Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his sensitivity to correctional health care issues. law enforcement support center

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express a concern about the recreation fee demonstration program for America's national parks and wilderness areas. These fees were authorized in last year's continuing resolution, and I see that there are additional provisions included in the 1997 Senate Interior appropriations bill. Do I understand correctly that the subcommittee chairman supports expanding this program to more of this Nation's parks and refuges?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, farming is Michigan's second largest industry and a cornerstone of the State's economy. For this reason, I would like to take a moment to comment on some of the amendments considered by the Senate. Prior to final passage, several amendments were debated on the floor of the Senate. The first amendment considered was a Santorum amendment to prohibit the use of funds in excess of $125,000 for nonrecourse loans to peanut producers. Recently, the peanut program has faced extensive scrutiny. In response to several attempts to eliminate this program, members from peanut-producing States addressed some of the more problematic aspects of this program in the farm bill. Since this issue had already been considered and decided by the Senate, I opposed Senator Santorum's amendment. If the peanut program is going to be amended, I believe it should be done so during consideration of farm programs as a whole. Senator Santorum's amendment was ultimately tabled by a vote of 64 to 34. I did, however, support a second Santorum amendment to ensure that America's farm programs are managed in the most objective manner possible. Specifically, Senator Santorum's amendment prohibited the use of funds to carry out a program that was operated by a marketing association if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that a member of the board of directors of the association had a conflict of interest with respect to the program. In my opinion, a program that is not influenced by individuals who stand to gain from decisions will garner greater respect and run more smoothly than a program that is viewed as a Government subsidy for a few individuals. Unfortunately, by a vote of 61 to 37, this amendment was also tabled. The final amendment considered was a Bryan amendment to reduce the amount of funds appropriated to the Market Access Program [MAP]. The Bryan amendment would have eliminated funding if the aggregate amount of funds and value of commodities under the program exceeded $70 million. Formerly known as the Market Promotion Program, this program has provided funding for large and lucrative corporations such as Sunkist. I believe the Market Access Program is a clear example of corporate welfare, and I have consistently supported elimination or reduction of this unnecessary Government subsidy. I supported Senator Bryan's amendment which was tabled by a vote of 55 to 42. Following disposition of these three amendments, the 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill was passed, with my support, by a vote of 97 to 1. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conferees were able to act quickly to finalize this legislation and allow America's farmers to begin to grow for the market.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate recently considered several appropriation bills and addressed a number of amendments upon which I did not have the opportunity to comment at the time. One of these votes was on a motion to table the Dorgan amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill which would have raised taxes on companies doing business overseas. Under current law, income generated by a domestically owned controlled foreign corporation is not subject to our income taxes until that income is repatriated back into the country. In addition, CFC's earn tax credits equal to the amount of tax they pay to their foreign host--up to but not exceeding the United States rate of taxation. The Dorgan amendment would require income generated by a CFC by producing goods overseas and selling them back here to be taxed currently, rather than be deferred. Mr. President, I believe there are a number of provisions in our Tax Code which need to be addressed, but I disagree that offering ad hoc amendments on the Senate floor to appropriation bills is the way to go about it. Appropriation bills are simply not suitable vehicles for major tax reforms. Instead, these issues should be addressed in a comprehensive manner in the Finance Committee. That said, I also have a number of specific concerns regarding the Dorgan amendment. First, I believe Senator Dorgan needs to make a better case that companies move their plants due to this tax provision, rather than in response to comparative advantages or political barriers. Second, absent some unspecified new protective barriers, I see nothing in this amendment which would repatriate existing overseas jobs or prevent future jobs from being located there as opposed to here. Mr. President, none of our foreign trading partners impose such a tax burden on their foreign corporations, and before the Senate chooses to impose new taxes on our companies operating overseas, I believe this issue needs to be more fully studied. While I am certain this amendment will raise taxes on American businesses and could harm our