Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I join Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Jeffords, Senator Lieberman, Senator D'Amato, and others in introducing the Community Empowerment Act of 1997. This legislation builds upon the legislation Senator Lieberman and I introduced last Congress, as well as the similar legislation introduced by Senators Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, and Jeffords. Having now joined forces for the new Congress, the Moseley-Braun- Abraham legislation will provide tax incentives for the environmental cleanup of brownfields located in economically distressed areas. There are between 100,000 and 300,000 of these sites across the country, Mr. President, and they are a blight on both the landscape and the economy of our communities. I am sponsoring this legislation because, in my view, too many of our troubled cities, towns, and rural areas have both environmental and economic problems. These problems conspire to produce an endless cycle of impoverishment. Contaminated sites are abandoned and new companies refuse to take over the property for fear of environmental lawsuits from government and/or private parties. As a result, contamination and joblessness continue and even get worse. For example, a survey of Toledo, OH businesses found that environmental concerns were affecting 62 percent of the area's commercial and industrial real estate transactions. These effects are all but universally negative in terms of job creation and economic development. Another example: Construction of a $3 million lumber treatment plant in Hammond, IN, was abandoned after low levels of contamination were found at the proposed site. The developer concluded that uncertain costs and potential liabilities outweighed the site's benefits. The city of Hammond lost construction jobs, 75 full-time lumber plant jobs, and any reasonable prospect that a developer would assume the risk of developing property anywhere on the 20 acre site. In Flint, the former site of Thrall Oil Co., now sits vacant. Economic development officials believe this property should attract future manufacturing development. Unfortunately, because the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has labeled it ``contaminated,'' developers cannot be found. For decades now, Mr. President, the Federal Government has tried, with little success, to revitalize economically distressed areas. The blight remains. Urban renewal and various welfare programs too often have only made things worse by spawning dependency on government help. Environmental laws have fared little better. Intended to force cleanup of contaminated sites, these laws instead have scared away potential investors with potentially unlimited liability, including liability for contamination the investors did not cause or even know about. Environmental regulations and liability established under the Federal Superfund Program along with various other Federal and State environmental rules have helped create thousands of these brownfield properties in the United States. These are industrial or commercial sites suspected of being in some way environmentally contaminated. Although not serious threats to public health and safety, these properties have become unavailable for economic use, because legal rules make them too financially risky for investment and job creation. Potential liability scares businesses and investors away from these sites, creating permanently abandoned blights on the urban and rural landscape. Investors are afraid of being dragged into multimillion- dollar litigation and cleanup over contamination they did not cause. Worse, investors willing to shoulder the liability of a potential environmental cleanup find that they cannot write off the cost of environmental remediation of brownfields. Instead these costs must be spread over a number of years. Thus, the Tax Code and environmental laws combine to scare away potential sources of investment and growth, often from our most economically distressed areas. To help both our economy and our environment, the Moseley-Braun- Abraham legislation would target tax benefits at brownfields in economically distressed areas to encourage cleanup and job creation. We would allow investors in brownfields to expense their cleanup costs immediately--without having to split these costs up over a number of years. This will have three positive effects. First, these incentives will help our communities. By encouraging redevelopment of abandoned, unproductive sites, these tax incentives will reinvigorate economic growth in distressed communities across the country. They will provide economic opportunity rather than government dependence by encouraging investment and entrepreneurship where it is most needed. Second, this legislation will help the environment. These tax incentives will significantly improve our ability to clean up environmentally contaminated sites. The legacy of existing cleanup laws is a remarkable lack of progress. With thousands of sites across the country categorized as brownfields, we need to start cleaning them now, and we need private investment to get the job done. Furthermore, encouraging brownfields cleanup will save undeveloped land from unnecessary development. For every brownfield that is cleaned up and reused there will be a green field that remains clean and unused. Third, this solution, unlike those attempted in the past, utilizes the private sector to reclaim contaminated land and reinvigorate distressed communities. By encouraging private investment, rather than attempting to purchase or force cooperation with government mandates, we can free up private capital and initiative to do its job of revitalizing these distressed areas. By adopting this approach, the Senate will take a significant step toward revitalized, reinvigorated, and renewed urban and rural zones. With the incentives, included in this amendment, good jobs and a clean environment will go together, to everyone's benefit. I thank Senators Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Lieberman, Jeffords, and our other cosponsors for joining me in this important effort, and I look forward to seeing meaningful brownfields reforms passed this Congress.