, if it is possible, intervene on her behalf with the parents. In this way, caring relatives can make a positive difference in a girl's life. Like most Americans, I firmly believe that most children would be lucky to have grandparents and other close relatives involved in their lives. But I do not believe that most parents would want other relatives to unilaterally take over their primary role in raising their children. In my view, States with parental involvement laws were wise to have enacted them, for the sake of parental rights, and especially for the sake of our daughters' health. The legislation before us fulfills the Federal Government's duty to protect these State laws from widespread circumvention through interstate travel. Far from undermining our Federal system, it upholds it in a manner fully consistent with the constitutional rights of everyone involved. A number of politicians, including President Clinton, have promised the American people that they would work to make abortions ``safe, legal and rare.'' The Child Custody Protection Act addresses an important question of legality. It will protect State laws from those who would break them. It would uphold the rule of law and the important role States and State laws play in our Federal system. But an abortion conducted in violation of parental notification laws is not legal, even if performed in another State. Earlier I quoted Bruce Lucero, a doctor who once owned an abortion clinic, in which he performed some 45,000 abortions over the course of 15 years. Dr. Lucero remains, in his words ``staunchly pro-choice.'' Dr. Lucero also supports this legislation. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the abortion issue will heed the warning he gave recently when he said: Too often, pro-choice advocates oppose laws that make common sense simply because the opposition supports or promotes them. The only way we can and should keep abortions legal is to keep them safe. To fight laws that would achieve this end does no one any good--not the pregnant teen-agers, the parents or the pro-choice movement. Mr. President, this laws does make common sense. It will protect the health of pregnant teen-agers, and it should have the full support of the Members of this body, whatever their views on the underlying issue of abortion. It was passed in the other Chamber by an overwhelming margin. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and, in my view, it deserves to pass by a similar margin in the full Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote tomorrow in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to debate this issue. In closing, let me just say this, Mr. President. As I looked through the Congressional Record at the summation and discussion between the majority leader and Democratic leader yesterday, I was a little bit confused. I at least read the Democratic leader's statement to suggest he is of the opinion that the vote tomorrow might in some way shut off consideration of amendments and debate on this issue, but that is not the case, and I want to make sure our colleagues are aware that tomorrow's vote is simply on the motion to proceed, to permit us to begin discussing this legislation. It is not a motion for cloture on the substantive underlying bill and, indeed, virtually all of the amendments to this legislation that were brought in committee will still survive a motion for cloture on the underlying bill because they were germane amendments at that time and would, according to the Parliamentarian, remain germane, even if we were to have cloture invoked on the substantive legislation. For that reason, I hope our colleagues will think this issue--the question of whether or not we will allow strangers to circumvent State parental notification and consent laws and take children across State lines for the purpose of secretive abortions--that we should at least allow this issue to be debated here in the Senate. For that reason, I hope we will be able to invoke cloture on the legislation. And once we do that, we can have a good and thorough debate and discussion, and then pass this legislation so that families like the Farley family can be protected in the future and so that the children of America can be protected in the future and so that the families who live in States that have taken the action of passing parental involvement laws can be confident that those laws do mean something and that we in Washington are willing to support those laws and make sure that those laws are in fact enforceable. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an article by Dr. Samuel J. LeFrak, entitled ``Great Minds, Smart Giving'' from the May/June 1998 issue of Philanthropy magazine. LeFrak is chairman of the Lefrak Organization and has been honored for his many years of philanthropic giving. Recently, through the LeFrak Foundation, Dr. LeFrak has done something incredible for the state of Michigan. Concerned that an emphasis on traditional liberal education at America's colleges and universities is diminishing, LeFrak chose to endow the LeFrak Forum at Michigan State University. This program focuses on political philosophy and public policy, helping professors to teach with an emphasis on traditional Western ideas. The Forum will accomplish this through lectures, conferences, research, publications and fellowships. The students of Michigan State University are very fortunate to have such a wonderful program and will undoubtedly benefit from it. As we continue our efforts as a nation to raise our children to be truly educated adults, imbued with the values of our traditions and the bases of well-ordered liberty, I feel we can look to the LeFrak Forum as an excellent model. I ask that the text of ``Great Minds, Smart Giving'' be printed in the Record. The text follows: Great Minds, Smart Giving--A Noted Philanthropist On Reclaiming Academe (By Samuel LeFrak When my