Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for both the resolution of ratification to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty flank agreement, and, more importantly, the manager's amendment to condition 5 regarding compliance with the treaty by member states in the Caucasus region. True, the manager's amendment does not change the original language to the extent that I would desire, but I do wish to thank Senator Helms and the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee for being so open to my ideas and engaging in very full negotiations. I also wish to thank Senators McConnell, Kerry, and Sarbanes for providing such critical leadership on this issue. Mr. President, it is indeed important that the United States respond forthrightly to violations of the CFE Treaty. And considering this deals with numerical limits on military equipment, the degree of alleged violations is also important. But in executing such diligence, I hope we do not assume too quickly that all alleged violations are, in fact, true. That is why I applaud the inclusion of the request for a report on alleged violations, to ensure that the United States does not blindly enter a treaty which others may disregard. But in requesting such reports, we must also be mindful of the impact our actions may have upon the delicate fabric of ongoing negotiations to which the United States is party. Specifically, Mr. President, I refer to the OSCE negotiations, to which the United States is co- chairman, regarding the future status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. To single out one nation for alleged violations, in this case Armenia, without taking into account the full geo-political environment under which that nation's government must operate, may subvert the very process we think has been violated. Better, in my opinion, to err by requesting too much information than not enough, and take into account the region as a whole, and all the players in the current dispute. To ensure we do not upend this ongoing process of peaceful resolution, we should minimize giving credence to unverified allegations and cast as wide a net as possible in requesting additional analysis. Mr. President, Armenia has had a tough go of it in its short period of independence. It is landlocked, its ethnic population is geographically divided, and it has suffered egregiously in the past from the crimes of others who condemned them simply because of their heritage. Add on top of that a 70-year legacy of abuse and political game playing by the Soviet Union, and it is understandable that Armenia may find itself hard-pressed to execute the policies that we Americans would like to see in a perfect world. But it is not a perfect world, and sometimes we must understand the realities of a situation, and make the best of it. Therefore, Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the Foreign Relations Committee chairman to work with me on making condition 5 more inclusive of all potential threats to U.S. interests and the treaty's viability. By taking a more evenhanded approach, hopefully no party to the current negotiations will feel slighted. And, Mr. President, they should not feel slighted at this point in the process. This condition is meant to address violations to the CFE Treaty, not express an opinion on the legitimacy of any party's negotiating position. Any other interpretation is, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of the condition's intent. Further, I do not believe that this will, or should, be interpreted in any manner that would impugn the ability of the United States to continue as co-chair to the OSCE negotiations. The United States has energetically taken on this mantle of leadership, and I reaffirm my support for this process. Mr. President, both the viability of the CFE Treaty, and the continued good-faith negotiations regarding the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh are important United States interests. We can, and must, work toward the success of both. I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership in these areas, and the assistance of Senators Kerry and Sarbanes in bringing about this amendment which I have cosponsored. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize May 10 through 18 as National Safe Kids Week 1997. The National Safe Kids Campaign is a joint effort of the Children's National Medical Center and its founding sponsor Johnson & Johnson to promote basic child safety precautions among America's parents. To illustrate the importance of this cause, consider the following facts. Unintentional injury is the number one killer of children ages 14 and under. Every day, more than 39,000 children are injured seriously enough to require emergency medical treatment. That is more than 14 million each year. These statistics are all the more tragic because so many of these accidents could have been prevented with adequate basic child safety education. Earlier today, the National Safe Kids Gear Up Games kicked off here in Washington. The Gear Up Games will move to New York tomorrow, Los Angeles on Saturday, and on to communities across the country in the days ahead. The primary awareness program of National Safe Kids Week 1997, the Gear Up Games are an interactive safety obstacle course with events centered around the childhood injury risk areas depicted in the Safe Kids Gear Up Guide. Mr. President, I am honored to say my wife Jane is a honorary chairperson of the Detroit Safe Kids Campaign. She joins such respected national figures as former United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, our distinguished colleagues from Connecticut and Ohio, Chris Dodd and Mike DeWine, respectively, and countless others in this worthwhile initiative. During National Safe Kids Week 1997, and beyond, I plan to have available in both my Washington and Michigan offices copies of the Safe Kids Gear Up Guide. Jane and I join Senators Dodd and DeWine in urging other Senators to do likewise. As the parents of three children, all under the age of 4, my wife and I believe there is no more important task than working to ensure all of America's children have safe home and play environments in which to grow up. I commend those involved in the National Safe Kids Campaign and the good works they do, and look forward to the day accidental childhood injuries are eliminated entirely.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to Air Force Capt. James Huard, buried on Thursday, May 1 with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. The day was long overdue; 25 years, in fact, since the Dearborn, MI native's plane disappeared in a mission over North Vietnam. In July 1972, Captain Huard's death left behind a young wife, three small children, and countless other family and friends. His memory lives on today, however, evident in the attendance at Arlington of a number of members of the Vietnam Veterans of America James L. Huard Chapter 267, named in his honor. As fitting and well deserved a tribute as last week's ceremony was, it also serves as a stirring reminder of those who still wait for return of the remains of their loved ones. For one quarter of a century, over 2,000 families have so far been denied the opportunity to properly bring closure to this difficult period in their lives. As Paul Kane, one of Captain Huard's fellow veterans told the Detroit News, ``This ends the Vietnam war for Dearborn, finally. Today, the good captain comes home to rest.'' It is my sincere hope the other families and communities across this country waiting to honor those servicemen still missing in action will one day, if they have not already, find a similar peace themselves. Until then, we cannot and will not waver or rest in our solemn task of returning every American home for recognition as heroes by the country in whose service they made the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe it is important we review the vote conducted earlier today regarding the Warner amendment to distribute supplemental highway funds by the ISTEA formulas rather than by the new arbitrary standard delineated in the supplemental appropriations bill, and its meaning for the overall issue of ISTEA reauthorization. What we have just witnessed has happened time and time again since ISTEA was passed in 1991--the majority of donee States join forces and take gas tax money from the remaining minority of donor States. This happened when the original ISTEA formulas were developed, it has happened when hitches have disrupted the flow of donor State money to donee States, and today it has happened when the very formulas established to protect at least a portion of the donor States' money were found inconvenient by the donee States and, were therefore set- aside. The equity adjustment programs, designed in the original ISTEA legislation to guarantee donor States would at least get a portion of the gas tax revenues raised in their State back for highway maintenance, have a real and necessary purpose. Without these minimal programs, States such as Michigan would be forced to give up vast portions of their gas taxes to States whose highway needs may not be as immediate and pressing as they are in Michigan. In this fiscal year, two of the programs, the 90 percent minimum allocation and the 90 percent of payments programs, kicked-in for the first time, resulting in a significantly increased return of gas taxes for the donor States. Yes, this resulted in the donee States Federal highway funds being reduced, but what must be pointed out is that not one donee State would have become a donor State because of these equity programs. They still would receive more money from the Federal Government than they contributed, and the donor States like Michigan would continue to contribute more than they received. But this was not enough, and what appears to have happened now is that the donee States cannot accept that the donor equity programs may actually work. So this supplemental appropriation took nearly a half of a billion dollars, and distributed it not by the ISTEA formulas so carefully crafted by the Congress in 1991, but by their determination that donee States should never lose money. Mr. President, I am incredulous. It is bad enough that the ISTEA formulas discriminate against States like Michigan and force us to send our gas tax money to highways that do not contribute in any way to our economy or transportation infrastructure. But if the law can be so blithely set aside in order to meet the latest needs of the donee States, why should we believe that any follow-on to ISTEA will be honored. Why won't it be similarly set-aside whenever a simply majority of the Senators, motivated neither by ideology nor philosophy, neither by regional nor personal loyalties, but simply by the immediate ability to increase their revenues at the expense of other Senator's States, decide to set them aside once again? The answer, Mr. President, is that it will be simple to do so, and this body will do it. That is wrong, that is capricious, and that is not what we were sent here to do. Mr. President, when the environment of an issue such as transportation has become so reduced to simply bringing home the bacon, it is time to act and act decisively. Today's vote demonstrated with crystal clarity that the Federal Government cannot be trusted to administer highway funds. We must extract ourselves from this process and allow the States to conduct their own road programs, raising their own revenues, and spending their own money. That is why, Mr. President, we need to pass the Transportation Empowerment Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Mack, and stop this highway robbery.