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I join Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Jeffords, Senator Lieberman, Senator D'Amato, and others in introducing the Community Empowerment Act of 1997. This legislation builds upon the legislation Senator Lieberman and I introduced last Congress, as well as the similar legislation introduced by Senators Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, and Jeffords. Having now joined forces for the new Congress, the Moseley-Braun- Abraham legislation will provide tax incentives for the environmental cleanup of brownfields located in economically distressed areas. There are between 100,000 and 300,000 of these sites across the country, Mr. President, and they are a blight on both the landscape and the economy of our communities. I am sponsoring this legislation because, in my view, too many of our troubled cities, towns, and rural areas have both environmental and economic problems. These problems conspire to produce an endless cycle of impoverishment. Contaminated sites are abandoned and new companies refuse to take over the property for fear of environmental lawsuits from government and/or private parties. As a result, contamination and joblessness continue and even get worse. For example, a survey of Toledo, OH businesses found that environmental concerns were affecting 62 percent of the area's commercial and industrial real estate transactions. These effects are all but universally negative in terms of job creation and economic development. Another example: Construction of a $3 million lumber treatment plant in Hammond, IN, was abandoned after low levels of contamination were found at the proposed site. The developer concluded that uncertain costs and potential liabilities outweighed the site's benefits. The city of Hammond lost construction jobs, 75 full-time lumber plant jobs, and any reasonable prospect that a developer would assume the risk of developing property anywhere on the 20 acre site. In Flint, the former site of Thrall Oil Co., now sits vacant. Economic development officials believe this property should attract future manufacturing development. Unfortunately, because the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has labeled it ``contaminated,'' developers cannot be found. For decades now, Mr. President, the Federal Government has tried, with little success, to revitalize economically distressed areas. The blight remains. Urban renewal and various welfare programs too often have only made things worse by spawning dependency on government help. Environmental laws have fared little better. Intended to force cleanup of contaminated sites, these laws instead have scared away potential investors with potentially unlimited liability, including liability for contamination the investors did not cause or even know about. Environmental regulations and liability established under the Federal Superfund Program along with various other Federal and State environmental rules have helped create thousands of these brownfield properties in the United States. These are industrial or commercial sites suspected of being in some way environmentally contaminated. Although not serious threats to public health and safety, these properties have become unavailable for economic use, because legal rules make them too financially risky for investment and job creation. Potential liability scares businesses and investors away from these sites, creating permanently abandoned blights on the urban and rural landscape. Investors are afraid of being dragged into multimillion- dollar litigation and cleanup over contamination they did not cause. Worse, investors willing to shoulder the liability of a potential environmental cleanup find that they cannot write off the cost of environmental remediation of brownfields. Instead these costs must be spread over a number of years. Thus, the Tax Code and environmental laws combine to scare away potential sources of investment and growth, often from our most economically distressed areas. To help both our economy and our environment, the Moseley-Braun- Abraham legislation would target tax benefits at brownfields in economically distressed areas to encourage cleanup and job creation. We would allow investors in brownfields to expense their cleanup costs immediately--without having to split these costs up over a number of years. This will have three positive effects. First, these incentives will help our communities. By encouraging redevelopment of abandoned, unproductive sites, these tax incentives will reinvigorate economic growth in distressed communities across the country. They will provide economic opportunity rather than government dependence by encouraging investment and entrepreneurship where it is most needed. Second, this legislation will help the environment. These tax incentives will significantly improve our ability to clean up environmentally contaminated sites. The legacy of existing cleanup laws is a remarkable lack of progress. With thousands of sites across the country categorized as brownfields, we need to start cleaning them now, and we need private investment to get the job done. Furthermore, encouraging brownfields cleanup will save undeveloped land from unnecessary development. For every brownfield that is cleaned up and reused there will be a green field that remains clean and unused. Third, this solution, unlike those attempted in the past, utilizes the private sector to reclaim contaminated land and reinvigorate distressed communities. By encouraging private investment, rather than attempting to purchase or force cooperation with government mandates, we can free up private capital and initiative to do its job of revitalizing these distressed areas. By adopting this approach, the Senate will take a significant step toward revitalized, reinvigorated, and renewed urban and rural zones. With the incentives, included in this amendment, good jobs and a clean environment will go together, to everyone's benefit. I thank Senators Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Lieberman, Jeffords, and our other cosponsors for joining me in this important effort, and I look forward to seeing meaningful brownfields reforms passed this Congress.