competitiveness in Michigan and elsewhere, I am unconvinced it will protect American jobs from foreign competition. Another issue on which I wish to explain my vote was the motion to table the Bumpers amendment prohibiting the use of funds for the Space Station Program. A similar amendment was introduced last year by Senator Bumpers, which I supported. Then and now, I have been concerned as to the costs of the program and the extent to which federal taxpayers verses the private sector should fund the effort. In addition, I am concerned by reports that the American Physical Society has joined 14 other scientific organizations in stating that the scientific justification for the space station was lacking, and that the cost overruns threatened to crowd out other, more promising NASA programs in future years. As was the case last year, I still believe there would be a net advantage to terminating this program. However, we are near the point where our investment is too great to not finish the project, and so I will continue to review this program annually. Should I reach the conclusion that we have reached the stage where our investment has matured, I will drop my opposition to the space station. A pair of amendments concerning the distribution of Veterans Medical Administration resources are also worthy of additional explanation. Senators McCain and Graham introduced an amendment to develop a redistribution plan of Veterans Administration medical care resources. The amendment's purpose is to ensure that veterans have similar access to health care services regardless of where they live. This seems to be the correct way for a efficient government to function and is consistent with our commitment to provide quality medical care to our Nation's veterans. The Senate overwhelmingly adopted this amendment by a vote of 79 to 18. Senators Harkin and Moynihan then introduced an amendment that would have prohibited this plan from reducing VA funds spent in any State over the previous year. Given our declining veterans population with shifting medical requirements, I believe it is unreasonable to prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs from reducing its outlays in certain regions of the country, even if the demand for such services has decreased. The effect of this prohibition would have been large segments of our veterans population being denied medical care. This is not responsible governance, and I therefore joined with 59 other Senators in defeating this amendment 60 to 37. Another amendment related to health care was offered by the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, which would prohibit health care plans from restricting or prohibiting certain communications between doctors and their patients. Mr. President, I believe this issue has merit and should be addressed by Congress, but I do not believe the Treasury- Postal Appropriations bill is the appropriate vehicle, especially considering that the amendment had a substantial cost which would have made the entire appropriation bill exceed its budget limits. As such, it was subject to a point of order which I supported. It is my understanding that Senator Wyden, Senator Kassebaum, and others are working at this moment to construct a bipartisan solution to both the problem raised by Senator Wyden and the concerns of other Senators and the insurance industry. I support these efforts and look forward to seeing some type of resolution, if not in this Congress then in the next. Finally, Mr. President, this Senator would like to explain his reasoning in voting to table Senator Kerry's amendment calling for additional expenditures on behalf of a study on the use of taggants in black gun powder and smokeless powder. On this amendment, both the majority and minority managers of the bill as well as the administration objected to the offset used by the Senator from Massachusetts in paying for the study's expanded mandate. Therefore, I chose to support the managers' motion to table. The amendment was successfully tabled by a vote of 57 to 42.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, recently, the Senate passed the conference report to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. I would like to take a moment to comment on the amendments to the original bill that was passed out of this Chamber. The first vote during consideration of this act was on a McCain amendment to eliminate the advanced light water reactor [ALWR] program. Started in 1993, the ALWR represents a joint commitment by Government and industry to develop a new generation of standardized, advanced reactors. I opposed the McCain amendment for several reasons: First, 1997 is the final year of a 5-year program that, once complete, will result in an estimated $1 billion in U.S. revenue. Congress originally agreed to fund this program for 5 years, and it was important that this commitment be upheld. Perhaps more importantly, the committee estimated that the cost to eliminate the program was actually greater than the 1997 funding amount. Finally, once complete, a major portion of the DOE contributions to this project will be repaid as royalties from the sale of the powerplants. A bipartisan majority of Senators agreed with me and voted to fund the ALWR in its final year on a 53-to-45 vote. Following the consideration of the ALWR program, the Senate turned to a Bumpers proposal to cut $269 million from the nuclear weapons stewardship and maintenance accounts. This is an