wife Ethel and I began discussing a major gift to an academic institution, we wanted to do something new and off the beaten track of bricks-and-mortar, scholarships, and endowed chairs. We also talked at length about the problems of higher education and how we might help to solve them. Our grandsons, Harrison and James, were just finishing college and from them we had a pretty clear idea of the dismal state of today's campus landscape. Both reported that the news about political correctness and multiculturalism is largely true. While it is surely an exaggeration to say that the traditional liberal arts curriculum is gone, it is true that an entire generation of graduate and undergraduate students is being trained to a drumbeat critical of the Western tradition as racist, sexist, homophobic, hegemonic, Euro- centric, and rationalistic (a vice, it now seems!). The path to academic success is definitely smoother for those who adhere to this fashionable view. The graduate students are, of course, the professorate of the future and the teachers of the coming generation of leaders in politics and business. What happens in the seminar room, no matter how bizarre or arcane, eventually makes its way to the boardroom. Now, Ethel and I have the deepest respect for the great books and ideas of the Western tradition. If that tradition is so bad, how is it that we have from it--and only from it-- democracy, capitalism, the ideals of freedom, equality of opportunity, and the dignity of the individual? To us it would be nothing short of a catastrophe for this great tradition to disappear as the focal point of a liberal education. Yet the traditional curriculum definitely is on the defensive these days: we hear of English departments where Shakespeare is no longer required and history departments that teach nothing about America. The faculty at Yale could not bring itself to live up to the terms of a generous gift intended for new courses on the Western tradition, and had to return the money--with interest. So it seemed appropriate that we use a LeFrak Foundation gift to help assure the survival and vitality of traditional liberal education. Ethel and I had been to Michigan State University a few years earlier, when I had been awarded an honorary degree. While there, we met a group of scholars of political philosophy in the political science department. These professors are very accomplished: they have fine graduate degrees, are good and popular teachers, and have impressive records of research and publication. But they are also steeped in and respectful of the Western tradition and, unlike many professors in the social sciences and humanities, respectful of entrepreneurial capitalism and free-market solutions to social problems. After prolonged discussions involving these professors, Ethel and me, and my grandson, Harrison, we decided to endow a program: the LeFrak Forum at Michigan State University. Endowing a program--rather than a building or a chair--met the criterion of establishing a new and vital entity. The aims and activities of the Forum met the criterion of doing something to help traditional scholars hold their own against the current academic tides. The LeFrak Forum's theme is political philosophy and public policy. The word ``philosophy'' often signifies airy abstraction unconnected with the real world. But at the LeFrak Forum, the idea is that much of what people think about practical affairs is determined ultimately by deeply embedded and barely conscious beliefs about what is good and bad, just and unjust. The LeFrak Forum will approach pressing and concrete issues by exposing the underlying and philosophical foundations of conflict. The Forum will always remind us that these foundations are not just derived out of nowhere, even though most people--and increasingly more scholars and students--don't know where they come from. We get them--and hence the very terms of our debates and differences--from the historical tradition of Western thought. The Forum will not insist on agreement. Rather, it will strive to expose the real grounds upon which we disagree about such practical matters as how big government should be, whether a person is first an individual or a member of a group, and whether America should mind its own business or police the world. The Forum pursues its mission by sponsoring an array of activities: lecture series and international conferences, research and publication, post-doctoral research fellowships, and enriched graduate and undergraduate education. The aim is to enliven, deepen, and diversify debate on campus and to provide fresh views on public policy to those who lead in politics and society and to those who form or influence public opinion. But most important, the LeFrak Forum ensures that at Michigan State the Western tradition will always be studied and that free-market points of view toward the solutions to social problems will always get a fair hearing. But what about this ``always''? It is one thing to help scholars or a curriculum one knows. In fact, it's important to know the people involved so the gift gets used for the purpose you intend. But it's quite another thing to have confidence that the program one endows will continue long after the people one knows are gone. This has to be a serious concern for any donor who gives a permanent endowment to a program or particular curriculum. Buildings and endowed chairs are pretty stable. But programs can easily change over time and even become the opposite of what they were at the outset. Solving this problem was very important to us. The solution was unique and, we hope, a model for what others can and should do. The terms of the endowment agreement were tailored to ensure that the purposes and spirit of the LeFrak Forum would always be maintained. There were two crucial issues. First, it was important to spell out the meaning of the LeFrak Forum's goals in concrete