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the bill before us addresses the effects of natural disasters which occurred in the Midwest and California. I would like, right now, to address a portion of the bill that is designed to prevent a man-made disaster. That provision, the safety net continuing resolution for fiscal year 1998, would, as Senator McCain has made clear, prevent a Government shutdown in the event the regular annual appropriation bills are not enacted into law by October 1. Mr. President, just over a year ago, on April 26, 1996, President Clinton signed legislation which ended a 7 month budget stalemate. That stalemate involved no fewer than 15 continuing resolutions, 2 full- fledged Government shutdowns--one lasting a record 27 days--and numerous Presidential vetoes. By President Clinton's own account, it cost the taxpayers $1.5 billion. But the costs of this shutdown went beyond this $1.5 billion. Thousands upon thousands of Federal employees were furloughed. Thousands of small businesses, particularly those near national parks closed during the Government shutdown, suffered crippling loss of business. And American citizens suffered innumerable inconveniences, many of them quite serious. For example, Mr. President, 10,000 new Medicare applications, 212,000 Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual office visits and 800,000 toll- free calls for information and assistance were turned away each day. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans were inconvenienced, or had to temporarily forego benefits for which the Government requires things like Social Security cards, because we could not reach a budget agreement. And the problems did not stop there. Some of our most vulnerable people suffered from the Government shutdown: 13 million AFDC recipients, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000 children receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head Start children had their services delayed. And I have not even mentioned the 9 million Americans whose vacations and outings were ruined because they were turned away from our national parks and museums. Mr. President, we must prevent this situation from occurring ever again. The Government shutdown caused inconvenience, occasional trauma, and a wide-spread increase in the cynicism of the American people, now more convinced than ever that our executive and legislative branches of Government are incapable of doing their jobs. We can do our jobs, Mr. President, and we must see to it that we do them without allowing the Federal Government to again shut down. We must come to grips with the fact that, under current rules, Government shutdowns are a risk that must be addressed. 1995 was not the first year in which we had a Government shutdown. Over the last 20 years there have been numerous such occurrences, and even more numerous stopgap funding bills passed at the last minute to prevent them. Part of the problem Mr. President, is our complicated budget process. As currently constituted, this process seems designed to confuse the people as they seek to understand what we are doing and exactly who is holding up agreement. In addition, Mr. President, the American people have elected divided government. They have chosen a President with one set of priorities, and a majority in Congress that in some ways has significantly different priorities. As a result of a convoluted process and conflicting priorities, we are in the midst of a 2-year budget stalemate. I sincerely hope that the budget agreement announced on Friday will produce tax relief for the American people, a balanced budget by 2002, sufficient funding for our national defense, and much-needed spending restraint. If it includes these things, Mr. President, we may at last see an end to the budget stalemate. But we cannot sit idly by in the hope that all will be well. We can and must strive in the meantime to ensure that this year no shutdown will occur even if the budget deal breaks down. That is why I am urging my colleagues to support provisions in this continuing resolution that would put a safety net under our Government, and under the American people. It would create a statutory continuing resolution, triggered only if the appropriations acts do not become law or if there is no governing continuing resolution in place. This legislation would ensure that the Government does not shut down by funding Government programs next year at 98 percent. What this means, Mr. President, is that the Federal Government, in case of a budget impasse, would be funded at a level sufficient to continue essential services--sufficient to prevent any real inconvenience to the American people--without undermining the incentive to pass appropriations bills on time. It is my hope that we will not need this provision. It is my conviction that we should enact it so that the American people will continue to receive the services they expect from their Federal Government even if there is a budget impasse. I urge my colleagues to support this important, safety net provision.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Levin to introduce an amendment which will help close the door on the canceled Center for Ecology Research and Training [CERT], and end a difficult chapter for the city of Bay City, MI. In the late 1980's, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was working to develop a new laboratory to study land and marine ecosystems. After much consideration, Bay City, MI, was ultimately chosen as the location for this facility, and Congress appropriated over $100 million for the center's construction. EPA, however, moved slowly on the CERT construction. After 5 years, only a small portion of the appropriated funds had been spent. Thus, CERT was still a long way from realization and became an easy target when the fiscal year 1996 rescission was considered. After considerable congressional debate, the project was canceled and almost all the remaining funds were rescinded. Today, approximately $5.2 million of the already appropriated funds remain. These moneys are set aside for the EPA to settle CERT-related claims. In addition, as part of the arrangement to settle claims, EPA verbally agreed to direct the moneys remaining after all claims have been settled to the city of Bay City in the form of environmental grants. At present, however, there is no language which directs EPA to carry out this pledge, and if EPA is not given explicit direction, it will likely reprogram the funds. This language is needed, therefore, to instruct the EPA as to how the remaining funds will be spent. The amendment offered by Senator Levin and me will permit Bay City to clean and restore the area to a level acceptable to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Mr. President, this legislation is very important to Bay City. The loss of CERT was a great blow to the city. Bay City needs to heal the wound that is this promised but unfinished facility. It is my hope that this legislation will bring closure to this unfortunate affair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support as a cosponsor to Senate Resolution 78. This resolution designates April 30, 1997, as National Erase the Hate Day.'' I support this resolution because it not only designates a day to focus on solutions to hate crimes, but also calls upon all nations, States, neighborhoods, and communities to take a stand against these hate crimes. As I have stated many times, ours is a nation of immigrants consisting of people from various racial, ethnic, and religious ancestries. People came here from around the world to become part of a nation of independence, opportunity and freedom. There should be no tolerance or acceptance of any crimes--especially those crimes which target their victims simply because of their race, ethnicity, or religious background. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has published the first comprehensive summary of hate crimes in America. Their publication, Cause for Concern, Hate Crimes in America, provides a number of examples of hate crimes that have resulted in injury or even death to innocent people solely on account of their racial and other makeup. For example, on June 11, 1995, arsonists burned down the home of a Latino family in the Antelope Valley, CA, city of Palmdale. They spray painted ``white power'' and ``your family dies'' on the walls. In August of 1992, a 19 year old Vietnamese American pre-med student in Coral Springs, FL, was beaten to death by a mob of white youths who called him ``chink'' and ``Vietcong.'' And, in Oklahoma City, following the bombing of the Federal office building, an Iraqi refugee in her mid-twenties miscarried her near-term baby after an April 20 attack on her home. Unknown assailants pounded on the door of her home, broke windows, and screamed anti-Islamic epithets. Mr. President, there is no room in our country for these kinds of crimes. We must not allow them to continue. We currently have Federal laws against hate crimes. Further, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights reports that 47 States and the District of Columbia have passed their own hate crime laws. Among other things, these laws ban vandalism against religious institutions such as churches, synagogues, and mosques. It is my sincere hope that this resolution will inspire more people to stand up against all hate crimes in all their forms.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine, and Senator Durbin, a short, technical bill to correct a drafting error in last year's immigration bill that could wrongly deny U.S. citizenship to certain children born overseas to a U.S.-citizen parent. To explain the problem addressed by this bill, some background is in order. Prior to 1986, a minor child, born abroad to a U.S.-citizen parent, was eligible for U.S. citizenship if the child's U.S. citizen- parent had physically resided in the United States for at least 10 years prior to the child's birth. The 1986 Immigration bill shortened this residency period to 5 years for children born after its effective date, but perhaps inadvertently retained the 10-year requirement for children born before that date. This double standard yielded anomalous results: In families where the U.S.