Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, now that the budget resolution has been adopted, I wanted to take a few moments to discuss several of the more important votes that took place. The first of these was the Hatch-Kennedy amendment. This amendment was characterized as an effort to raise cigarette excise taxes in order to provide health care for low- and moderate-income children. I take exception to that description. There was nothing in the Hatch-Kennedy amendment to ensure that the new taxes would be imposed upon cigarettes or that the additional revenues would be spent on children's health. The net effect of this amendment would have been to raise taxes by $30 billion and spending by $20 billion, period. I have several reasons for opposing an amendment of this sort. First, I am not opposed to taxing cigarettes in order to either reduce taxes elsewhere or fund important programs, and this vote should not be interpreted as such. The net effect of this amendment, however, would be to reduce the net tax cut contained within this resolution-- tax cuts targeted at families, education, and pro-growth policies--by $30 billion. The tax cut contained in this resolution is already less than 1 percent of the total Federal tax burden over the next 5 years, barely adequate to provided badly needed tax relief to families and small businesses. I believe that level is already too low, and I certainly do not support making it smaller. Furthermore, nothing prevents Senator Hatch, as a member of the Finance Committee, from offering his proposal as part of the reconciliation process. An amendment offered in the Finance Committee to increase tobacco taxes in order to provide additional Medicaid funding for children's health insurance would be in order. I might support it. The amendment considered by the Senate Wednesday, however, does nothing to further the prospects of such an effort. On the other hand, this amendment does expand the reconciliation instructions of the Labor Committee, where Senator Kennedy is the ranking member. This amendment would provide the Finance Committee an additional $2 billion and the Committee on Labor a whopping $18 billion. Not withstanding the debate over taxes or children's health, there is no disagreement that both these issues belong in the Finance Committee--not Labor. The construction of this amendment appears motivated more by the jurisdictional concerns of Senator Kennedy than a concern for children's health. Finally, Mr. President, this amendment ignores the $16 billion already provided by the resolution for children's health insurance. Neither Senator Kennedy nor Senator Hatch adequately explained why it was necessary to spend $36 billion for a problem the President had agreed could be addressed with $16 billion or why undermining an agreement that already addresses this problem is superior to working through the usual committee process. As was made clear during the debate, the $16 billion provided by the budget is more than enough to provide children's health insurance as requested by the President. In summary, Mr. President, this amendment does nothing to further the cause of providing health care to America's children. It reduces the tax cuts for families and small businesses by 35 percent, it does nothing to assist the Finance Committee in its work to address this issue, and it endangers the $16 billion already provided for children's health. I would also take this opportunity to speak about the Gramm amendment to reduce discretionary spending by $76 billion and increase the net tax cut in the resolution by a like amount. Mr. President, the Federal deficit this year will be below $70 billion for the first time in almost 20 years, largely because Congress over the past 2 years held the line on Government spending and taxation. We resisted efforts to raise spending above reasonable levels and we opposed efforts to raise the already record tax burden on American families. And while I intend to support this resolution because I believe, on balance, that it will result in a smaller, more efficient Government, I am concerned that the spending proposed by this agreement is too high, and that it plants the seeds for ever-expanding Government down the road. How much spending does this resolution contain? For discretionary spending, this resolution spends $212 billion more than the 1995 budget resolution, $189 billion more than last year's budget resolution, $75 billion more than the moderate group's budget alternative last year, and just $16 billion less than the President's budget this year-- without the triggered cuts he proposed to ensure his budget gets to balance. With regard to the Gramm amendment, the underlying resolution spends $76 billion more than the President proposed just last year. Hence, the Gramm amendment to reduce overall spending levels by $76 billion and to target that savings toward tax reduction. Mr. President, last Congress I collaborated with a group of Senators and Representatives to make the Federal more efficient by eliminating wasteful programs and consolidating duplicative agencies. In our work, we proposed to eliminate three Cabinet-level agencies--HUD, Commerce, and Energy. Moreover, we advocated targeting both spending and tax provisions which provided unwarranted benefits to corporations, so- called corporate welfare. The point of this effort, Mr. President, was to make the Federal bureaucracy more rational and efficient and to reduce the burden of government on Americans. Mr. President, I believe the Gramm amendment is in line with our on- going efforts to streamline the Government and make it more responsive to Americans. The discretionary spending levels it provides--the same spending levels as supported by the President last year--are sufficient to increase funding for important programs like health research, transportation infrastructure, and insuring children while forcing Congress to turn a critical eye towards the waste and inefficiency prevalent in the Federal bureaucracy. Through my work at eliminating wasteful Government agencies, I am convinced that we can save $76 billion over 5 years by targeting corporate welfare without harming important Federal programs. Just as important, the Gramm amendment provides significant tax relief for American families and businesses. As I said previously, the tax relief contained in the underlying budget resolution is less than 1 percent of the total Federal tax burden over the next 5 years. It is barely sufficient to provide families with a pared-down $500-per-child tax credit, a reduction on the capital gains tax rate, estate tax reform, and an expansion of IRA's. Mr. President, the tax burden is at its highest level in American history, with the typical American family paying almost 40 percent of their income to State, local and Federal governments--more than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. With the Gramm amendment, the tax relief contained in this resolution would still be modest--less than 2 percent of the total tax burden--but it would allow us to fully fund the $500-per-child tax credit, cut the capital gains rate in half, provide relief from the onerous estate tax, and expand eligibility for IRA's. These are important reforms that I have been working on for my entire tenure in the Senate, and I will continue to work to provide meaningful tax relief to American families beyond the tax cuts included in this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair and other Members for their courtesy today. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in order to accommodate several Senators who wish to speak, I now ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak in the morning period in the order in which they are listed: Senator Abraham for 15 minutes, Senator Byrd, and then Senator Grams.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I just seek unanimous consent to add Senators Faircloth, Allard, and Hutchison of Texas as additional cosponsors.