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this Sunday the Forum magazine will host the 7th Annual African-American Pioneer Awards in Flint, MI. I rise to pay tribute to the honorees for their great achievements and contributions to the African-American community and, indeed, to all of America. This year the Forum magazine has assembled a truly impressive list of honorees. They are: Mr. Darwin Davis, originally from Flint, has been named one of America's 25 most important and powerful black executives by Black Enterprise magazine. His promotion to senior vice president of The Equitable in 1987 was merely the latest in a series of impressive steps within that company. He won three national sales campaigns in 3 years, moved from agent to agency manager in 4\1/2\ years and moved from agent to agency vice president in just 9 years. Mr. Davis is a veteran, a former school teacher, and the recipient of two honorary doctorates. The Velvelettes are one of only three all original Motown groups from the late 1960's and one of the few girl groups still performing today. This group is composed of four women: Flint natives Norma Barbee- Fairhurst and her cousin, Bertha Barbee-McNeal; and two Kalamazoo natives, Mildred Gill-Arbor and her sister, Carolyn Gill-Street. They had a number of successful hit records, including the top ten song, ``Needle in a Haystack.'' All four women are very active in community projects, seeking to better their cities and neighborhoods. Creative Expressions Dance Studio has operated under the city of Flint's Parks and Recreation Department since 1990. Under the leadership of Director Sheila Miller-Graham and tap dance instructor Alfred Bruce Bradley, Creative Expressions has competed at the local and national levels every year since its inception. The first professional dance troupe from Flint, Creative Expressions entered its first dance competition during its very first year of existence, making an impressive showing by winning two of the nine trophies for the Junior Division in that region. Creative Expressions continues to represent Flint, and to help its citizens develop their talents, skills, and confidence levels. Mr. Mario J. Daniels is the founding director of Mario J. Daniels & Associates, P.C., the first African-American certified public accounting firm in Flint. A graduate of Flint Northern High School and Albion College, Mr. Daniels is very active in the United Way, NAACP, United Negro College Fund, and mentoring programs. He also has served as president of the National Association of Black Accountants. Mr. Michael Shumpert founded WOWE radio, the only African-American- owned and operated FM radio station in the Flint/Saginaw area, in 1991. Mr. Shumpert also is an award-winning sales executive in marketing research and advertising sales. He also has produced a documentary film for the Michigan Genealogy Society, produced the Miss Black America pageant for television, and developed media scripts for a number of political campaigns. Mr. Gregory Jackson is a highly successful General Motors dealer and owner of several businesses in the Flint area. He earned an accounting degree from Morris Brown College in Atlanta, GA, one of the historically black colleges under the United Negro College Fund. He holds an M.B.A. in business administration and Finance from Atlanta University School of Business. Mr. Jackson also is a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Beta Gamma Sigma--National Graduate Business Honor Society, and the National Association of black M.B.A.'s. Dr. Charlie Roberts is the first African-American to be appointed vice president at Mott Community College. Dr. Roberts holds a Ph.D. in vocational-technical education from Michigan State University. He earned his masters degree in education from Wayne State University and his bachelor of science degree in industrial education and electronics from Norfolk State University in Norfolk, VA. In 1984 he was made dean of vocational-technical education at Mott; four years later he was promoted to dean of the School of Business Technology and Vocational Technical Education. From July 1993 to July 1994 he served as executive dean for continuing education and external affairs. Within a year he was promoted to his current position as vice president for institutional advancement and outreach. Mr. President, all of these people have made significant contributions to their communities. Their accomplishments deserve the notice they are receiving from the Forum magazine. I congratulate them for being named recipients of the African-American Pioneer Award.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senate bill 6. In doing so I add my voice to the chorus calling for an end to partial birth abortion. The bill we are considering is designed to outlaw medical procedures ``in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' It is a narrowly drafted bill which specifically and effectively targets a rare but grisly and unnecessary practice. I understand, Mr. President, that the American people are divided on many issues within the abortion debate. I am firmly pro-life. But in my view one need not resort to broad, ideological arguments in this case. Partial birth abortions occur in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. They are never required to save the life, health or child- bearing ability of the mother. They are unnecessary and regrettable. We in this Chamber failed to override the President's veto of this legislation during the last Congress. But I remain convinced that all of us can agree that this nation can do without this particular grisly procedure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great man and a great teacher: Dr. Gordon Guyer. Those who have followed Dr. Guyer's career see a man who has accepted challenge after challenge and built a reputation for success. Dr. Guyer began attending college as a fisheries and wildlife major at Michigan State University in 1947. Dr. Guyer established the foundation for his lifelong work when he shifted his studies to entomology and earned three degrees. In 1954, he became an instructor of entomology at M.S.U., and only 10 years later was named professor and chairman of the Department of Entomology and director of M.S.U.'s Pesticide Research Center. Dr. Guyer's achievements at Michigan State University have been remarkable. He has served as administrator and director of M.S.U.'s Cooperative Extension Service for 11 years, associate dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, associate dean of the College of Natural Science, director