-citizen parent had resided in the United States for more than 5 years but less than 10, a younger child--born in, say, 1987--would be eligible for U.S. citizenship, while that child's older sibling--born in, say, 1985--would not be. To eliminate this disparity, the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended the relevant provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a uniform 5-year residency requirement, without regard to the date of the child's birth. A provision in last year's immigration bill, however, effectively repealed the 1994 amendment described above, thus restoring the prior double standard. There was, of course, no policy basis for this change, and no one has claimed ownership of it. The change appears to have simply been a drafting error in a purely technical section of last year's bill. This error needs to be corrected without delay. Once a child turns 18, he is no longer eligible to become a U.S. citizen under the Immigration and Nationality Act provision that was affected by the drafting error. Thus, children who turn 18 before this error is corrected will be permanently ineligible to become U.S. citizens under the provision at issue. The longer this error goes uncorrected, the greater the number of children who will be harmed by it. I therefore hope this bill can be passed without delay or controversy, and I will be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to that end.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine, and Senator Durbin, a short, technical bill to correct a drafting error in last year's immigration bill that could wrongly deny U.S. citizenship to certain children born overseas to a U.S.-citizen parent. To explain the problem addressed by this bill, some background is in order. Prior to 1986, a minor child, born abroad to a U.S.-citizen parent, was eligible for U.S. citizenship if the child's U.S. citizen- parent had physically resided in the United States for at least 10 years prior to the child's birth. The 1986 Immigration bill shortened this residency period to 5 years for children born after its effective date, but perhaps inadvertently retained the 10-year requirement for children born before that date. This double standard yielded anomalous results: In families where the U.S.-citizen parent had resided in the United States for more than 5 years but less than 10, a younger child--born in, say, 1987--would be eligible for U.S. citizenship, while that child's older sibling--born in, say, 1985--would not be. To eliminate this disparity, the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended the relevant provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a uniform 5-year residency requirement, without regard to the date of the child's birth. A provision in last year's immigration bill, however, effectively repealed the 1994 amendment described above, thus restoring the prior double standard. There was, of course, no policy basis for this change, and no one has claimed ownership of it. The change appears to have simply been a drafting error in a purely technical section of last year's bill. This error needs to be corrected without delay. Once a child turns 18, he is no longer eligible to become a U.S. citizen under the Immigration and Nationality Act provision that was affected by the drafting error. Thus, children who turn 18 before this error is corrected will be permanently ineligible to become U.S. citizens under the provision at issue. The longer this error goes uncorrected, the greater the number of children who will be harmed by it. I therefore hope this bill can be passed without delay or controversy, and I will be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to that end.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I take a few minutes to talk about the Volunteer Protection Act and to respond to some of what I considered to be unjustified criticisms of the act which we have heard on the floor in recent hours. As I mentioned yesterday when we began this debate, the Volunteer Protection Act will give our volunteers and nonprofit organizations who rely on volunteers some much needed relief from frivolous lawsuits that are filed based on the actions of volunteers. All too often, while we ought to be protecting and encouraging volunteers--which President Clinton, Colin Powell, former President Bush, and others have done such a commendable job of encouraging in Philadelphia this week--we are, instead, permitting them to be subjected to baseless, abusive and unwarranted lawsuits. I spoke about many such lawsuits yesterday. I have also heard about others from community groups, nonprofit organizations, and volunteers in Michigan, and about various excesses along these lines. Today, I respond to those who criticized this desperately needed legislation and to talk about some specific provisions of the bill which would address any concerns that might have been raised with respect to volunteer protection legislation. Perhaps most disturbing to me is that some opponents of this legislation tried to characterize it by claiming it would protect white supremacist groups and other hate groups. That charge is entirely unfounded. It represents an attempt by those who oppose all civil justice reform to distort this legislation. I have to ask, Mr. President, how people could reach this conclusion. Frankly, I have to say that I find it offensive, as an advocate of this legislation, to have anybody suggest that we would permit such legislation to be brought to this floor. First, by its own limiting terms, this bill covers not-for-profit organizations that are organized and conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes. Not every not-for-profit organization is organized for the public benefit and operated primarily for charitable purposes. I think it is clear that hate groups, even where they are not-for-profit organizations, are not organized for the public benefit and operated for charitable or civic purposes. Accordingly, they would not be subject to the limitations in this bill. Second, the bill goes even further than that to ensure that hate groups will not be covered. The bill explicitly excludes from its coverage cases in which the misconduct constitutes a hate crime or in which the misconduct constitutes a civil rights violation. Thus, even if the defendant was associated with a group that was found to be a not-for-profit organization covered by the bill, there would be no limitation on the liability of the individual or the organization for hate crimes or civil rights violations. Given the careful drafting of these provisions, it is simply a blatant mischaracterization to suggest that this bill would protect the Ku Klux Klan, hate groups, white supremacist groups, or any other horrible organization. Frankly, I find it very disturbing to even have this legislation associated with such hateful groups. Those groups would not be sheltered from liability, and any suggestion that they would, I think, is just plain wrong. I also say, Mr. President, that using the kind of logic that could somehow link this legislation to such groups would allow us to say that if we provide benefits under Medicaid to people who belong to hate groups, we are trying to consciously subsidize white supremacist or hate group members. You could do that with any legislation. But we have gone the extra mile in this legislation to try to preclude those who are involved in hateful activity from being in any way protected by it. I also want to respond to another criticism of this legislation. It has been suggested that we should leave this area to the States. I agree wholeheartedly that the States should be involved in offering legal shelter to voluntary and charitable activities. The Volunteer Protection Act has in fact been carefully drafted by Senators Coverdell, McConnell, myself, and others to ensure that we permit the States to do so and that we strike the right balance of Federalism. For example, in order to permit States to provide their own protections to volunteers, section 3 of the bill clearly provides that the Volunteer Protection Act will not preempt any State law that provides additional protections from liability relating to volunteers or nonprofit organizations. Thus, while the bill will set a standard in States without volunteer protections, it will permit the States to do more. Section 4(e) of the bill further provides that a number of State laws concerning the responsibilities of volunteers and concerning liability for the actions of volunteers will not be construed as inconsistent with the act. I would like my colleagues to consider those limitations. First, a State law that requires a nonprofit organization or Government entity to adhere to risk management or training procedures will not be inconsistent with the Volunteer Protection Act. Second, State laws that make the organization or entity liable for the acts of the volunteer to the same extent that an employer is liable for the acts of its employees will continue to have full effect. Third, any State law that makes a limitation of liability inapplicable if the volunteer was operating a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft will also continue in force. Fourth, also continuing to have effect will be any State law making liability limits inapplicable in civil actions brought by State or local government officials pursuant to State law. That provision ensures that State and local officials will be permitted to enforce State law. Fifth, the bill specifies that State laws will not be affected where they make a liability limitation applicable only if the nonprofit or Government entity provides a secure source of recovery for individuals who suffer harm as a result of actions taken by a volunteer on behalf of the organization or entity. That means that, in any example that opponents of this bill bring up and in any other case that occurs, the States will have the power to ensure that any injured parties will be compensated for those injuries. I urge my colleagues to keep these points in mind as we debate the motion to proceed and when we get to the final point of actually considering the bill. The Volunteer Protection Act, I also add, Mr. President, includes one other significant protection to ensure the proper respect for federalism. That is the State opt-out provision. This bill explicitly provides that a State may opt out of the provisions of this bill in State court cases involving parties from the State. Under the opt-out provision, a State may elect to forego the volunteer protections in the bill, provided that a State enacts legislation in accordance with the State's constitutional and legislative processes. That legislation must cite the opt-out provision in the Federal legislation, clearly state an election to opt out, and contain no other provisions. This ensures that States will opt out when they really do