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, let me begin by praising Senator Domenici and the other negotiators for their hard work and diligence. They have worked for almost 4 months to put this resolution together and end the 18-month stalemate between the President and Congress over spending and taxes. Given these circumstances, I believe this agreement is a step in the right direction and I look forward to seeing many of its provisions enacted into law. On the other hand, while I intend support this budget resolution as a whole, I want to express reservations regarding some of its specifics. First, I consider this resolution to be just a down-payment--not a solution--to the entitlement reforms that will be necessary to ensure the Federal Government's solvency going into the next century. As we all know, the baby boom generation will soon begin to retire, which will place enormous pressure on our Federal entitlement programs. According to the CBO, ``. . . outlays for government programs that aid the elderly (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will burgeon as the number of people eligible to receive benefits from these programs shoots up.'' Medicare is the first program to experience this problem and this resolution allows for important reforms to extend its solvency. That said, I believe these reforms neither go far enough nor call for the kinds of fundamental changes that will help Medicare stay solvent past the 10 years targeted by this resolution. I encourage the Finance Committee to embrace reforms like MSA's, Medicare Choice, HMO's, and PPO's as options that will increase patient options even as they hold down costs. I am also concerned that Congress' historical bias toward ever- increasing spending is once again on display. While Senator Domenici and others have worked hard to reject the myriad of new spending proposals requested by the administration, the bottom line is 5-year spending under this resolution will increase by 17 percent between today and 2002. That increase is faster than the rate of inflation, and well above the growth rates encompassed in the past two budget resolutions. By creating new Federal entitlements, this resolution opens the door for huge, unexpected spending increases down the road. I applaud efforts to improve the health of this Nation's children, but I believe the provision to make such funding mandatory is conterproductive to our efforts to restrain the growth of government spending. For that reason, I support efforts to make this funding discretionary. Finally, I am concerned that the tax cuts called for in this resolution are so modest, especially in comparison to the spending increases included. In particular, I am concerned that, where, according to a USA Today poll from this March, 70 percent of the American people believe that they need a tax cut, under this resolution, Federal spending will grow 17 percent over 5 years while the net tax cuts are less than 1 percent of the total tax burden. Balancing the budget is one of my top priorities, but reducing the burden of government on Americans is my ultimate goal. Why do Americans need a tax cut? According to the President's own economists, the tax burden on Americans is the highest ever--31.7 percent. According to the National Taxpayer Union, the average American family now pays almost 40 percent of their income in State, local, and Federal taxes. For all the talk about the ``end of big government,'' the tax burden today is the highest ever. And while we address that burden in a small, incremental way with this budget resolution, we are also creating the possibility for ever-more spending later on. I believe we need to tilt the playing field away from more spending and toward more tax reduction. Toward that end, I have offered amendment number 316 along with Senators Brownback, Coverdell, Kyl, Ashcroft, Sessions, Allard, Hutchinson, and Faircloth in order to focus the attention of the Senate on the plight of American taxpayers. I am also introducing legislation today which would codify this rule change into law. Madam President, as we all know, on May 2d the Congressional Budget Office provided budget negotiators with a gift of sorts. In a letter to Senator Domenici, the CBO report that for this year, the deficit would be $45 billion less than previously reported. Instead of $112 billion, the deficit this year would be closer to $67 billion. Moreover, the CBO suggested that this $45 billion windfall would extend over the next 5 years, so that the total devicit over that time would be reduced by $225 billion. From my perspective, Madam President, this windfall can be viewed as a mixed-blessing. On the one hand, the continued strong performance of the economy means more jobs and opportunity for Americans--as well as additional revenues to the Government. On the other, coming as it did at literally the last possible moment in the budget negotiations, the windfall resulted in opening up opportunties for the administration to demand even higher levels of spending in 1998 and beyond. It is my understanding that all sorts of spending issues that had previously been closed were reopened following the CBO's surprise announcement. One area that remained closed, however, was the issue of tax cuts. While the last 2 weeks have been filled with one announcement after another about increases in this program, and new funding for that program, the net tax cut number has remained stubbornly fixed at $85 billion. I am going to support this resolution because I believe its net effect will be to reduce both the size and scope of the Federal Government. I am also going to support this resolution because, according to all accounts, the tax cuts incorporated in the plan will include significant incentives for economic growth and job creation-- incentives like reducing the rate on which we tax capital gains and increasing the allowable contributions to IRA's. These incentives will, I believe, result in higher economic growth over the next 5 years and increase--not decrease--revenues to the Federal Treasury. Which brings me to my amendment. What I am proposing is that, to the extent that tax revenues under this budget agreement--tax cuts and all--exceed the projections by the Joint Committee on Taxation, that extra revenue should be reserved for tax cuts and/or deficit reduction--not additional Government spending. This is not an idle proposition--history shows that pro-growth tax cuts like cutting the capital gains tax rate result in large bonuses for the Treasury. Between 1978 and 1985, while the top marginal rate on capital gains was cut almost in half--from 35 to 20 percent--total annual Federal receipts from the tax almost tripled. They rose from $9.1 billion annually to $26.5 billion annually. Conversely, when Congress raised the rate in 1986, revenues actually fell well below what was anticipated. Capital gains revenues actually fell following the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Economists across the board predict that cutting the capital gains rate will result in a revenue windfall for the Treasury. These windfalls should be given back to the taxpayers. In pursuit of that goal, I am offering today, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which in support of future tax cuts. It says, ``To the extent that actual revenues exceed the revenues projected under this resolution, that revenue windfall should be reserved exclusively for additional tax cuts and deficit reduction.'' Madam President, 2 years ago, a Readers Digest poll asked Americans: ``What is the highest percentage of income that is fair for a family of four making $200,000 to pay in all taxes?'' The median response, regardless of whether the respondent was rich or poor, black or white, was 25 percent. A similar Grassroots Research poll last March discovered that a majority of Americans would favor a constitutional amendment that would prohibit Federal, State, and local taxes from taking ``a combined total of more than 25 percent of anyone's income in taxes.'' Yet, the Tax Foundation tells us that a dual-income family today pays an average 38.4 percent of their income in taxes to State, local, and Federal Governments. This budget starts us down the long road toward reducing the tax burden on American families--but it is just the beginning. I intend to continue that fight. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Madam President. I will be very brief. This amendment is great straightforward. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that says that if during the next 5 years the money sent to Washington by our taxpayers back home exceed the projections which we have made in this budget resolution--and I believe they might--that those excess additional revenues may only be spent for tax cuts or to reduce the deficit and cannot be used for more Federal spending.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 316.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in light of the fact that I don't think there is further debate planned on this amendment on either side, I at this point yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is not my intent tonight to keep the Senate here for a lengthy period of time on this amendment. I will speak to my amendment for just a couple of minutes. If others wish to debate it, I will stay here, but I am otherwise prepared to yield back my time on this amendment after giving it a couple of minute's description. Basically, Mr. President, this amendment tries to address a concern that a number of my constituents, and I suspect constituents from other States, have expressed in recent weeks with respect to the development of this budget. As the President and Members are aware near the end of discussions and deliberations that went into the development of this budget agreement, the Congressional Budget Office informed the negotiators at the last minute that they had underestimated the income shares, the revenue estimate, for the upcoming 5-year period by some $225 billion. Obviously, a lot of questions have been raised. I am not here tonight to quarrel with or to raise questions about the basis on which those adjustments took place, but the fact is, Mr. President, based on these adjustments, we are moving forward with a budget that estimates certain amounts of revenue. Clearly, it is possible that sometime during the period that this budget covers over the next 5 years we might find further adjustments occurring. My concern, Mr. President, is what happens if further adjustments based on the actual receipts to the Federal Government exceed what the estimates are that we are using as the basis for this budget resolution. To that end, my constituents are basically telling me that if the actual revenues the Government produces exceed that which we are using here in this budget resolution, that those dollars ought to be returned to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts or ought to be used to reduce the deficit, for deficit reduction and debt reduction purposes. Based on that, Mr. President, I am offering tonight--because of the nature of the resolution, I am not offering this as an amendment in the fullest sense--as a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that if, in fact, the revenues which we receive during the pendency of this resolution exceed the revenue estimates that have been used to formulate the resolution, those dollars be, in effect, put in a lockbox and made available exclusively for reductions in the deficit or for further tax cuts. I think this makes sense because if, in fact, the American taxpayers are sending more money to Washington than we expect them to it only makes sense to me that the additional dollars ought to be returned to the taxpayers or used to reduce the deficit as opposed to being used for increased and additional Federal spending beyond that which we are including in this budget resolution. Mr. President, I think that is the one way by which we can maintain some integrity with respect to the taxpayers by assuring them that as a consequence of the progrowth ideas we have for this budget resolution-- which we hope will result in such things as a capital gains tax--as a consequence we see the revenue come to the Federal Government beyond that which we expect, that the only way we maintain some integrity here is guarantee the taxpayers that those additional dollars are either going to help us reduce the debt of this country, or we give it back to the taxpayers in the form of additional tax cuts. Virtually everybody in this Chamber could think of additional ways by which we might address some of the problems with the Internal Revenue Code, whether it is additional tax cuts for education for working families or to a eliminate the marriage penalty or a variety of other things. We all know that there isn't embodied within this resolution adequate resources to address all of those objectives that we have as a group. My feeling is that, if the taxpayers send us more money than we are counting on, more money than we have asked them to, we might then use those additional dollars to fund additional taxes or, alternatively, for the purposes of deficit reduction. So, for those reasons, I offer this amendment. I also would like to say in closing here tonight that I want to offer my praise particularly to Senator Domenici, whom we work with on the Budget Committee, for his unstinting efforts here. I have always been impressed and amazed at his resilience as we go through amendment after amendment. He leads us so well in that. So, I thank Senator Domenici, both for in the committee and in the prior activities before we get to the committee, and then here on the floor this week. I offer my amendment. As I said, I am prepared, unless there is a desire to debate the amendment, to yield the remainder of the time tonight. I guess we will vote tomorrow on this. At this point, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the House passed volunteer protection legislation this week and that the Senate is now voting on final passage of the Volunteer Protection Act. I look forward to our sending this important legislation to the President for his signature. Thanks to the tireless efforts of my distinguished colleagues, particularly Senators Coverdell and McConnell, but also Senators Santorum, Ashcroft and others, including Representatives Porter and Inglis in the House, we were able to pass this legislation, which will grant meaningful relief from unwarranted litigation to volunteers. I have heard from my constituents in Michigan and others time and again about baseless lawsuits that have plagued volunteers and about how some have declined to volunteer or have limited their voluntary activities out of concern for being sued. Volunteers with the Boy Scouts, Little League, the Red Cross, and many other fine organizations have been subject to frivolous and baseless litigation. They have had to spend considerable time and money defending lawsuits. That time and money could be going to charitable activities, instead of going to increased legal fees and liability insurance costs. We heard many examples of frivolous lawsuits and their costs during floor debate on this legislation, and I am pleased that Congress is taking action to address these significant problems that have hindered charitable activities. While many other sectors of our society and our economy continue to face equally harmful lawsuit abuses and while we need broader litigation reforms to address those abuses, this legislation represents a significant step forward in reintroducing some measure of fairness and justice in our civil justice system. In the coming weeks, I plan to introduce a bill that would provide relief from abusive lawsuits to small businesses, and I also plan to join Senator McConnell in introducing a broad civil justice reform bill similar to the bill on which he and I collaborated last Congress. Those efforts are no less needed, but voluntary activity does provide some very special benefits that justify kicking