of the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, and special assistant to the senior consultant to the president of M.S.U. After retiring from Michigan State in 1986, Dr. Guyer was quickly named director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. However, he was destined to return to the University he loved after only two years as professor emeritus and vice president for governmental affairs. In September of 1992 he became president of Michigan State University and served in that capacity for over a year. Shortly after leaving the university, he was appointed director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, from which position he retired in October 1996. Dr. Guyer's success, while well known in Michigan, has spanned the globe. He is an internationally known entomologist and author of more than 70 scientific papers on aquatic ecology, insect control technology, integrated pest management, public policy and international agriculture. Finally, throughout his extraordinary career, Dr. Guyer has been blessed by the companionship of his wife Norma Guyer. She is well known for her many activities in support of M.S.U. and its boosters as well as the cooperative extension service. To honor Dr. Guyer and thank him for his decades of service, Michigan State University is working to establish the Gordon and Norma Guyer Endowed Internship Program. This endowment will provide M.S.U. students a variety of public policy internship opportunities and impart first- hand experience in potential career areas. The Gordon and Norma Guyer Endowed Internship Program will serve young individuals who seek to continue Dr. Guyer's work in agriculture and natural resources. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to two wonderful people. Dr. Guyer's dedication to Michigan, his contributions in the field of entomology, his focus and determination, and his integrity are an inspiration, and I am proud to call him a friend.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished majority leader, and my colleagues, in cosponsoring Senate bill S. 7, the Defending America Act of 1997. This legislation builds on the significant, but still insufficient, progress we accomplished in the 104th Congress. During the last session of Congress, we were able to secure the funding necessary for the eventual deployment of a missile defense system capable of protecting the United States. But we were not able to explicitly direct that we deploy the missile defense system as soon as possible. This leaves us with no assurance that the funding we have secured will be used, efficiently and expeditiously, for its intended purpose. Therefore, Mr. President, the majority leader, in close cooperation with Congress' national defense leadership, has crafted a proposal that would secure our Nation's missile defense through prudent development of policies and force structures. To begin with, we would produce the system necessary to protect the United States from limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks. We then would augment that capability to defend our Nation against larger and more sophisticated ballistic missile threats. I am especially heartened that the most promising antiballistic missile technologies, including sea- based systems such as Navy Upper Tier, are fast approaching the point at which we will be able to make them operational. We need this technology, in my view, because the post-cold-war world remains a dangerous place. Ballistic missile proliferation to rogue regimes continues apace. The security of nuclear armed ballistic missiles in the former Soviet Union has declined sharply. Given these facts, old strategies and treaties can no longer meet our national security needs. We must develop and deploy a ballistic missile defense system capable of protecting our cities and citizens from disastrous attack. I mentioned old treaties, Mr. President. I would like in particular to discuss the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty and its relationship to missile defense. Congress has repeatedly stated that the ABM Treaty does not, in any way, hinder the development of theater ballistic missile defenses. It has also called for a renegotiation of the ABM Treaty so as to allow the development of more robust national missile defense systems. Mr. President, the times have changed since the ratification of the ABM Treaty. Our primary threats no longer come from a general nuclear attack by thousands of Soviet weapons--an attack that would probably overwhelm a ballistic missile defense system. Today our immediate threats come from rogue, unintentional, or unauthorized attacks of limited size and duration. I believe we are quickly approaching the point of our last, best hope in properly modifying the ABM Treaty, and protecting America from ballistic missile attack. The majority leader has displayed the foresight and perceptiveness critical for developing effective national security strategies. There can be no doubt that a fully operational and technologically capable ballistic missile defense system is crucial to that strategy. Nor can there be any doubt that antiquated treaties which fail to adapt to vastly different national security threats must be either changed or discarded. The majority leader's bill constitutes a reasonable and moderate attempt to bridge the philosophical gap that exists between Congress and the administration. We should not let this opportunity be lost.