intend to do so and that volunteers will not be deprived of volunteer protections without the appropriate consideration of the issue by the State. As I have stated before, I do not believe that any State will opt out of the provisions of this legislation, and I know of no State that intends to do so. Rather, the provision was included by the drafters, by those of us who support the legislation, as a matter of principle out of respect for the States. Mr. President, I feel very strongly about litigation abuses in this country, and very strongly about fostering charitable and volunteer activities. President Clinton, General Powell, and others involved in the summit in Philadelphia are absolutely correct that we need to encourage the sense of community and charity that makes us so great as a nation. I encourage my colleagues to consider this legislation in all its detail. It has been crafted very carefully by those of us who developed the Senate bill. We sought to strike just the right balance with the States and to offer protection only to the many worthy activities that should be protected, while at the same time protecting the rights of those who are victims. I commend Senators Coverdell and McConnell, as I have from the beginning, for their efforts, in the hope that we can proceed to the consideration and passage of this bill. Mr. President, I will close by saying, as I did yesterday, that we often talk in this country about the extent to which the sense of community that binds us together has eroded in recent years. I think that is the case, and it is why so many of our constituents ask us to try to take action to rebuild the fabric that binds us together. I think the sense of community in America breaks down in no small measure because we have stopped looking at one another as neighbors and friends and we look at each other as potential plaintiffs and defendants. I believe this would not be any greater a case than when it comes to the activities of charitable organizations, whom we seek to address with the Volunteer Protection Act. If we do not take action to try to give volunteer organizations a greater opportunity to do their good deeds, I think we really will have set back efforts to build a stronger American community. For that reason, I sincerely hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Kessler, a member of my staff, be granted privilege of the floor for the period of time during which the Volunteer Protection Act is discussed.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, this week in Philadelphia, President Clinton is joining former Presidents Bush and Ford, along with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell at a summit to promote voluntarism. I commend any and all efforts to increase charitable activity on the part of Americans. And I find it extremely fitting that this summit is being held in the City of Brotherly Love because charitable activity does more even than providing help and counseling to those in need. Charitable activity helps all Americans by promoting habits and appreciation of benevolent actions--actions aimed at helping those in need because it is the right thing to do. Charitable activity binds us together as members of the same community. It helps each of us think of our neighbors, and even strangers, as our brothers, deserving of our care and help. By volunteering, Americans bring us together in our towns, cities, States, and indeed our Nation. America has a vast interstate network of 114,000 operating nonprofit organizations, ranging from schools to hospitals to clinics to food programs. This network's revenues totaled $388 billion in 1990. Meanwhile, revenues for the 19,000 support institutions--which raise money to fund operating organizations--came to $29 billion. And total revenues for religious congregations were $48 billion. That's 465 billion dollars worth of nonprofit activity we enjoyed in 1990 alone. Nonprofit organizations rely heavily on volunteers, and Americans gladly comply. According to a 1993 report from the Independent Sector, a national coalition of 800 organizations, Americans donated 9.7 billion hours of their time to nonprofit organizations that year. This volunteer time produced the equivalent of 5.7 million full time volunteers, worth an estimated $112 billion. But there is trouble in the organizations and among the people who promote voluntary, charitable activity in our country. Unfortunately voluntarism is declining nationwide. According to the Independent Sector report, the percentage of Americans volunteering dropped from 54 percent in 1989 to 51 percent in 1991 and 48 percent in 1993. Americans also are giving less money. The average household's charitable donation dropped from $978 in 1989 to $880 in 1993. The decline of giving and volunteering spells danger for our voluntary organizations, for the people who depend on them, and for the social trust that is based on the spirit of association. This makes gestures, like the summit on voluntarism, important. It also means that we should look for immediate, practical means by which we in government can reduce the burdens that we impose on voluntary, charitable activity. That is why I am extremely pleased to rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Coverdell and Senator McConnell, in sponsoring the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, which we are debating on the floor at this time. I commend Senators Coverdell and McConnell for their leadership in encouraging and supporting the voluntarism that is so important to communities in Michigan and across this country. This long overdue legislation will provide volunteers and nonprofit organizations with desperately needed relief from abusive lawsuits brought based on the activities of volunteers. Those are precisely the activities that we should be protecting and encouraging. And one major reason for the decline is America's litigation explosion. Nonprofit organizations are forced to spend an increasing amount of time and resources preparing for, avoiding, and/or fighting lawsuits. Thus, litigation has rendered our nonprofit organizations less effective at helping people, and allowed Americans to retreat more into their private lives, and away from the public, social activity that binds us together as a people. Last Congress, I spoke on the floor many times concerning the need for litigation reform and describing the litigation abuses that plague our small businesses, our consumers, our schools, and others. I came to Congress as a freshman Senator intending to press for lawsuit reforms, and it is something I have worked very hard on. I supported the securities litigation reform legislation, which Congress successfully enacted over the President's veto, and I also supported the product liability reform bill, which the President unfortunately killed with his veto. I also introduced legislation with Senator McConnell to provide broader relief in all civil cases, and offered floor amendments that would do the same. I continue to support broader civil justice reforms and I particularly look forward to considering product liability reform legislation both in the Commerce Committee and on the floor in this session. But I believe that our voluntary, nonprofit organizations, perhaps more than any other sector of our country, urgently need protection from current lawsuit abuses. I encourage my colleagues to consider the problems facing our community groups and their volunteers, and to support this legislation. I hope that, given his public support for voluntary activity, President Clinton will support this litigation reform bill, recognize the value of volunteers and nonprofit groups, and give them the protection they need to keep doing their good deeds. Litigation adds a variety of onerous burdens to our nonprofit organizations. Among the most obvious is increasing insurance costs. Mr. John Graham, on behalf of the American Society of Association Executives [ASAE], gave testimony last year arguing that liability insurance premiums for associations have increased an average 155 percent in recent years. Some of our most revered nonprofit institutions have been put at risk by increased liability costs. Dr. Creighton Hale of Little League Baseball reports that the liability rate for a league increased from $75 to $795 in just 5 years. Many leagues cannot afford this added expense, on top of increasing costs for helmets and other equipment. These leagues operate without insurance or disband altogether, often leaving children with no organized sports in their neighborhood. What kind of suits add to insurance costs? ASAE reports that one New Jersey umpire was forced by a court to pay a catcher $24,000. Why? Because the catcher was hit in the eye by a softball while playing without a mask. The catcher complained that the umpire should have lent him his. Organizations that try to escape sky-rocketing insurance costs must self-insure, and Andrea Marisi of the Red Cross will describe self- insurance costs only as ``huge.'' The result? ``Obviously, we have fewer funds available for providing services than would otherwise be the case.'' Outside insurance generally comes with significant deductibles. Charles Kolb of the United Way points out that insurance deductibles for his organization fall into the range of $25,000 to $30,000. When, as has been the case in recent years, the organization is subjected to three or four lawsuits per year, $100,000 or more must be diverted from charitable programs. And there are even more costs. Mr. Kolb reports that the costs in lost time and money spent on discovery--for example going through files for hours on end to establish who did what when--can run into the thousands of dollars as well. Further, as the Boy Scouts' William Cople puts it: We bear increased costs from risk management programs of many kinds--[including] those to prevent accidents. We have higher legal bills as well. But even more of a problem is the need to find pro-bono help to quell possible lawsuits. The Scouts must spend scarce time, and use up scarce human capital in preventing suits. For example, 5 years ago the General Counsel's office, a pro-bono operation, committed less than 100 hours per year on issues relating to lawsuits. Last year we devoted about 750 hours to that duty. The Boy Scouts must do less good so that they can defend themselves from lawsuits, and that just doesn't seem quite right. Frivolous lawsuits also increase costs by discouraging voluntarism. Dottie Lewis of the Southwest Officials Association, which provides officials for scholastic games, observes, ``Some of our people got to the point where they were just afraid to work because of the threat of lawsuits.'' What makes this fear worse is the knowledge that one need do no harm in order to be liable. Take for example Powell versus Boy Scouts of America. While on an outing with the Sea Explorers, a scouting unit in the Boy Scouts' Cascade Pacific Council, a youth