off legal reform efforts this Congress by focussing on volunteers. Charitable activity in particular provides a unique link between us as members of the same community. Through volunteer work and efforts, each of us think of our neighbors, and even strangers, as our brothers and sisters, deserving of our care and help. All too often, abusive litigation has broken down that community spirit and made us look at each other as potential plaintiffs and defendants, rather than as neighbors and friends. The Volunteer Protection Act will help rebuild that spirit by reducing litigation excesses. The bill provides relief from punitive damages for volunteers by providing that punitive damages may only be awarded against a volunteer in cases in which the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm was caused by the defendant through criminal or willful misconduct or through a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of the claimant. The act also reintroduces some fairness into the system by reforming joint and several liability rules so that, where a volunteer is a defendant in an action, the volunteer will be liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to the volunteer's responsibility for causing the harm. That is only fair. In addition, where a volunteer is not acting with gross negligence, recklessness, or in a more egregious fashion, that volunteer will not be liable for harm caused in the scope of the voluntary activity. This legislation also includes a State opt-out provision, under which a State may opt out of the bill's provisions for cases in State court in which all parties are citizens of the State. No State is expected to elect out of the coverage of this bill's worthy provisions, but it was important to include such a provision out of respect for principles of federalism. These reforms can help create a system in which plaintiffs sue only when they have good reason--and only those who are responsible for their damages--and in which only those who are responsible must pay. Such reforms will create an atmosphere in which our fear of one another will be lessened, and our ability to join associations in which we learn to care for one another will be significantly greater. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation, I look forward to continuing to work to achieve broader legal reforms, and I hope that the President will demonstrate his support for voluntarism by signing the Volunteer Protection Act into law.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to explain my reasons for being an original cosponsor of this legislation. Christoph Meili was until recently a security guard at the Union Bank of Switzerland. At about 6 p.m. on January 8 of this year Mr. Meili was making his nightly rounds, when he stumbled upon a number of crates containing bank documents. Surprised, Mr. Meili examined the documents and found them to be ledgers, letters, and statements of account dating back to the 1930's and 1940's, and pertaining mostly to Jewish clients. Mr. Meili knew that historical documents relating to the relationship between Swiss banks and Jews during the Holocaust were an issue of international importance. For some time now my colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, has been investigating the role of Swiss banks in laundering money for the Nazis during World War II, and in particular the possibility that those banks reaped huge profits from property and gold confiscated from Jewish victims of the Holocaust. In answer to the firestorm of protest over these allegations, the Swiss Parliament only 3 weeks before had passed, with great fanfare, a law specifically prohibiting the destruction of documents that might assist in the search for assets properly belonging to victims of Hitler's concentration camps. Yet here were exactly the kind of documents the Swiss Parliament presumably wanted to protect. At this point, Christoph Meili could have looked the other way. Instead he remembered his responsibility as a civilized human being. He spent 20 minutes going through the documents, put what seemed the most important in his jacket, and took them out to his car. We owe Mr. Meili a debt of immense gratitude for this act of conscience. But not everyone is thankful to him. He has lost his job. He has received death threats. He is uncertain of his own future and the future of his wife and two young children. His future does not look bright in Switzerland. Yet here in America he is welcomed with open arms everywhere he goes, as he should be. In early May he was flown to New York under the auspices of the World Jewish Congress. He has been warmly received at receptions in both New York and Washington. And Mr. Edgar Bronfman, the chairman of the World Jewish Congress and president of the Seagram Co., has offered him a fulltime job. Which brings us to this bill. Mr. Meili and his family seek permanent residency in this country. This is an unusual case, in that he requires action on the part of Congress to achieve this status. But this is necessary because Mr. Meili does not meet the necessary criteria for permanent residency under any of the existing categories. Mr. Meili has done a great service to the Jewish people, to this country and to the civilized world. Without thought for his own future or well-being he did what his conscience demanded, and saved valuable evidence concerning the relationship between Swiss banks and the victims of Hitler's death camps. It seems equally clear to me that Mr. Meili has two possible futures ahead of him. In the first, we abandon him. The United States turns its back on this man of conscience and sends him back to Switzerland. There he faces unemployment, a dark blotch on his record for informing on his employer, and possibly worse. While the vast majority of the Swiss people are decent and law-abiding, some of them already have made threats against him. He would be literally a man without a country. Alternatively, we could welcome Mr. Meili into our Nation, as so many of our people already have welcomed him into their hearts. We have the choice. We could open our doors to this man of conscience, giving him the chance to make for himself and his family a brighter future in a land that treasures the kind of bravery he has displayed. His circumstances do not fit any of our set categories for immigration. But I am convinced that they present us with the opportunity to demonstrate our ability and willingness to recognize when noble acts render the particulars of bureaucratic regulation less important than the will to do what is right. Mr. Meili is the kind of man I want for a neighbor. His is a family I feel would benefit any community. Our country can only be made better by his permanent residence here.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. That would be fine.