detail. To this end the agreement stipulates that free-market points of view must always get a fair hearing in LeFrak Forum activities. The agreement says that the Forum must always provide a venue for arguments in favor of ``liberty and free enterprise capitalism and the study of the Western philosophic and intellectual tradition, especially as it establishes the moral and conceptual basis for constitutional democracy, limited government, the American Founding, individualism, freedom of expression and economic enterprise, and entrepreneurial and market based approaches to national and global political and social problems.'' And lest there be any uncertainty about what the ``Western tradition'' really is, the agreement actually lists the specific authors on whose works LeFrak Forum teaching and research must focus. They are: ``such thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Adam Smith, Burke, the American Founders (Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Adams), de Tocqueville, Hegel, Mill, Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger, and Strauss.'' This list is of course not exhaustive; but no one could mistake who must always matter the most at the LeFrak Forum. Second, it was essential to assure full academic freedom and autonomy as those values are understood by the relevant university officials. Donors to programs must understand this concern. It does no good to exert positive influence on the university curriculum by threatening academic freedom. Such attempts will not and should not succeed. Furthermore, it does no good to one's own cause to set up programs in which the converted speak only to their respective choirs. That's the very problem on campus these days: not enough real intellectual diversity, not enough respect for all points of view, too much lemming-like adherence to fads. The agreement therefore specifies explicitly that ``all points of view can and will be presented at the LeFrak Forum.'' Critics of the Western tradition and capitalism will have their say. They just won't go unchallenged. And finally, it should be noted that while the agreement provides for our advice, it makes absolutely clear that appointment and review of LeFrak Forum personnel is determined by appropriate academic officers of the University. Donors must never try to appoint professors to their programs. That would violate institutional autonomy. Ethel and I are proud of the Forum, which is now in business and off to a wonderful start. We're sure that it will prosper and grow, make a real contribution to education at Michigan State, and be a significant voice in national and international policy debates. We hope that other philanthropists will follow our lead and the model of the LeFrak Forum. We hope they will endow programs that support education in our precious Western tradition.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Pontiac Area Historical and Genealogical Society's Citizen of the Year, Mr. John A. Riley of Pontiac, Michigan. Mr. Riley, born December 8, 1912 has been chosen as the Citizen of the Year on the basis that he has given tremendously of his time and resources to many causes. His professional career consisted of 40 years of service to the Pontiac Daily Press as vice-president of marketing. Additionally, Riley has served voluntarily in many positions. He was a member of the Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital Board for 36 years, president of the Pontiac J.C.s, president of the Pontiac Chamber of Commerce, member of the Boys Club and a 50 year member of the Kiwanis Club of Pontiac. Currently, Mr. Riley sits on the committees for the Key Club for Pontiac High Schools and the Terrific Kids Program. He also serves as Chairman of the Board for the General Hospital Authority, First Chairman of the Economic Development Commission for the City of Pontiac. He was instrumental in the raising of the funds to build the Pontiac Silverdome. In addition, John Riley is a man of strong faith as reflected in his service to All Saints Episcopal Church where he is Senior Warden for the Vestry. Mr. Riley's accomplishments are numerous. It is clear to see that he commits himself selflessly and completely to many causes. He is undoubtedly deserving of the Citizen of the Year award being given to him by the Pontiac Historical and Genealogical Society. It is with great pleasure that I extend my congratulations to Mr. John A. Riley on this special occasion.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a special church in Fraser, Michigan. Our Lady Queen of All Saints Parish celebrated its 40th Anniversary on August 23, 1998. Since its beginning, Our Lady Queen of All Saints Parish has been selflessly dedicated to serving God and the Fraser community. The members of the Parish demonstrate their commitment to their faith through providing valuable human services to those in need. They have done so under the guidance and leadership of Our Lady Queen of All Saints' founding father Reverend Father Joseph J. Szmaszek and former pastors Monsignor Ferdinand J. DeCneudt, Father J. Michael McGough and Father Arthur W. Fauser. The parish continues this service under the present pastor, Father Ronald J. Babich. It is my great pleasure to recognize the contributions these men have made to the parish, ensuring its prosperity and longevity. I want to express my congratulations and best wishes to all of the clergy and members of Our Lady Queen of All Saints parish. May they enjoy continued success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 2346, legislation which seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand S corporation eligibility for small banks. Expanding S corporation eligibility will greatly benefit small banks and, in this period of increased competition, help them as they strive to compete with credit unions and megabanks. At present, most banks are classified as C corporations, which subjects them to the double taxation of profits. Earnings at banks classified as C corporations are taxed first at corporate level and, after earnings on stockholders shares are distributed, again by shareholders. Converting to an S corporation is an attractive option for small banks because it eliminates the corporate level income tax and allows greater earnings, often between 30 and 40 percent, to be passed on to shareholders. Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code was first enacted in 1958 to reduce the tax burden on small business corporations. Since then, the Subchapter S provisions have been modified several times, most recently in 1982 and 1996. The changes most recently instituted reflect Republican efforts to relieve the tax burden on small businesses. The relatively low number of small banks which have made the conversion, however, indicate that Congress needs to take additional steps to liberalize the requirements for conversion to Subchapter S. Many bankers tell me that the excessive regulatory burden placed on our banks often makes conversion to an S corporation an onerous process and discourages small banks from making the change. This must change. This legislation will amend current law to help facilitate the conversion to an S corporation. Among the reforms is an increase in the number of S corporation eligible shareholders from 75 to 150; the ability of S corporation shares to be held as Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs); the provision that any stock that bank directors must hold under banking regulations shall not be a disqualifying second class of stock; and permission for banks to deduct bad debt charge offs over the same number of years that the accumulated bad debt reserve must be recaptured. These provisions, and others included in the legislation, will allow more banks to convert to S corporations. The result will be more efficient, more competitive small banks. And the consumer will be the ultimate beneficiary. I applaud Senator Allard for introducing this legislation. I believe it is a positive step that will help maintain a balanced playing field among the financial service industries and I urge the Senate Finance Committee to act on it quickly.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be happy to elaborate on the legislation. The amendment's purpose is as follows: Each year in our refugee resettlement programs, we have considerable costs associated with that. We appropriate moneys for those. In a typical year, we always have trouble at the end of the year with respect to remaining funds that need to be spent. If there is remaining money at the end of a year, it will be carried forward to use in the next fiscal year for those purposes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Refugee resettlement purposes.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 5th Annual Croatian Festival that took place August 29-30, 1998 at St. Lucy Croatian Catholic Church in Troy. The Croatian Festival is a very important event for the Croatian community of Michigan, in that it showcases the beautiful Croatian culture and heritage and unites the 20 various Croatian organizations in the state who have come together to organize the Festival. Over the past few years, the Festival has proven to be a very exciting time with exhibits focusing on different regions of Croatia, a variety of Croatian foods, games and traditional Croatian music. In addition to serving as a celebration of the Croatian culture, the Festival serves the very important purpose of raising funds to assist and reduce the debt of St. Lucy Croatian Catholic church. I wish St. Lucy success as they strive for this goal. I also want to extend my best wishes to the entire Croatian community of Michigan.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I want to thank the Senator from Kentucky for the interest that he and his committee have taken in American educational institutions abroad, and the role they play in advancing basic American values in countries of key strategic interest to the United States. As the Chairman knows, I believe that Lebanon is one of the countries where American leadership is especially needed. Therefore, I was pleased that the committee's report on S. 2334 gives special recognition to the importance of the American University of Beirut and Lebanese American University. As the report states, both these institutions, AUB and LAU, deserve further support from the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program. I would like to ask the Senator from Kentucky if he agrees with me that AID also should directly support the American educational institutions in Lebanon through our bilateral aid program to that country.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Would the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I am pleased to hear the Chairman say that. Unfortunately, AID currently is not pursuing such a policy in Lebanon. The agency has established three strategic objectives for the country: expanded economic opportunity, increased effectiveness of democratic institutions, and improved environmental practices. Each of these objectives certainly deserves special attention and are quite important, thus I have no complaint about them as such. But, strengthening the American educational presence in the country should also be an objective. In fact, it should be the primary objective. The American educational institutions can help achieve these other three objectives, and many more, if their core educational and research activities are enhanced. To some degree AID recognizes the invaluable resource they have in these institutions, and the agency is in fact contracting with them to help accomplish the goals it has set for the country. But it seems to have missed the essential point that these institutions themselves need revitalization after fifteen years of war in Lebanon, and that this cannot be accomplished without supporting the rebuilding of weakened institutional structures. The American educational institutions in Lebanon can and should be called upon to help rebuild the country, but it is shortsighted not to commit additional resources to rebuild them as well.