suffered a tragic, paralyzing injury in a rough game of touch football. Several adults had volunteered to supervise the outing, but none observed the game. The youth filed a personal injury lawsuit against two of the adult volunteers. The jury found the volunteers liable for some $7 million, which Oregon law reduced to about $4 million--far more than the volunteers could possibly pay. What is more, as Cople points out, ``the jury seemingly held the volunteers to a standard of care requiring them constantly to supervise the youth entrusted to their charge, even for activities which under other circumstances may routinely be permitted without such meticulous oversight.'' Clearly, when an injury of this sort occurs, it is a tragic situation. The question is, How should society allocate these responsibilities, and to what extent should a voluntary organization and its volunteers be responsible for the same standard of care as outlined by this jury? No one can provide the meticulous oversight demanded by the jury. Thus volunteers are left at the mercy of events--and juries--beyond their control. Such unreasonable standards of care also penalize our nonprofit organizations. Len Krugel of the Michigan Salvation Army reports that regulations and onerous legal standards often keep his organization from giving troubled youths a second chance. Because the organization is held responsible for essentially all actions by its employees and volunteers, it can take no risks in hiring. As Mr. Krugel observes, ``If we can't give these kids a second chance, who can?'' Then there is the problem of joint and several liability, in which one defendant is made to pay for all damages even though responsible for only a small portion. Such findings are a severe burden on the United Way, a national organization that sponsors numerous local nonprofit groups. Although it cannot control local operations, the United Way often finds itself a defendant in suits arising from injuries caused by the local entity. Such holdings result from juries' desire to find someone with the funds necessary to pay for an innocent party's injuries. But this search for the deep pocket leads to what Ms. Marisi calls a ``chilling effect'' on Red Cross relations with other nonprofits. And the same is obviously true for other national organizations. The Red Cross is now less willing to cooperate with smaller, more innovative local agencies that might make it more effective. Thus nonprofits forbear from doing good because they cannot afford the insurance, they cannot afford the loss of volunteers, they cannot afford the risk of frivolous lawsuits. The Volunteer Protection Act will address the danger to our nonprofit sector, Madam President. It will not solve all the problems facing our volunteers and nonprofits. But it will provide voluntary organizations with critical protection against improper litigation, at the same time that it recognizes the ability of the States to take additional or even alternative protections in some cases. By setting the standard for the protection of volunteers outright, this bill provides much-needed lawsuit relief immediately to volunteers and nonprofits wherever they may be. Let me briefly describe what this bill does. The bill protects volunteers from liability unless they cause harm through action that constitutes reckless misconduct, gross negligence, willful or criminal misconduct, or is in conscious, flagrant disregard for the rights and safety of those harmed. This ensures that where volunteers truly exceed the bounds of appropriate conduct they will be liable. But in the many ridiculous cases I have described, some of them clearly frivolous--where no real wrongdoing occurred--the volunteer will not be forced to face and defend a lawsuit. In lawsuits based on the actions of a volunteer, the bill limits the punitive damages that can be awarded. It is unfortunate that charities and volunteers have punitive damages awarded against them in the first place, but they do. Congressman John Porter, who is leading the fight for this legislation on the House side, reports that in August 1990, a Chicago jury awarded $12 million to a boy who was injured in a car crash. The negligent party? The estate of the volunteer who gave his life attempting to save the boy. Under this bill, punitive damages in cases involving the actions of a volunteer could be awarded against a volunteer, nonprofit organization, or Government entity only upon a showing by the claimant that the volunteer's action represented willful or criminal misconduct, or showed a conscious, flagrant disregard for the rights and safety of the individual harmed. This should ensure that punitive damages, which are intended only to punish a defendant and are not intended to compensate an injured person, will only be available in situations where punishment really is called for because of the egregious conduct of the defendant. The bill also protects volunteers from excessive liability that they might face through joint and several liability. Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, a plaintiff can obtain full damages from a defendant who is only slightly at fault. I have spoken many times before about the unfairness that may result from the application of this legal doctrine. The injustice that results to volunteers and nonprofits is often even more acute, because they lack the resources to bear unfair judgments. This bill strikes a balance by providing that, in cases based on the actions of a volunteer, any defendant that is a volunteer, nonprofit organization, or Government entity will be jointly and severally responsible for the full share of economic damages but will only be responsible for noneconomic damages in proportion to the harm that that defendant caused. Finally, I would like to speak for a moment about how this legislation preserves important principles of federalism and respects the role of the States. First, the bill does not preempt State legislation that provides greater protections to volunteers. In this way, it sets up outer protections from which all volunteers will benefit and permits States to do even more. But second, the bill includes an opt-out provision that permits States, in cases involving only parties from that State, to affirmatively elect to opt out of the protections provided in the Volunteer Protection Act. A State can do so by enacting a statute specifically providing for that. I suspect that no States will elect to do so, but I feel that, as a matter of principle, it is important to include that provision in order to maintain the proper balance of federalism in this legislation. Madam President, in short, 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. And that, Madam President, will make for a better America. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation. We talk often in this Chamber about how to foster a sense of community in America. It is something which many people have a varied perspective on. But it strikes me, Madam President, that nothing can do more to help generate the sense of community than to create an atmosphere in which people stop looking at their neighbors as possible plaintiffs and defendants and start looking at them as friends and neighbors again. I think we have moved in the wrong direction because of the litigation explosion generated by frivolous lawsuits. I think legislation such as the Volunteer Protection Act will help to redress that balance and put us back on the right course so that the ideals that are being talked about these days in the summit in Philadelphia can truly be realized and effectuated to their maximum possible degree. For that reason, I am glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to speaking again on it here as the debate continues. I do hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this very important piece of legislation which we might, with some help, get through the Congress in the very near future. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, as I noted in my past remarks a moment or so ago, today in Philadelphia, PA, some of the leaders of our country, former Presidents as well as President Clinton and numerous other elected officials and volunteer leaders from around the Nation, are meeting to try to provide incentives to all of us to take a greater and more active role in volunteering in our communities to help our fellow citizens. In light of that happening, I cannot help but think about a friend of mine who passed away a couple of years ago, former Gov. George Romney of Michigan. Governor Romney was elected Governor of our State in 1962 and held that job for 6 years, at which time he was asked to join the Cabinet of President Nixon and became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Prior to his Government service, he had been the president of American Motors Corp. So he had a distinguished career in both business as well as in the public sector. When he left Government officially, he then made sort of his principal focus in life the spirit of voluntarism and worked in a variety of ways throughout his remaining 20 years or so of life to try to generate nationwide interest and support for voluntarism. In fact, he started as head of the national organization called Volunteer, I believe, whose job it was to try to provide stimulus for greater volunteer participation. I recall very vividly in 1991 when Gov. John Engler was elected to his first term in our State. Governor Romney reinvolved himself in the voluntarism activity level in Michigan and helped put together a bipartisan voluntarism commitment in our State that has done many good deeds as a consequence. He also was active in the Points of Light organization nationally. He was on the board of the nonprofit entity, Points of Light, I believe it is called, and certainly served as an inspiration in both the launching of that as well as its successful development. I mention him today not just because of the connection to voluntarism that the summit provides but also because it turns out he was perhaps, more than anyone, the inspiration for this summit, having thought of the idea and recommended it, I believe, to Mr. Wofford and others who then moved it forward. So he was an inspiration both to his Nation and certainly to this U.S. Senator in many ways. But also he should be remembered today on the floor of the Senate, as so many Americans will spend the next day or so focusing on what they can do to help others in their communities. It is people like George Romney who have called our attention to the enormous challenges ahead of us. So I wish to mention him today to recall his many achievements, his many contributions, and how much I am confident that, were he still alive, he would be involved even today, in Philadelphia, if he could have been, in helping to further the cause for which he had such a great commitment. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, yesterday, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] officially released its legal immigration numbers for 1996. Attached please find an analysis by the staff of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee that helps place these numbers into context. The analysis finds: First, the 1996 increase in immigration is not part of a long-term rise in legal immigration but rather a temporary increase. Second, many additional people being counted as immigrants in 1996 and 1997 were not new entrants but were already physically in the country as the spouses of those who received amnesty under the law signed by President Reagan in 1986. Third, the increase is due largely to INS processing delays that caused many people who would have been counted as immigrants in 1995 to be counted in 1996. Fourth, after a 20-percent decline between 1993 and 1995, this short- term increase in legal immigration numbers is expected to be followed by another decline to previous levels within 2 to 3 years. And finally, in historical terms, legal immigration is moderate when measured as a percentage of the U.S. population--0.3 percent--the most accurate measurement of immigrants' economic and demographic impact. Numerically, legal immigration in 1996 was below the level recorded on 10 other occasions since 1904. As chairman of the Senate Immigation Subcommittee, I hope this analysis sheds light on the legal immigration numbers released yesterday by INS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Immigration Subcommittee's analysis of the 1996 INS legal immigration numbers be included in the Record. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, over the past 30 years, family immigration has contributed to a virtual renaissance of small business culture in the United States, according to Prof. Jimy M. Sanders of the University of South Carolina, a witness at a recent hearing of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee. His examination of census data and field research shows that the family is an institution that embodies an important form of social capital that immigrants draw on and that the common self-interests of family members provide financial and labor resources crucial to establishing successful enterprises. At the hearing we heard testimony from four immigrant entrepreneurs who were sponsored by family members and whose life experiences supported Professor Sanders' findings: Ilija Letica, an immigrant born in the former Yugoslavia, started Letica Corp. as a family business, and still employs several family members. Today, the manufacturer of plastic and paper packaging products headquartered in Rochester, MI, employs 1,800 people in 10 other States as well--Delaware, Oklahoma, Iowa, Alabama, Nevada, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Tennessee, and Georgia. His daughter Mara Letica testified that her father witnessed the effects of communism: No food, no freedom, no opportunity, and ultimately immigrated to America so he could fulfill his entrepreneurial dreams. Adrian Gaspar, born in Portugal, employs more than 20 people in Massachusetts at his firm Adrian A. Gaspar and Co., LLP. His company provides tax services to 400 small companies and over 1,400 individuals. He is proud that his office sits in the same building where his mother sewed clothes in the hope that she could make a better future for her son. Perhaps the most inspiring testimony came from Ovidiu Colea, founder of Colbar Art, Inc., which manufactures sculptures and art reproductions in New York. He dreamed of seeing the Statue of Liberty with his own eyes, when an armed guard captured him trying to escape to America. Communist authorities imprisoned him for 5 years in a Romanian labor camp. After 15 more years of wait, he finally made it to America, drove a cab, swept floors, and saved his money to buy a factory, which today is the country's largest producer of replicas of the Statue of Liberty. Finally, we heard from John Tu, president of Fountain Valley, CA- based Kingston Technology, a leading manufacturer of computer memory products for personal computers. Mr. Tu, born in China, immigrated to America after being sponsored by his sister. He and fellow immigrant David Sun employ over 500 people and built the company, started as a family based business operating out of a garage, into a company they sold last year for $1 billion. Both Mr. Tu and Mr. Sun took the $1 billion in profits from the sale of the company and gave $100 million to their employees, most of them native born, resulting in bonuses ranging from $100,000 to $300,000 per employee. ``Only in America,'' Mr. Tu testified, ``could this happen.'' Gary MacDonald, a native born employee of Kingston Technology, pointedly noted in his testimony that four of the five high-growth companies that he has worked for in his career were started by immigrant entrepreneurs. Overall, immigrants are approximately 10 to 20 percent more likely than the native born to start a new business in this country, and more than 1 in 10 legal immigrants own their own businesses. In addition, in 1995, 12 percent of the Inc. 500--a compilation of the fastest growing corporations in America--were companies started by immigrants. It is important to have a discussion about both what is right and wrong with different aspects of U.S. immigration policy. But any balanced debate on legal immigration must take into account the economic and social contributions made by the 1 in 10 legal immigrants who own small and large businesses in this country. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Colea's testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senate bill 438, a bill that will help close a costly loophole in the current administration of Social Security benefits. I commend my colleague, Senator Grassley, for introducing this important bill, the No Cash to Convicts Act. The bill will help the Federal Government identify incarcerated prisoners who are receiving Social Security disability benefits to which they are not entitled, and will provide that prisoners who are incarcerated for even short periods of time are not eligible for those cash benefits when they are in prison. In the landmark welfare reform legislation enacted last Congress, Congress set up a voluntary program between local law enforcement and the Federal Government to assist in the identification of prisoners who are receiving supplemental security income or SSI benefits. While earlier versions of that legislation covered prisoners' receipt of Social Security disability benefits as well, the Social Security provisions had to be dropped from the final conference report because of Senate rules preventing changes to Social Security benefits in a reconciliation bill. We should finish the job this Congress and ensure that prisoners do not get those cash disability benefits, which would be better spent on our law-abiding elderly and disabled. By precluding any defendant who is convicted of a criminal offense and who is incarcerated from receiving Social Security disability benefits, this bill removes an arbitrary and illogical requirement under current law that a defendant have been sentenced to at least a year in prison to be ineligible for benefits. There is no reason that an incarcerated prisoner should receive benefit checks intended to provide for necessities like food, shelter, and clothing when the prisoner is already receiving those at the expense of the Government. The bill also creates financial incentives for State and local law enforcement authorities to provide timely information concerning prisoners to the Social Security Administration. This will permit the Federal Government to check the benefit rolls to see whether prisoners are receiving benefits. If the Federal Government identifies any instances in which inmates are illegally receiving Social Security disability checks, the local authority that provided the information will receive a cash payment I am glad that this provision is structured to provide an incentive system rather than an unfunded mandate, and am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Iowa in sponsoring this much-needed bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, April 15 is a day that generally is viewed with consternation throughout the Unided States. For many loggers in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, however, tax day is synonymous with bankruptcy. This is because the IRS insists on enforcing a little known, and less understood, tax law affecting loggers in my State. For nearly three decades, businesses in the timber industry have used an accounting plan that allocated a percentage of loggers' wages as rental for the use of the loggers' chain saws, thereby excluding this portion of their wages from income tax withholding, FICA, and FUTA taxes. This practice was acceptable to the IRS until the Family Support Act of 1988 required that an employee business expense reimbursement not be excluded from an employee's income unless it is paid under an accountable plan. The timber industry's traditional accounting procedure was not an accountable plan. Unaware of the change in policy, the timber industry continued to use their old accounting plan in violation of the new law. Many small logging operations and loggers have now been assessed penalties and interest by the IRS because of their violation of this obscure law. It should be noted that most of the timber industry was in line with the new policy by tax year 1993 and continues to abide by the correct accounting procedure policies. Nonetheless, some loggers face fines of $20,000 or more. Mr. President, many loggers in Michigan's Upper Peninsula earn less than $20,000 per year. To add to the frustration, IRS headquarters has stated that each district operation has the authority to decide the effective date of the requirement for accountable plans, and in other States, the IRS has decided to have an effective date for this accounting procedure as it relates to the timber industry of January 1, 1993. The IRS office in Michigan, however, will not agree to the January 1, 1993 date which is being used in other parts of the country. Michigan is the only State in which the IRS will not accept this date. Mr. President, relief for these loggers is long overdue, and today Senator Levin joins with me to introduce legislation that will change the Tax Code and make permissible the qualified logger reimbursement arrangement for loggers in any taxable year prior to January 1, 1993. It will also provide for a refund or credit of any overpayment of tax accrued during these years. This correction is long overdue and I hope for swift adoption during this session of Congress.