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank, again, the Senator from Pennsylvania who is doing an outstanding job to try to work with all sides on this issue. I believe the approach which he has taken has been very constructive. And now the endorsement of the American Medical Association, I think, is a further indication that this legislation is on the right course. I just want to basically reiterate some points I made the other day when I spoke on this issue. At that time I responded to some of the arguments on the other side. Those arguments were that because Members of Congress were not themselves physicians somehow we were not the appropriate people to be addressing issues with respect to partial- birth abortion that fall within the area of medical procedures. As I said at that time, Members of Congress--many of us are not farmers, yet we deal with agriculture issues here on this Senate floor. Virtually none of us are nuclear physicists, and yet we deal with nuclear issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and issues pertaining to the disposal of nuclear waste, a variety of other highly scientific issues. Only a few of us, such as the Presiding Officer, have served in the military in combat, and yet we are asked to be experts with regard to issues pertaining to national security. So with this issue as well we are called upon to get the best information possible and seek to make the best decisions as a result. However, now we actually have some additional information that comes from the experts who have been referenced in previous debates. The endorsement of the American Medical Association of the partial-birth abortion bill, combined with the endorsement and strong support of that legislation by the one Member among us who is a physician, I think buttresses better than virtually anything else said during this debate the case that this procedure is never needed for the medical reasons that its advocates have claimed to protect the health of the mother. So in my judgment, Mr. President, we now have an overwhelming case in favor of the passage of this legislation, legislation which will I think help us move in the right direction as we consider a variety of other issues that pertain to abortion in the months and years ahead. So I just wanted to once again come to the floor to express my support for the bill, and to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his many efforts in furtherance of its passage. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, I do.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to submit the following testimony for the Record. Dr. Curtis Cook is a board- certified obstetrician/gynecologist and a subspecialist in maternal- fetal medicine in Michigan. In March, Dr. Cook testified before the House-Senate joint hearing on ``Partial-Birth Abortion--The Truth.'' His expert testimony speaks to both the medical necessity of the partial-birth procedure and the issue of fetal pain during the procedure. The testimony follows: Testimony by Curtis Cook, M.D., Maternal Fetal Medicine, Butterworth Hospital, Michigan State College of Human Medicine My name is Dr. Curtis Cook. I am a board-certified Obstetrician/Gynecologist and a subspecialist in Maternal- Fetal Medicine (also known as Perinatology or High Risk Obstetrics). In my practice I take care of referred complicated pregnancies because of preexisting chronic medical conditions of the mother, or suspected abnormalities in the baby. I am also the Associate Director of our region's Maternal-Fetal Medicine division and also serve as Assistant Residency Director for our Obstetrics and Gynecology training program, I am an Assistant Clinical Professor at Michigan State University of College of Human Medicine, and a member of the American College of OB/GYN, The Society of Perinatal Obstetricians, The American Medical Association, and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. I am a founding member of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth about Partial Birth Abortion), which I helped organize after hearing the appalling medical misinformation circulated in the media regarding this procedure. PHACT includes in its membership over 400 physicians from Obstetrics, Maternal- Fetal Medicine and Pediatrics. Many of these physicians are educators or heads of departments, and also include the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop. All that in required of a physician for membership in an Interest in maternal and child health, and a desire to educate the population on this single issue. I must begin my statement by defining partial birth abortion as the feet first delivery of a living infant up to the level of its after coming head, before puncturing the base of its skull with a sharp instrument and sucking out the brain contents, thereby killing it and allowing the collapse of its skull and subsequent delivery. This description is based upon the technique of Dr. Haskell of Ohio, who has subsequently identified it as accurate. He has referred to his technique as ``D & X'' (Dilatation and Extraction), while Dr. McMahon of California refers to it as an ``intact D & E.'' An ACOG ad hoc committee came up with the hybrid term ``intact D & X''. As you can see, many terms are used and are not clear in their description. Partial birth abortion is mostly performed in the fifth and six months of pregnancy. However, these procedures have been performed up to the ninth month of pregnancy. The majority of patients undergoing this procedure do not have significant medical problems. In Dr. McMahon's series, less than ten percent were performed for maternal indications, and these included some ill-defined reasons such as depression, hyperemesis, drug exposed spouse, and youth. Many of the patients undergoing partial birth abortion are not even carrying babies with abnormalities. In Dr. McMahon's series, only about half of the babies were considered ``flawed'', and these included some easily correctable conditions like cleft lip and ventricular septal defect. Dr. Haskell claimed that eighty percent of his procedures were purely elective, and a group of New Jersey physicians claimed that only a minuscule amount of their procedures were done for genetic abnormalities or other defects. Most were performed on women of lower age, education, or socioeconomic status who either delayed or discovered late their unwanted pregnancies. It is also clear that this procedure occurs thousands of times a year, rather than a few hundred times a year, as claimed by pro-abortion advocates. This has been independently confirmed by the investigative work of The Washington Post, The New Jersey Bergen Record and the American Medical Association News. One of the often ignored aspects of this procedure is that it requires three days to accomplish. Before performing the actual delivery, there is a two day period of cervical dilation that involves forcing up to twenty five dilators into the cervix at one time. This can cause great cramping and nausea for the women, who are then sent to their home or to a hotel room overnight while their cervix dilates. After returning to the clinic, their bag of water is broken, the baby is forced into a feet first position by grasping the legs and pulling it down through the cervix and into the vagina. This form of internal rotation, or version, is a technique largely abandoned in modern obstetrics because of the unacceptable risk associated with it. These techniques place the women at greater risk for both immediate (bleeding) and delayed (infection) complications. In fact, there may also be longer repercussions of cervical manipulation leading to an inherent weakness of the cervix and the inability to carry pregnancies to term. We have already seen women who have had trouble maintaining pregnancies after undergoing a partial birth abortion. There is no record of these procedures in any medical text, journals, or on-line medical service. There is no known quality assurance, credentialling, or other standard assessment usually associated with newly-described surgical techniques. Neither the CDC nor the Alan Gultmacher Institute have any data on partial birth abortion, and certainly no basis upon which to state the claim that it is a safer or even a preferred procedure. The bigger question then remains: Why ever do a partial birth abortion? There are and always have been safer techniques for partial birth abortion since it was first described by Dr. McMahon in 1989 and Dr. Haskell in 1992. The usual and customary (and previously studied) method of delivery at this gestation is the medical induction of labor using either intravaginal or intramuscular medications to cause contractions and expulsion of the baby. This takes about twelve hours on average, and may also include possible cervical preparation with the use of one to three cervical dilators (as opposed to the three- day partial birth abortion procedure, with up to 25 dilators in the cervix at one time). This also results in an intact baby for pathologic evaluation, without involving the other risk of internally turning the baby or forcing a large number of dilators into the cervix. The only possible ``advantage'' of