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to bring to my colleagues' attention an important article from The American Enterprise magazine. In it Michael Barone of Reader's Digest lauds the great success of Grand Rapids, Michigan in rebuilding its economy and community. Mr. Barone reports that a vital combination of entrepreneurship, public spirit, and responsible philanthropy have brought the people of Grand Rapids together to build a vibrant economy and public life. Business and community leaders in Grand Rapids have joined together to rehabilitate the downtown area. They have encouraged one another to sponsor important projects like the Van Andel Institute for nutrition research and Faith Inc., which trains people from close-in neighborhoods and places them in full-time jobs. A pro-business environment has facilitated the growth of diverse businesses, from furniture manufacturers to merchandisers. And Grand Rapids' respect for free markets and entrepreneurship has maintained an economy in which unemployment is low and small business thrives, with 80 percent of local businesses employing fewer than 30 people. Mr. President, as we in the Senate continue our debate over how best to encourage the revitalization of distressed urban areas, I hope we will learn from cities like Grand Rapids. As a member of the Renewal Alliance and a strong supporter of its efforts to help distressed urban areas, I feel that Grand Rapids can provide us with an extremely helpful model of what works. This great city shows the importance of local involvement, free markets, and faith in rebuilding strong communities. I heartily recommend this article to my colleagues and ask that its text be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the American Enterprise, Sept./Oct. 1998] A City Where Business and Philanthropy Flourish (By Michael Barone) Looking for a city with a tradition of community involvement, creative local philanthropy, vibrant cultural institutions old and new? Try Grand Rapids. The home town of President Gerald Ford, the city proposed by Chicago Tribune publisher Colonel Robert McCormick as a new national capital, Grand Rapids remains largely unknown nationally and even in Michigan is often overshadowed by Detroit. But greater Grand Rapids is now approaching a million people, its strong local economy has led Michigan's economic recovery, and its successful entrepreneurs have built civic institutions the envy of many metro areas two or three times the size. Civil society is alive and well here. What are Grand Rapids' secret? One is a vigorous free market economy, built steadily over decades. Grand Rapids was first settled by New England Yankees and immigrants from Germany and the Netherlands at the falls of the Grand River, in the heart of Michigan's immense forests. Its first industries were lumber and a natural offshoot, furniture. In the first decades of this century Grand Rapids was the nation's leading producer of household furniture. But the forests were overharvested, the furniture market collapsed in the Depression, and after World War II manufacturers relocated to North Carolina. Some furniture manufacturers who survived turned to office furniture. Today three of the nation's four largest office furniture manufacturers are located in Grand Rapids or nearby Holland. But there is plenty of diversity as well. The city is a leader in injected plastic moldings and a major center for tool and die shops, with lots of small successful firms. It is the headquarters of Meijer, whose 100-plus Thrifty Acres stores combine supermarkets with general merchandise stores--a formula Wal-Mart has copied but has not been able to make pay as well as Meijer. Grand Rapids is the headquarters of Universal Wood Products, the nation's largest fence producer. It is the home of Gordon Foods and Bissell carpet sweepers. It has one large General Motors plant and dozens of auto suppliers. Ada, a village six miles east, is the home of Amway, privately owned by the Van Andel and DeVos families, founded in a garage in 1959, now selling over $7 billion of home care housewares, and cosmetic products in 52 countries, most of them manufactured in Grand Rapids' Kent County. Most of Grand Rapids' successful companies are small: 80 percent of businesses employ fewer than 30 people, according to John Caneppa, former chairman of Grand Rapids' Old Kent Bank. Firms that have grown bigger have done so through creative innovation and good employee relations. Local office furniture manufacturers pioneered modular units and electronic connectors. Amway took an old idea--direct sales--and made it work on a scale never seen before. Fred Meijer, to make shopping more pleasant for parents with kids, installed mechanical ponies in his stores which cost one cent per ride and personally hands out ``Purple Cow'' cards for free ice cream cones. Employee relations are also an important part of Grand Rapids' success. ``We have 60,000 people working with us,'' Fred Meijer says. ``We need them; so let's treat them like we need them.'' If any of us makes a mistake, he adds, ``we don't need to be bawled out, we need to be helped to succeed.'' That way, the ``job will be better, and everybody will be more productive.'' Nor is there an adversarial relationship between business and government. ``The best thing government can do is to get out of the way,'' says Grand Rapids City Manager Kurt Kimball. ``To try to create an environment that enables the private sector to achieve its ends. Prosperity for business means prosperity for residents. Then we'll have the resources for quality