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay special tribute to a legendary figure in our Nation's history; Jack Roosevelt Robinson. One half century ago today, Jackie Robinson stepped out of the dugout before an Ebbets Field crowd of 30,000 to play first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers. In doing so, he became the first African-American to play professional baseball in the modern major leagues. However, Jackie Robinson did not merely break baseball's color barrier, he shattered it in the most spectacular fashion imaginable. He was the first African-American to lead the league in stolen bases, to win the batting title, to play in the All-Star Game, to play in the World Series, to win the Most Valuable Player Award, and to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. As an ardent baseball fan, I marvel at his accomplishments on the field. As an American, I stand in gratitude for all he did for civil rights in this country. The impressive nature of his long litany of baseball firsts is far surpassed by the measure of his exceptional character. To be able to bear the brunt of national adversity and hostility and still perform with such dignity and grace requires a courage far greater than most could summon. To many, the details of April 15, 1947 are long forgotten. For the record, in the seventh inning Robinson scored the deciding run in a 5 to 3 win over the Boston Braves. When Robinson crossed home plate, it was a victory for his team, for professional sports, and, indeed, for the entire country. Jackie Robinson was one of those rare individuals who transcended both race and athletics to become an American hero. It is my hope and belief that his legacy today is as powerful as ever.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we made several reforms during the last Congress intended to put Members of this body in closer touch with the American people. Among those reforms were provisions applying to Members of Congress the same laws that apply to private businesses and citizens. Today I am introducing legislation that I believe will further strengthen the ties between Members and their constituents. In particular, Mr. President, 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, many in Congress still refuse to give it to them. I am convinced, Mr. President, that some Members continue to oppose any limits on Federal tax funds because they are out of touch with the American people. That is why I am introducing the Taxation Accountability Act to tie the act of voting more closely with the act of taxpaying. Too many Members believe that the American people are not, and do not believe themselves to be, over-taxed. This is wrong, Mr. President, and we must put an end to this mistaken and dangerous belief. How? By making it possible for Americans to more effectively act on their convictions regarding proper levels of taxation. By moving tax day, now April 15, to coincide with election day. To begin with, Mr. President, most Americans are not even fully aware of the percentage of their income the government takes from them in the form of taxes. According to the National Taxpayer's Union, the average American family now pays almost 40 percent of its income in State, local, and Federal taxes. That is an all-time high. Yet, with almost 40 percent of their income going to taxes, mothers and fathers in America still are not going to the polls. Despite the huge investment they are making, voluntarily or involuntarily, in government in this country, this last Presidential election showed the lowest turnout in our history. Americans are not exercising their right to decide who shall represent them in deciding how that government shall be run--what it shall do and at what expense. Why are Americans so apathetic in the face of such staggering tax rates, Mr. President? Simple, most Americans simply do not know how high their taxes really are. Two 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. This estimate among Americans, that 25 percent is the limit of fair taxation, is borne out by a grassroots research poll conducted last March. That poll found that a majority of Americans would favor a constitutional amendment to 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 of 38.4 percent of its income in taxes to State, local, and Federal governments. Why is it, Mr. President, that Americans, are not aware of so vital a figure as the percentage of their income that is taken away by the government in taxes? One reason is the significant extent to which the taxes they pay are hidden. Taxes on businesses eventually are paid by families. So are sales taxes. Taxes on the average loaf of bread equal 31 percent of the total cost. Taxes also represent 43 percent of the cost of a hotel room, 54 percent of the cost of a gallon of gas and 40 percent of the cost of an airline ticket. Another, and perhaps the most significant way taxes are hidden is withholding. Many taxpayers do not realize how much the government is taking from them because it takes their money before they ever see it. Only when they fill out their tax forms do most Americans have a chance to see the full enormity of the tax burden they bear. And then they have 7 months to cool off before election day rolls around. Combined, these factors keep Americans from realizing the extent of their tax burden, and acting on that realization. Information is crucial to effective voting. And just as crucial, in my view, is information that is timely. Only if people know the extent of their tax burden, and are made aware of it at a time when they can do something about it, will they act. Only if Americans are aware of what is at stake on election day will they vote on election day. And only if they vote, expressing their opinions on crucial issues like taxation, can they hold Members of Congress responsible for their actions. Mr. President, we are not likely to do away with withholding or repeal Federal taxes on bread and butter. But we can highlight the importance of voting by tieing the process of tax-filing more closely to the process of voting. To achieve this, Mr. President, I am proposing legislation that would move tax day, the day tax forms must be mailed to the Internal Revenue Service, to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November-- election day. In this way our citizens will have fresh in their minds the substantive importance of voting at the same time they are to exercise their right to vote. Voter participation will increase as effective information increases, and thus so will the accountability of elected officials, as was intended by our Founders. There will be no cost to the Treasury because this bill moves the fiscal year into accord with the calendar year at the same time that it moves tax day. But there will be a significant impact on our form of government. Members of Congress will be put in closer touch with the people, to the vast improvement of democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we attempt to foster responsible voter conduct and responsible government.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, April 15 is a day that generally is viewed with consternation throughout the Unided States. For many loggers in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, however, tax day is synonymous with bankruptcy. This is because the IRS insists on enforcing a little known, and less understood, tax law affecting loggers in my State. For nearly three decades, businesses in the timber industry have used an accounting plan that allocated a percentage of loggers' wages as rental for the use of the loggers' chain saws, thereby excluding this portion of their wages from income tax withholding, FICA, and FUTA taxes. This practice was acceptable to the IRS until the Family Support Act of 1988 required that an employee business expense reimbursement not be excluded from an employee's income unless it is paid under an accountable plan. The timber industry's traditional accounting procedure was not an accountable plan. Unaware of the change in policy, the timber industry continued to use their old accounting plan in violation of the new law. Many small logging operations and loggers have now been assessed penalties and interest by the IRS because of their violation of this obscure law. It should be noted that most of the timber industry was in line with the new policy by tax year 1993 and continues to abide by the correct accounting procedure policies. Nonetheless, some loggers face fines of $20,000 or more. Mr. President, many loggers in Michigan's Upper Peninsula earn less than $20,000 per year. To add to the frustration, IRS headquarters has stated that each district operation has the authority to decide the effective date of the requirement for accountable plans, and in other States, the IRS has decided to have an effective date for this accounting procedure as it relates to the timber industry of January 1, 1993. The IRS office in Michigan, however, will not agree to the January 1, 1993 date which is being used in other parts of the country. Michigan is the only State in which the IRS will not accept this date. Mr. President, relief for these loggers is long overdue, and today Senator Levin joins with me to introduce legislation that will change the Tax Code and make permissible the qualified logger reimbursement arrangement for loggers in any taxable year prior to January 1, 1993. It will also provide for a refund or credit of any overpayment of tax accrued during these years. This correction is long overdue and I hope for swift adoption during this session of Congress.