partial birth abortion, if you can call it that, is that it guarantees a dead baby at time of delivery. The less common situation of partial birth abortion involves, an abnormal baby. These conditions do not threaten a woman over and above a normal pregnancy, and do not require the killing of the baby to preserve her health or future fertility. I have taken care of many such women with the same diagnoses as the women who provided testimony on this issue in the past. Each of these women stated that they needed to have a partial birth abortion performed in order to protect their health or future fertility. In these cases of trisomy (extra chromosomal material), hydrocephaly (water on the brain), polyhydramnios (too much amniotic fluid) and arthrogryposis (stiffened baby), there are alternatives to partial birth abortion that do not threaten a woman's ability to bear children in the future. I have personally cared for many cases of all of these disorders, and have never required any technique like partial birth abortion in order to accomplish delivery. Additionally, I have never had a colleague that I have known to have used the technique of partial birth abortion in order to accomplish delivery in this same group of patients. Moreover, there are high profile providers of third trimester abortions who likewise do not use the technique of partial birth abortion. In the even rarer case of a severe maternal medical condition requiring early delivery, partial birth abortion is not preferred, and medical induction suffices without threatening future fertility. Again, the killing of the fetus is not required, only separation from the mother. Finally, I wish to address the fetal pain issue, since it has been claimed that a fetus feels no pain at these gestational ages. This is about as ridiculous as the earlier claim that the anesthesia of partial birth abortion put the baby into a medical coma and killed it prior to the performance of the auctioning technique. This was no small claim to the many pregnant women undergoing non-obstetric surgery every day in this country. Fortunately, this was soundly denounced by both the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Society of Obstetrical Anesthesia and Perinatology. In the course of my practice, we must occasionally perform life-saving procedures on babies while still in the uterus, I have often observed babies of five to six months gestation withdraw from needles and instruments, much like a pain response. Dr. Fisk in England has recently reported an increase in fetal pain response hormones during the course of these procedures at these same gestational ages. In addition, we frequently observe the standard grimaces and withdrawals of neonates born at six months gestation like any other pain response in a more mature infant. While it is not my desire for legislators to enter into the realm of medical policy making, there are times when the public health risk needs to be addressed if the medical community is either unwilling or unable to address it. We have seen this precedent for female circumcision and forty- eight hour postpartum stays. I believe the unnecessary, unstudied, and potentially dangerous procedure of partial birth abortion is unworthy of continuance in modern obstetrics. It neither protects the life, the health or the future fertility of women, and certainly does not benefit the baby. For these reasons, I urge you to support the ban on partial birth abortion. I thank you for the opportunity to share my testimony and my concern for the women and children of this country.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his efforts here. I thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me just preface my comments by saying I will be speaking on the bill generally, as opposed to specifically to the amendment before us. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for giving me that chance. Obviously, abortion is an issue on which people disagree. We have seen much of that disagreement expressed here on the floor of the Senate. We see it expressed in the debates, whether it is at public meetings or around coffee tables around our country all the time. It does seem to me, though, that we ought to be able to agree on some things with respect to abortion, even when people are on different sides. One of those should be the fact that there are too many abortions and we should have fewer abortions in this country. I would hope we could agree on that. I hope we could agree also that certain types of abortions are wrong. Partial-birth abortion, in my judgment, is an example of an abortion procedure that is wrong. We have had the procedure itself described here on the floor, both in the course of this debate and in previous debates on this issue. I do not have to retell the horrible details that we have all become familiar with. It seems to me almost on its face that we ought to be able to come to an agreement that that type of procedure is wrong and ought not take place in our country. In addition, contrary to the claims of some of the advocates, those on the other side of this issue, it is not an anesthetic which causes the child, the baby to die during a partial-birth abortion. Indeed, last year when we confronted this issue in the Judiciary Committee, we had several discussions about the actual cause of death. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record both the testimony, as well as questions and answers, that related to that issue which was before the Judiciary Committee last year.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at that time, we heard from some of the advocates on behalf of maintaining the current practice that it was an anesthetic that was the reason the baby died. The National Council of Anesthesiologists, I think, conclusively and irreversibly rebutted that position. I was struck--and as the testimony I have had printed in the Record will indicate--by the efforts on the part of the advocates to try to fuzz up this issue and make assertions that were patently inaccurate and inconsistent during the course of that hearing. In my judgment, we should be able to end this practice and we should be able to end it in the context of this legislation which provides, I think, protections for the life of the mother in sufficient fashion to meet whatever standards society might demand. I understand why some had concerns the last time we debated this issue. Back then, we were told that only a few of these partial-birth abortions were conducted per year. We were told that they only occurred late, very late, in the process of a pregnancy, so late that this was the only option available. We were also told that they were exclusively used in these very rare circumstances to deal with serious fetal defects in high-risk circumstances. But this year we enter the debate in a different context. We now know that those three pieces of information were not true. As we learned from Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, it is not the case that only a few such procedures occur per year. It is not the case that these only occur very late during a pregnancy, and it is not the case that they only occur in instances of serious fetal deformities and risk. They happen too often, they happen too early, and they happen without the kinds of circumstances and without the same justifications we were told were the exclusive conditions under which they took place. In my judgment, those statements from Mr. Fitzsimmons, combined with the statements just printed in the Record from Dr. Campbell a year ago, make me wonder how many of the other assertions we heard during the debate from so-called experts in favor of this practice are correct. I don't know the answer to that. I have serious questions about some of the arguments made in support of the maintenance of these practices. There are, however, a variety of facts which have come to light during the debate this year that seem to me not only to be accurate but have strong bearing on how