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Family Farm Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 1997. This legislation will permit farmers to continue to defer tax liability through the use of deferred payment contracts. Like other businesses, farmers are subject to the same peaks and valleys in consumer demand that govern product pricing and earned income. Unlike other businesses, however, farmers are also subject to the uncertainties of Mother Nature. In agriculture, poor growing seasons are inevitable. Probably every farmer has had a crop devastated by harsh weather or been challenged to feed their livestock because of resulting shortages. The ability to defer tax liability on deferred payment contracts helps farmers prepare for these difficult times. To put it simply, deferred payment contracts allow farmers to receive a portion of payment on a crop in the next year. In addition to deferring payment, farmers also defer their resulting tax liability to the following year. Deferring payments and tax liabilities is a limited form of income averaging that allows individuals to cope with seasonal difficulties. Now, a recent IRS decision has put this important economic tool in jeopardy. The IRS has stated that payments made under a deferred payment contract are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT]. Under the IRS ruling, taxes on the latter year's payments are now due in the first year of the contract. With the sudden repeal of deferred tax liability, farmers all across the country now face unexpected, sizable tax bills and many could be driven out of business. This is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. President, for the sake of this Nation's farmers, the IRS interpretation must be repealed. Since 1986, the only tool left for deferring tax liability has been the use of deferred payment contracts. In just the last 4 years, however, farmers in the midwest have suffered one of the centuries worst floods, the west has endured a terrible drought and last year, a long winter and tremendous rainfall significantly reduced Michigan's drybean, soybean, corn, and wheat harvests. The Family Farm Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 1997 will permit farmers to continue to defer tax liability through the use of deferred payment contracts and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. With tax time fast approaching, I hope that this bill can be acted upon by both Chambers of Congress and sent to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Mr. President, the President of the Michigan Farm Bureau, Jack Laurie, recently explained the significance of the IRS's ruling in the Michigan Farm Bureau's Farm News. I think this article illustrates clearly the reasons why this legislation is necessary and I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Family Farm Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 1997. This legislation will permit farmers to continue to defer tax liability through the use of deferred payment contracts. Like other businesses, farmers are subject to the same peaks and valleys in consumer demand that govern product pricing and earned income. Unlike other businesses, however, farmers are also subject to the uncertainties of Mother Nature. In agriculture, poor growing seasons are inevitable. Probably every farmer has had a crop devastated by harsh weather or been challenged to feed their livestock because of resulting shortages. The ability to defer tax liability on deferred payment contracts helps farmers prepare for these difficult times. To put it simply, deferred payment contracts allow farmers to receive a portion of payment on a crop in the next year. In addition to deferring payment, farmers also defer their resulting tax liability to the following year. Deferring payments and tax liabilities is a limited form of income averaging that allows individuals to cope with seasonal difficulties. Now, a recent IRS decision has put this important economic tool in jeopardy. The IRS has stated that payments made under a deferred payment contract are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT]. Under the IRS ruling, taxes on the latter year's payments are now due in the first year of the contract. With the sudden repeal of deferred tax liability, farmers all across the country now face unexpected, sizable tax bills and many could be driven out of business. This is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. President, for the sake of this Nation's farmers, the IRS interpretation must be repealed. Since 1986, the only tool left for deferring tax liability has been the use of deferred payment contracts. In just the last 4 years, however, farmers in the midwest have suffered one of the centuries worst floods, the west has endured a terrible drought and last year, a long winter and tremendous rainfall significantly reduced Michigan's drybean, soybean, corn, and wheat harvests. The Family Farm Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 1997 will permit farmers to continue to defer tax liability through the use of deferred payment contracts and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. With tax time fast approaching, I hope that this bill can be acted upon by both Chambers of Congress and sent to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Mr. President, the President of the Michigan Farm Bureau, Jack Laurie, recently explained the significance of the IRS's ruling in the Michigan Farm Bureau's Farm News. I think this article illustrates clearly the reasons why this legislation is necessary and I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 5, a bill to reform product liability law. This legislation will significantly curb the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits that are diverting our Nation's resources away from productive activity and into transaction costs. Our current legal system, under which we spend $300 billion or 4\1/2\ percent of our gross domestic product each year, is not just broken, it is falling apart. This is a system in which plaintiffs receive less than half of every dollar spent on litigation-related costs. It is a system that forces necessary goods, such as pharmaceuticals that can treat a number of debilitating diseases and conditions, off the market in this country. The bill I cosponsor today would do much to address these problems. It institutes caps on punitive damages, thereby limiting potential windfalls for plaintiffs without in any way interfering with their ability to obtain full recovery for their injuries. It provides product manufacturers with long-overdue relief from abusers of their products. And it protects these makers, and sellers, from being made to pay for all or most noneconomic damages when they are responsible for only a small percentage of them. Last year, President Clinton chose to veto the bipartisan products liability bill that passed the Congress. For the sake of all Americans, I hope this year will be different.