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we made several reforms during the last Congress intended to put Members of this body in closer touch with the American people. Among those reforms were provisions applying to Members of Congress the same laws that apply to private businesses and citizens. Today I am introducing legislation that I believe will further strengthen the ties between Members and their constituents. In particular, Mr. President, 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, many in Congress still refuse to give it to them. I am convinced, Mr. President, that some Members continue to oppose any limits on Federal tax funds because they are out of touch with the American people. That is why I am introducing the Taxation Accountability Act to tie the act of voting more closely with the act of taxpaying. Too many Members believe that the American people are not, and do not believe themselves to be, over-taxed. This is wrong, Mr. President, and we must put an end to this mistaken and dangerous belief. How? By making it possible for Americans to more effectively act on their convictions regarding proper levels of taxation. By moving tax day, now April 15, to coincide with election day. To begin with, Mr. President, most Americans are not even fully aware of the percentage of their income the government takes from them in the form of taxes. According to the National Taxpayer's Union, the average American family now pays almost 40 percent of its income in State, local, and Federal taxes. That is an all-time high. Yet, with almost 40 percent of their income going to taxes, mothers and fathers in America still are not going to the polls. Despite the huge investment they are making, voluntarily or involuntarily, in government in this country, this last Presidential election showed the lowest turnout in our history. Americans are not exercising their right to decide who shall represent them in deciding how that government shall be run--what it shall do and at what expense. Why are Americans so apathetic in the face of such staggering tax rates, Mr. President? Simple, most Americans simply do not know how high their taxes really are. Two 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. This estimate among Americans, that 25 percent is the limit of fair taxation, is borne out by a grassroots research poll conducted last March. That poll found that a majority of Americans would favor a constitutional amendment to 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 of 38.4 percent of its income in taxes to State, local, and Federal governments. Why is it, Mr. President, that Americans, are not aware of so vital a figure as the percentage of their income that is taken away by the government in taxes? One reason is the significant extent to which the taxes they pay are hidden. Taxes on businesses eventually are paid by families. So are sales taxes. Taxes on the average loaf of bread equal 31 percent of the total cost. Taxes also represent 43 percent of the cost of a hotel room, 54 percent of the cost of a gallon of gas and 40 percent of the cost of an airline ticket. Another, and perhaps the most significant way taxes are hidden is withholding. Many taxpayers do not realize how much the government is taking from them because it takes their money before they ever see it. Only when they fill out their tax forms do most Americans have a chance to see the full enormity of the tax burden they bear. And then they have 7 months to cool off before election day rolls around. Combined, these factors keep Americans from realizing the extent of their tax burden, and acting on that realization. Information is crucial to effective voting. And just as crucial, in my view, is information that is timely. Only if people know the extent of their tax burden, and are made aware of it at a time when they can do something about it, will they act. Only if Americans are aware of what is at stake on election day will they vote on election day. And only if they vote, expressing their opinions on crucial issues like taxation, can they hold Members of Congress responsible for their actions. Mr. President, we are not likely to do away with withholding or repeal Federal taxes on bread and butter. But we can highlight the importance of voting by tieing the process of tax-filing more closely to the process of voting. To achieve this, Mr. President, I am proposing legislation that would move tax day, the day tax forms must be mailed to the Internal Revenue Service, to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November-- election day. In this way our citizens will have fresh in their minds the substantive importance of voting at the same time they are to exercise their right to vote. Voter participation will increase as effective information increases, and thus so will the accountability of elected officials, as was intended by our Founders. There will be no cost to the Treasury because this bill moves the fiscal year into accord with the calendar year at the same time that it moves tax day. But there will be a significant impact on our form of government. Members of Congress will be put in closer touch with the people, to the vast improvement of democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we attempt to foster responsible voter conduct and responsible government.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, earlier this year I joined Senator Roth and 32 of our colleagues in introducing Senate bill S. 2, legislation to provide American taxpayers with a $500-per-child tax credit, a reduction in capital gains taxes, an increase in the exemption from estate and gift taxes, and full access to IRA's for nonworking spouses. I support this and other efforts to reduce the tax burden on Americans because, Madam President, we owe it to the American people. We owe it to the hard-working families who have build this country, to whom we owe our way of life and the honor and privilege of serving in this House. S. 2 is necessary for the well-being of our families, Madam President for a number of reasons. Let me explain why. To begin with, families today pay a higher proportion of their incomes in taxes than ever before in our history--almost 40 percent. That is more than food, clothing, and shelter combined. And it means that families have less money to spend on necessities, and less to save for their retirement and for their children's education. S. 2 would address this tragedy through a $500-per-child tax credit. It would allow the typical American family to live better, and to save for a better future. But there is much more to S. 2 than just these specific family fax provisions. Suppose, for example, that your family, like most, is trying to save for retirement. This bill would make that task much easier. How? By cutting our capital gains tax--one of the highest and most punitive in the industrialized world. By cutting the capital gains tax we would spur capital investment and increase the value of the mutual funds in which so many Americans invest, either directly or through their company pension plans. Lest we forget, Madam President, well over half those who would benefit from the capital gains tax cut in this bill earn under $50,000 per year. And all Americans would benefit from the increased economic activity and competitiveness it would produce. Now, let us say that your family owns a small business or a small farm. Right now you probably live in fear that, when you die, your family will have to sell the farm or business just to pay the estate taxes. This bill will allow you to rest easy. It would do so by increasing the exemption from estate taxes on family-owned businesses from the current $600,000 to a more realistic $1 million. Madam President, the Government should not be in the business of breaking up the family farm, or the family business. Under this bill we help eliminate that problem. Now, suppose you belong to a family in which you have small children. Today, unfortunately, too many such families require two paychecks just to make ends meet. Mothers of young children too often are pushed into the workplace, not by their own desire, but by economic necessity. This bill would provide a full IRA deduction for nonworking spouses. This will help some mothers who do not want to work outside the home stay with their children. It also will provide much needed financial security to homemakers currently discriminated against by the tax laws. A child tax credit that directly lowers income taxes. A capital gains tax cut that increases the value of retirement and other savings. An increase in the estate and gift tax exemption to protect family farms and family-owned businesses. A spousal IRA to provide financial security to spouses working in the home. This, Madam President, is what our tax bill would provide. It grants much needed relief from a tax system that is out of control. It begins the long road back toward frugal, manageable Government and toward prosperity for our working families. I urge my colleagues to give their full support to this much needed legislation. I can assure this body that reducing taxes does not drain a government of its resource base. I also can assure this body that reducing taxes will create prosperity. In my own State of Michigan, over the last 6 years we have cut taxes 21 times. The result has been dramatic. Six years ago Michigan had a deficit of $1.8 billion. Today it not only has a balanced budget, but it has a rainy day fund in which $1 billion is available to our State for tough times, should they come again. Because of 21 tax cuts, we have an unemployment rate, for the first time in 30 years, that is consistently below the national average and below that of other industrialized States. In fact, last month our unemployment rate in Michigan was the lowest it has ever been in the history of our State as long as we have been keeping records of unemployment. That experience, to me, is the kind of model we ought to use in Washington. For that reason, I believe S. 2 sets us in the proper direction. Today, I noticed in my office there arrived, amid all the mail that comes to us, one piece of mail that I was not anxious to see. It was the tax returns that have been sent by my accountants for my wife and me. Our tax return is in there. I have not yet opened it. When I leave the floor after my speech, I am going back to the office to do that. I am going to be quivering as my hands reach for that envelope to open it up, because I am not sure exactly what the consequences are going to be. But I am not going to be happy when I finally put in perspective exactly what the bottom line is, because whether we have, through withholding, satisfied our obligations for this year, I do not know. But I do and will soon know exactly how much we will be paying in taxes. Our family is obviously not the average American family. But when I travel around my State and talk to average working families, the same kind of concerns, as April 15th approaches, are expressed to me time after time; families who say, ``Look. We work hard. We play by the rules. And every year it seems we have less to show for it.'' One reason that families have less to show for it is because the basis on which their taxes are calculated has continued to go up. As I indicated in my remarks, it is at an all-time high for the working family. As a collective, our country now takes more dollars to Washington as a percentage of gross domestic product than we ever have in the history of America. We do not have the crises of a world war. We do not have the Vietnam war. We do not have a depression. We do not have the sorts of things that might justify an unusually high demand for the hard-working dollars of our taxpayers. But today we have 20.8 percent of the gross domestic product sent to Washington. Madam President, that is too high. It does not build the base for a strong economy in the long term. The experiences in our State of Michigan, to me, make sense and ought to be emulated here in Washington. For that reason, I am glad to be here today, not just to support S. 2, but to speak at a very timely moment about taxes that are too high. It is time, as my colleague from Minnesota said, to balance the budget and do so in a way that lets the working families of our country keep more of what they earn. That is one of the reasons I came to Washington and is certainly going to be something that I continue to speak out on as long as I am here. I thank my colleague from the State of Georgia for putting together today's special order. I yield the floor.