Members of this body should deal with this issue. The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, a 600-member group of physician specialists, issued a variety of statements in specific reference to partial-birth abortions. Included is this the statement: Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both. In addition, that organization has indicated: It is never medically necessary in order to protect a woman's life, health, or future fertility, to deliberately kill an unborn child in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and certainly not by mostly delivering the child before putting him or her to death. For these reasons, I hope that we can join together--a majority of us already have--and I hope this time an overwhelming majority of us will join together to support the legislation before us offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania. In light of the new information, both the refutation of the claims made by proponents of the partial-birth abortion procedure, as well as those made by the various physician committees that have now emerged in support of the abolition of this practice, it seems to me that it is time for us to end this horrible procedure. I just want to make two other comments, Mr. President. They go to part of the debate which I have been watching for several days now and recollect from last year, and that is the argument that we hear because we are not doctors in this body, we lack the expertise to deal with these issues. It is true that only one of us is a doctor, but we have heard from him, and I think he has been very compelling in his statements on the floor that it is time for us to end the partial-birth abortion procedure. If a doctor's advice makes sense, the advice of our doctor from Tennessee should make sense to all of us. It also is the case that we, as Members of the Senate, are called upon to act as experts in a variety of areas where our own experiences, education and training have not necessarily prepared us before our elections to do the people's business. None of us, I don't believe, in this body, are nuclear physicists, and yet we are regularly called upon to make important decisions with respect to nuclear policy. Not all of us in this body have expertise or have served in the military, and yet all of us are called upon to make extraordinarily difficult choices with respect to the defense of our Nation. On and on it goes across the spectrum of issues. This is not a unique circumstance. It is consistent with the responsibilities we have here to make judgments, to learn the facts, to do the best we can and to consult the experts. We have done that on this issue, and that is why I believe a majority of Members in this Chamber are going to vote to end the partial-birth abortion practice. I will just conclude with my own personal experiences, two of them. First involves the experience my wife and I had, which I have related before on this floor, and it is a major reason why I support this legislation. When our two oldest children were born almost 4 years ago, they were very early in the process. They were twins, and they came early. We were in a neonatal intensive care unit for several weeks with them. We were lucky because our children were sufficiently developed that they were able to come home with us after a fairly brief stay, but we also got to know the families whose children came at an earlier point in the pregnancy, some who were born with birthweights under 2 pounds, some almost 1 pound--small, tiny children who would be potential victims of the partial-birth abortion procedure, struggling and surviving. We were lucky, as I say, because our daughters were born fairly well along in the process, so we only were in that circumstance for a couple of weeks. But just a few months ago, we had it occur again in our family, this time my wife's sister, whose child was born I believe in the 28th week of pregnancy and was, therefore, in the neonatal intensive care unit for many, many weeks. The experiences we have gone through, the familiarity we have developed with these tiny newborn babies and their struggle for survival makes at least this Senator extraordinarily committed to trying to protect and defend those babies. I believe, at a minimum, we should be able to protect them from practices such as the partial-birth abortion. For that reason, today I speak in support of the legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor back to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an innovative anti-crime program in my State targeted toward young people. Established in 1993 by Judge Michael A. Martone of the 52d District Court in Troy, MI, the Court in the Schools/Critical Life Choices Program is an admirable and effective effort to teach middle and high school students how to make the right choices in life. In part one of this two part program a middle or high school's auditorium or cafeteria is transformed into a courtroom. Judge Martone, if in his own jurisdiction, or a local judge, then try actual pending cases involving youthful, nonviolent misdemeanors, such as first and second offense drinking and driving cases, controlled substance cases, and shoplifting cases, in front of the assembled students. In part two of the program, Judge Martone interacts with the students to coach them on how to intelligently analyze risks and make critical life choices. With the aid of television news segments and taped video vignettes of tragedies resulting from youthful indiscretion, the students and Judge Martone engage in an insightful and constructive dialog. To date, over 15,000 students have participated in the program. This low-cost, high-impact program is making a difference in young people's lives. When students see for themselves a defendant handcuffed and taken into custody, Judge Martone says student response is measured by being able to hear a pin drop. I commend Judge Martone for his tireless work on behalf of America's children. In fact, Judge Martone maintains a standing offer to help other communities, both in Michigan and across the Nation, to develop and implement their own Court in the Schools/Critical Life Choices programs. I urge all my colleagues to consider the benefits of utilizing such a program in their own respective States, and, if interested, either contact the Troy Community Coalition for the Prevention of Drug and Alcohol Abuse at 248-740-0431, or representatives in my office for further information.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am voting for cloture for the Family- Friendly Workplace Act because I believe that it has the potential to allow workers around the country the flexibility to spend more time with their families. This legislation will give employees the flexibility of taking time-and-a-half off in lieu of receiving time- and-a-half pay for any overtime hours worked. In addition, the employee will also have the option of working out a biweekly work program with his or her employer or using flexible credit hours. All of these options are currently available to Federal employees and receive high praise from the employees who choose to participate. While I think the principles behind this bill are sound and important for the American worker, I also believe it is important to ensure that the choice to participate in the program is left to the employee. Without this assurance, the employee will have gained nothing. For this reason, I have expressed my concern that the coercion language contained in this bill be strong enough to deter potential abuses of the law. I am supportive of the managers' amendment which establishes a similar level of penalties for employers who coerce employees to accept the compensatory time, biweekly work program, or flexible credit hours. This amendment, would essentially double the penalties for an employer who coerced an employee to take any of these options. In addition to this change, I have filed two amendments Nos. 254 and 255, that would establish additional penalties for employers who continue to abuse the intent of this law. If an employer is found guilty of a second offense of coercion, my amendment would triple the penalties for that employer. While I believe that most employers will work with their employees to establish mutually beneficial work programs, I believe it is important to establish strong penalties for those employers who may abuse the system. With appropriate protections for the employee, I believe the Family- Friendly Workplace Act will benefit hundreds of workers and families around the country.