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 5, a bill to reform product liability law. This legislation will significantly curb the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits that are diverting our Nation's resources away from productive activity and into transaction costs. Our current legal system, under which we spend $300 billion or 4\1/2\ percent of our gross domestic product each year, is not just broken, it is falling apart. This is a system in which plaintiffs receive less than half of every dollar spent on litigation-related costs. It is a system that forces necessary goods, such as pharmaceuticals that can treat a number of debilitating diseases and conditions, off the market in this country. The bill I cosponsor today would do much to address these problems. It institutes caps on punitive damages, thereby limiting potential windfalls for plaintiffs without in any way interfering with their ability to obtain full recovery for their injuries. It provides product manufacturers with long-overdue relief from abusers of their products. And it protects these makers, and sellers, from being made to pay for all or most noneconomic damages when they are responsible for only a small percentage of them. Last year, President Clinton chose to veto the bipartisan products liability bill that passed the Congress. For the sake of all Americans, I hope this year will be different.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to join the others on the Senate floor here today to congratulate Senator Chafee and Senator Smith on the introduction of their Superfund reform legislation. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I support their efforts to speed the cleanup of polluted sites across this country. And while this legislation has provisions targeting those sites currently on the national priority list, I should point out it also has provisions to speed the remediation of less seriously contaminated sites--so-called brownfields. I am someone who is deeply concerned about brownfields and the economic and environmental damage they impose on communities. First, Senator Chafee, thank you very much for agreeing to speak with me on this very important issue. As the Senator knows, last year I introduced legislation along with Senator Lieberman which would provide tax incentives for the remediation of brownfields. This legislation is very important to communities across the country, and I intend to reintroduce similar legislation this Congress. It is my understanding that the bill introduced today focuses, in part, on our brownfields problem.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor S. 6. In doing so I add my voice to the chorus calling for an end to partial birth abortion. The bill we are considering is designed to outlaw medical procedures ``in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' It is a narrowly drafted bill which specifically and effectively targets a rare but grisly and unnecessary practice. I understand, Mr. President, that the American people are divided on many issues within the abortion debate. I am firmly pro-life. But in my view one need not resort to broad, ideological arguments in this case. Partial birth abortions occur only in the third trimester of pregnancy. They are never required to save the life, health, or child-bearing ability of the mother. They are unnecessary and regrettable. We in this chamber failed to override the President's veto of this legislation during the last Congress. But I remain convinced that all of us can agree that this Nation can do without this particular, rare, and grisly procedure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join several of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This bill, a replica of the legislation that was passed by the Senate during the 104th Congress, is vital to securing this Nation's commercial waste at a single, safe facility. I believe an agreement for the consolidation of this Nation's commercial nuclear waste is long overdue. Today, old fuel is stored at over 100 facilities around the country. In 1980, the Department of Energy [DOE] recognized the danger of such a system and entered into an agreement with much of the nuclear power industry to fund the research and development of a central, permanent facility. DOE was to be responsible for collecting and storing the fuel starting in 1988. Since 1980, the DOE has collected over $11 billion of the taxpayers' dollars for this permanent facility. Last year, however, the DOE announced that it will not be able to begin storing waste from commercial reactors until at least the year 2010. In my opinion, Michigan cannot wait that long. Michigan has four nuclear plants in operation today. All four were designed with some storage capacity, but none are capable of storing used fuel for an extended period of time. Indeed, the Palisades plant in Southaven, MI, has already run out of used fuel storage space. The plant now stores its nuclear waste in steel casks which sit on a platform about 100 yards from Lake Michigan. This storage arrangement illustrates the need for a new national storage policy. Mr. President, Michigan needs a national storage facility for nuclear waste. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and hope that both the House and Senate will move quickly to pass this legislation and present it to the President.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, 2 years ago, the Senate failed by one vote to support a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. At the time, opponents told the Senate that balancing the budget didn't require amending the Constitution. All we needed, they told us, was to make the tough choices and cast the hard votes. Two budgets, hundreds of tough votes, and one Government shutdown later, the budget is still in deficit, and the case for a constitutional balanced budget amendment is stronger than ever. That's not to say we haven't made progress in the past 2 years. We have. Since the 1994 elections, Congress has worked hard to hold the line on discretionary spending while just last fall we passed historic reforms to the 60-year-old welfare state. Perhaps just as importantly, we have witnessed a dramatic shift in the debate itself. Two years ago, President Clinton submitted a budget that never reached balance. Today all sides have agreed--at least in principle--to the goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002. That's the good news. The bad news is that while we have all seemingly agreed on the goal of balancing the budget, we are miles