of life.'' Says GR magazine editor Carol Valade, ``There is a very low tolerance for government here--the attitude is, I will do it myself. And a tremendous respect for the arts of the entrepreneur. It spills over into government. The city removed 98 percent of its effluents from its sewers, without federal funds--the only city in Michigan to do so.'' Successful small businesses and small businesses that have grown large but have stayed headquartered here, have helped build Grand Rapids' cultural institutions. Even the banks have remained local. Old Kent is still based in Grand Rapids, though it has spread outward; First Union sold out to Detroit-based NBD, but David Frey, whose grandfather founded the bank, has kept the Frey Foundation here, and 85 percent of its grants are in western Michigan. ``Giving money intelligently is hard work,'' Frey says. ``A lot of due diligence is required. But there's the prospect of great satisfaction.'' Anyone walking through downtown Grand Rapids can see some of the reasons for that satisfaction. Twenty-five years ago, downtown Grand Rapids looked dumpy, with aging and often empty commercial buildings, and a grubby convention center. Then Grand Rapids' business leaders decided to make it something special. ``Always the private sector has taken the lead,'' says Frey. ``And people are willing to put corporate money into projects. Then they would get the city, county, or state governments to forge a coalition.'' Phase one, in the mid-1970s, included a new Old Kent building and Vandenberg Center, which replaced abandoned warehouses. Phase two included the Amway Plaza Hotel and the Gerald Ford Museum. Phase three includes the recently opened Van Andel Arena for Grand Rapids' minor league hockey and basketball, a new convention center, and a downtown campus for Grand Valley State College. The secret is leadership and commitment. ``We have people who give time and effort and support. They sit at the same table,'' says Pete Secchia, head of Universal Products, and also a leader of Michigan's Republican Party who served as Ambassador to Italy under Bush. ``When we promise something,'' says Fred Meijer, sitting around a table with other Grand Rapids business leaders, ``we don't do it lightly. Not one of us has ever reneged on a promise.'' If there are problems, someone jumps in and solves them. ``The Amway Plaza would be torn down or destitute if Amway hadn't picked it up,'' Meijer adds. With no major university or medical school, Grand Rapids has missed out on the boom in biomedicine. But that's likely to change with the building of a Van Andel Institute for nutrition research at Grand Rapids' Butterworth Hospital. Steve Van Andel, who has succeeded his father Jay as co-head of Amway, describes the process. ``We watched our fathers build the firm. The second generation got even more involved with the community. The building decision was also made by the second generation of the Van Andel and DeVos families. My dad and family have been discussing it for years. We decided to do something. Dad was always interested in nutrition, so we decided to build an institute that would work on nutrition research and education.'' He is thinking big. Peter Cook, who owns several big car dealerships and is on the board, says that it has five Nobel Prize winners as advisers and will have 200 to 300 doctors and scientists in a $30 million building. Grand Rapids' philanthropists are buttressed not by the liberalism of so many national foundations but by traditional virtues. It's an early-to-bed-early-to-rise town, where people eat at home with their families. ``Everyone is doing well but restaurants,'' says Secchia, ``but the breakfast joints are filled at 6:30 in the morning,'' The churches are busy on Sundays, filled with people from all economic levels; the billionaire Van Andels and DeVoses pray at a modest Reform church not far from downtown. Or as Peter Cook puts it, ``A lot of our people have done more than their share in giving. We grew up in a Christian home and tithed, and after that you gave more. We give 30 to 40 percent of our income. . . . That type of thing is very influential. This is a good place to work and live.'' Entrepreneurial and religious impulses also inform Grand Rapids' programs to help the poor. Gene Pratt, now retired, tells of raising $1 million in less than two hours to renovate his community center, and how a kids' gardening project produced City Kids Barbecue sauce, got it stocked in Meijer's and other local supermarkets, and got 5 percent of the market. Verne Barry, head of the Downtown Development Agency, came to Grand Rapids in 1985 after living homeless in New York. With ministries and social service agencies he founded Faith Inc., which won competitive contracts with 25 local manufacturers. Hiring people from close-in neighborhoods, his group got commitments for 10 percent of the jobs on projects like the Van Andell Arena. He claims that more than 50 percent of those with little work experience are now in permanent employment. Grand Rapids has low crime, low unemployment, and scandal- free local government. But statistics tell only part of the story. For Grand Rapids' leaders have put the imprint of their own personalities on the civic institutions they've built. The Grand Rapids Museum hosted an exhibit of the artist Perugino in 1997-98; Secchia helped set it up using his Italian contacts and the fact that Perugia is a sister city. Fred Meijer took over a 20-acre parcel of industrial property and built the Frederik Meijer Gardens, one of the nation's largest conservatories. Amid the plants and the gardens outside he placed 70 bronze sculptures he has collected over the years. You can see him there some days, smiling and enjoying himself as he leads kids around, explaining the plants and sculptures, and handling out Purple Cow cards for free ice cream cones--the spirit of Grand Rapids in person.