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Federal appellate Judge Damon J. Keith, recently named the 1997 recipient of the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award. Judge Keith was born on Detroit's west side and attended Northwestern High School. After graduation from West Virginia State College, service in the U.S. Army during World War II, and graduation from Howard University Law School, Keith returned home to Detroit and set up a law practice. President Lyndon Johnson appointed Keith to the U.S. District Court in 1967 where he served until 1977, when he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He took senior status in 1995. Mr. President, I join all his well wishers in saluting Judge Damon Keith and his illustrious career, and I ask that the following editorial from the May 12, 1997 Detroit Free Press be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: Damon Keith: Award Recognizes His Gifts of Justice, Service Congratulations to federal Judge Damon Keith on being named the 1997 winner of the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award. It is a richly deserved honor that reflects not only the high esteem in which he is held by his peers but also the commitment to social justice and equality to which he has dedicated his life. The award, named in honor of the late Supreme Court justice and the first African American to serve on that court, goes annually to a nominee with a history of substantial and long- term contributions to the advancement of civil rights, civil liberties and human rights in the United States. Judge Keith is the sixth recipient since the award was conceived and first given to Justice Marshall himself in 1992. A senior judge in the 60th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Keith has served 30 years on the trial and appellate benches. His rulings on civil liberties, civil rights and equal protection have given hope to many previously disfranchised Americans. Like his mentor, Justice Marshall, Judge Keith is a patriot of the first order. His commitment has never wavered to a vision of America that lives up to the demands of the Bill of Rights and treats each citizen with the dignity and respect due him or her regardless of race, sex or social status. His contributions offer promise of a society we have yet to become but, with his leadership, will one day achieve.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution regarding access charges on the Internet. This resolution conveys the sense of the U.S. Senate that telephone access charges for Internet use will impede the Internet's continued growth and development and, therefore, should be discouraged. The rise of the Internet has been truly phenomenal. From the four linked sites of its 1969 precursor, the Internet has developed into an advanced telecommunications network that was unimagined only a decade ago. Today, over 15,000,000 households are currently connected to the Internet, and some industry analysts expect this number to rise to 43,000,000 by the year 2000. These new users will continue to find an increasing amount of options and assistance available to them online. Whether the Internet is used to meet new friends, do online banking, compare medical or scientific research or do shopping, as services increase, the Internet will become an indispensable part of everyday life. Personal uses aside, many believe the Internet's greatest growth potential lies in the evolution of online commerce. The Internet is clearly the technology of the future and innovative companies are staking their future on the public's increased access to this network. According to the Wall Street Journal, online commerce was estimated at $518 million in 1996 and is expected to reach $1.14 billion in 1997. Not surprisingly though, the surge of Internet use has led to some unexpected difficulties. Industry studies indicate that Internet usage is growing at up to 42 percent per year, and some Local Exchange Carrier's [LEC] contend this increasing traffic could exceed the current phone system's capacity. While studies differ on the scope or extent of this problem, it seems clear that, ultimately, a significant investment in the telephone infrastructure will be required if gridlock is to be avoided. To fund this infrastructure, some of the LEC's support an Internet user fee to help fund the installation of new circuits designed to head-off any congestion problems. Rather than install more, inefficient analog switches, however, it is my hope that the Local Exchange Carriers will work to upgrade their telephone systems to digital transmissions just as satellite transmitters, wireless, and long-distance companies have undertaken the transition to digital. Last year, a coalition of high-technology companies in support of this concept organized to oppose traditional telephone fees for Internet use. Consumers, they argue, will be reluctant to use the Internet if new fees are imposed without such product improvement. I agree. The Nation's telephone system needs improvement in order to meet the challenges of 21st century technology and consumer expectations. For this to happen, the telephone infrastructure will require technological improvements, not just additional capacity. In my opinion, if we are to maximize the potential for this new technology, it is important that we recognize the exciting technological changes ongoing in communications. In particular, when addressing problems caused by the surge in Internet use, I believe America should focus on ways to optimize this medium's efficiency. Charging additional regulatory fees for access to the Internet, I fear, could have the unintended consequence of limiting the public's ability and desire to connect. If, as a result of some new form of access fee, less people use the Internet, then we will have passed up a great opportunity to advance the public's investment and involvement in one of the truly revolutionary technological advancements of this century. I hope that the advanced-technology companies which depend on the Internet and the local carriers which help provide service can come to a mutually beneficial agreement on Internet services absent the imposition of additional fees for Internet use. The likelihood of such an agreement was probably heightened by last weeks announcement by the Federal Communications Commission that it will not permit the Local Exchange Carriers to charge user fees for connecting to the internet. This resolution demonstrates congressional support for the FCC position. This sense of the Senate resolution outlines the dramatic growth of the Internet, spells out the benefits available online and recognizes the potential for digital commerce. More importantly, the resolution demonstrates that it is time for the Internet providers and the local phone companies to work together to resolve this conundrum before it becomes a real problem. With so many different issues surrounding the Internet today, it is easy to lose track of the industries' latest developments. This legislation, however, addresses what I believe to be the most fundamental Internet issue: affordability. All of the amazing tools provided by the Internet and all its conveniences will be meaningless if, in our zeal to control the Internet, we price its access beyond the reach of average Americans. This nonbinding resolution expresses the desire of the Senate to avoid such a mistake, and I urge my colleagues to support it.