apart on the details. It's one thing to say you support a balanced budget--it's quite another to make the tough decisions necessary to make it happen. Mr. President, that's where Senator Hatch's amendment to the Constitution comes in. As an original cosponsor of this amendment, I believe it will force the hand of an unwilling Congress to set its fiscal house in order. Where Congress has failed, I am confident the Constitution will succeed. How would it work? Section 1 of the amendment requires that total outlays of the Government not exceed receipts unless three-fifths of the whole number of both Houses waives the requirement. Once this amendment is passed, a three-fifths vote of both the House and the Senate will be necessary in order to increase the deficit. Section 2 prohibits Congress from raising the debt ceiling unless three-fifths of the whole number of both Houses of Congress waives the requirement. And, finally, section 4 requires that there be no revenue increases unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House in Congress. If this proposal becomes the 28th amendment to the Constitution, then in order to increase taxes, you would need first, a recorded vote and, second, the support of at least 51 U.S. Senators and 218 Members of the House. Quite simply, Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment raises the procedural bar necessary for Congress to incur debt and raise taxes. Given Congress' historic predilection toward doing both, I believe this amendment is possibly the most important measure we will consider in the 105th Congress. Having focused on what the balanced budget amendment does, it is just as important to focus on what it doesn't do. The first thing it doesn't do is endanger the Social Security System. Social Security currently operates with a surplus, and some Members have argued that sound fiscal policy demands that we should exclude that surplus from the amendment and our deficit calculations. I am of the opinion that this argument is more of a diversion than anything else. It has been raised to confuse the issue and provide some Members with a smokescreen to cover their opposition to a measure that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Balancing the budget will strengthen, not weaken, the Social Security System. The second thing this amendment doesn't do is endanger the health of the national economy. Some--including the President--argue the balanced budget amendment will prevent Congress from responding to shifting economic recessions and booms. Mr. President, the amendment being discussed today does not prohibit running a deficit or borrowing money. It requires a three-fifths vote in order to do those things. Under the circumstances generally described in support of an economic exception, I think it is incumbent upon the exceptions advocates to explain why they could not get the necessary votes. Furthermore, I am interested to hear why the higher standards established by the balanced budget amendment would be more restrictive than the prospect of continued annual deficits, higher debt and debt payments, and less real discretionary spending under Congress' control. Finally, this amendment does not transfer undue power to the judiciary. One concern raised about the balanced budget amendment is the role the courts will play in enforcing its provisions. In the past, some have argued that the courts will involve themselves in the Federal budget process in order to enforce the balanced budget amendment. As someone with deep concerns about judicial activism, I have inspected this issue closely, and I am confident that adoption of this amendment will not authorize courts to insert themselves into the budget process. As I mentioned previously, the balanced budget amendment establishes new procedures that encourage Congress to move toward and adopt a balanced budget. It does not, however, create a ``right'' to a balanced budget. It does not disturb the powers of Congress under Article I of the Constitution, it does not confer those powers on the courts, and it does not give to the courts authority to interfere in those powers. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say the greatest danger facing our economy, our senior citizens, and future generations is not an amendment to the Constitution restricting Congress' ability to borrow money or raise taxes, but rather the endless stream of deficits and huge mountains of debt that a previous, unrestricted Congresses have imposed upon this and future generations. It is unfair, irresponsible, and immoral to pass this burden on to our children, and I applaud you and the Republican leadership for making passage of Senate Joint Resolution 1 the No. 1 priority of the 105th Congress.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor Senator Helms' bill to amend section 924 of title 18 of the United States Code. This bill would ensure that stiff, mandatory sentences are imposed on criminals who possess firearms while committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. As currently written, title 18 of section 924(c) already mandates that a sentence of 5 years or more be imposed on any defendant who uses or carries a firearm while committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. Over the past several years, however, courts have struggled with the issue of whether a defendant uses a weapon for purposes of section 924(c) if he technically possesses the weapon but does not actually employ it in committing the underlying offense. This issue was recently taken up by the Supreme Court in the case of Bailey versus United States. Hewing closely to the ordinary meaning of ``use,'' the Court unanimously held that ``use'' in section 924(c) signifies ``an active employment of the firearm by the defendant.'' After observing that the term ``possess'' is frequently used elsewhere in Federal gun-crime statutes, the Court reasoned that, ``[h]ad Congress intended possession alone to trigger liability under section 924(c)(1), it easily could have so provided.'' The bill I cosponsor today does so provide, as it would amend section 924(c)(1) to apply to any defendant who ``uses, carries, or possesses'' a firearm while committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. This is a worthwhile change. Any crime becomes far more dangerous when committed by a criminal who controls a firearm. Such a criminal should not be rewarded if, in a particular case, it turns out that he has no need actually to employ the weapon. The fact that he so augmented the danger attending his crime is reason enough to impose the stiff sentences set forth in section 924. Thus, in short, this bill closes a dangerous loophole in current law. I applaud the Senator from North Carolina for his leadership on this issue, and look forward to the bill's speedy enactment.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of a great man who did much to change our Nation for the better. Before he was struck down by an assassin's bullet, the Reverence Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. awakened the conscience of a nation. His campaign of nonviolent protest brought to light the injustices of a racially segregated society and played a major role in fostering the legislation necessary to do away with many forms of official discrimination. Our Nation remains far from perfect, particularly in regard to relations between the races. But America is more just and honest because of the efforts of this man of God. And, in confronting the problems now before us, we still can look to Dr. King for guidance. Clearly we have more work ahead of us in order to achieve justice in our racial relations. But our greatest challenge in my view is that of restoring hope and opportunity to those of us living in our impoverished inner cities. Reverend King knew of this tragedy. And the spoke out forcefully against it. I myself have seen the poverty and isolation of many of our inner-city neighborhoods. These areas are cut off from the rest of the city, and suffer from a lack of economic hope and the breakdown of the institutions of community on which people everywhere must rely. America must address these pockets of hopelessness, to bring to them the economic growth and spiritual fulfillment necessary for a functioning community life. Through his speeches and grassroots activism, Dr. King addressed the problem of poverty and the loss of community. He also gave us advice on how to face our problems. The key word, I submit, is ``action.'' As Reverend King put it: We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right. Mr. President, I am proud to say that many people in my State of Michigan are carrying on Dr. King's work even as we speak. They know that the time is ripe for doing right. In Detroit's Martin Luther King, Jr. High School, for example, students are participating in the DECA Program. These students have dedicated themselves to helping their community. They have adopted a local senior center to see to it that the resident senior citizens have the comfort and community provided by regular visitors. They have participated in walks for the homeless, put together a silent auction with proceeds going to the homeless, and given up a recent Sunday to assist with the Special Gift Holiday Party for Homeless Children held just before Christmas. Mr. President, I commend participants in the DECA Program at Martin Luther King, Jr. High School in Detroit. I strongly believe that the kinds of positive local community action in which they are engaged do credit to the memory and legacy of Reverend King, and that their efforts can be part of a larger effort to rebuild our inner cities. Now that we have celebrated the life of Dr. King in our homes, let us celebrate his life by building on his legacy in our communities.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Finally, is it envisioned under the omnibus appropriation bill that special masters originally appointed before and subsequently reappointed after April 26, 1996 would be treated in the same fashion as those appointed after that date?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thus if a court wants to retain a special master appointed before that date and pay that individual, all it need do is reappoint that person consistent with the PLRA.

Mr. ABRAHAM. From the Senator's response, I surmise that it was not his intention in the omnibus appropriation bill to allow the courts, contrary to 18 U.S.C. 3626(f)(4) as amended by the PLRA, to impose costs, expenses or compensation amounts for special masters appointed prior to April 26, 1996 on the parties to the litigation?

Mr. ABRAHAM. There is a section in H.R. 4278, the omnibus appropriations bill regarding which I am wondering if I could seek some clarification from the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. My inquiry is directed to section 306 of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Title. that provision prohibits the use of any funds appropriated in fiscal 1996, fiscal 1997, or thereafter for costs related to the appointment of special masters in prison conditions cases prior to April 26, 1996. That was the date when the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which required that such expenses be paid from funds appropriated for the Judiciary, was signed into law. First, I was wondering if section 306 is intended to operate as an exception to the requirement of the PLRA that expenses, costs, and compensation for special masters be paid by the courts.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you. I would likewise thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his diligent efforts on this issue in conference and his explanation of the conference report's provisions.

Mr. ABRAHAM. If the limited restoration of section 212(c) relief does not include reasonable limitations on its use, I will be prepared to work with my colleagues to address that problem. Is my understanding correct that you too will pay close attention to how this provision is interpreted?

Mr. ABRAHAM. So, 212(c) relief--or new section 240A(a) relief--is intended only for highly unusual cases involving outstanding aliens such as the one you describe?

Mr. ABRAHAM. That, of course, has been my concern. Section 212(c) relief was always intended to apply only to ``those cases where extenuating circumstances clearly require such action''--as Congress put it when it enacted section 212(c) as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952. For the past 8 years, however, 212(c) relief has been granted to more than half of all who apply, the vast majority of whom are criminal aliens, amounting to thousands of criminal aliens per year.