amendment which I resolutely opposed. I believe that continued cuts to this Nation's defense structure may endanger U.S. security at home and abroad. Due to the prohibition on nuclear weapon testing, the DOE is now forced to use noncritical--that is, nonexplosive or computer modeled--testing methods to guarantee the stability of nuclear weapons. As plutonium is only 50 years old as a known element, it isn't known what will happen to it over time, and therefore, how it will change weapons performance or affect maintenance personnel during routine parts replacement. The necessary procurement of new computer and testing facilities requires this level of spending for at least the next 5 years. This shortsighted amendment was tabled 61 to 37. Immediately thereafter, Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota offered an amendment to limit funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission at the House-passed level and require the Commission be phased out in 5 years. I believe that this regional commission is largely unnecessary and should face the same scrutiny which has been given to defense and entitlement funding. I supported similar efforts with regard to this Commission last year. Nonetheless, this amendment was defeated 69 to 30. The final amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill was a Feingold amendment to eliminate funding for the Bureau of Reclamation's Animas-La Plata [A-LP] project in Colorado. The A-LP project would construct two reservoirs, seven pumping plants, and 200 miles of canals and pipes to pump water uphill to provide irrigation for local residents, most of them native American. And while I applaud Senator Feingold for his efforts to reduce Government spending, this program was agreed to by treaty between the local Indian tribes and the U.S. Government. In instances such as this, I believe treaty commitments must be honored by a compelling showing of necessity, and so I opposed Senator Feingold's amendment which was defeated 65 to 33. After consideration of all amendments, I was pleased to support final passage of this important funding legislation, and I voted in support of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and it passed the Senate 93 to 6.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to explain a number of my votes on amendments to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill (S. 1745) passed out of this chamber on July 10, 1996. Specifically, I wish to address my votes on Senator Exon's amendment regarding a general cut in defense spending, Senator Wellstone's amendment regarding a shift of defense funds to other budget priorities, and Senator Kyl's amendment regarding nuclear weapon testing. Senator Exon proposed cutting the Defense budget across the board by $4 billion. I opposed this because I believe such a blanket approach is not a responsible way to contain defense spending. Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, has stated the he needs $60 billion more than the President requested to modernize weapon systems. America's superior military equipment is aging quickly compared to that of our potential adversaries, and I believe our men and women in uniform should not be placed in harms way without the best equipment possible. By the year 2010, our average fighter will have aged by 218 percent, and will only have 1 year left in its service life limit. Tanks will be almost four times as old as they are today because we are not buying new tanks, and the current stock of tanks will have, on average, passed their designed service life. This is unacceptable. To cut these funds when our fighting men and women need them most is unconscionable, and therefore, I voted against the Exon amendment. Mr. President, I would also like to address my vote regarding Senator Wellstone's amendment on shifting $1.3 billion from defense spending to education programs. I have pledged to support those Federal education programs that work. However, this body has long respected the ``firewall'' between defense spending and other discretionary spending because we realize the common defense is indeed our first priority, and therefore funding for the military should be determined independent of other programs. Thus I voted to table this amendment. The manner in which we provide for that common defense, however, sometimes is guaranteed as much by the policies we establish as by the money we spend. Although all of us pray that nuclear weapons are never again used, we still find ourselves in a world where we must maintain an effective nuclear deterrent to defend our country and our national security. As an aside, this requirement for nuclear weapons would be drastically reduced if we were to develop an effective ballistic missile defense system for the territory of the United States. Due to the Clinton administration's opposition, however, we remain much more vulnerable to enemy nuclear attack. This requires us to maintain more nuclear weapons than we would otherwise need as a deterrent force. Therefore, as long as we have nuclear weapons, we must also ensure that they are stable and effective to maintain the deterrent influence. To that end, we must also preserve the ability, at least in the short term, to test these weapons for stability and effectiveness. We may soon have the capability to conduct these tests by computer simulation, but I do not believe we are there yet. The data presented leads me to believe we must maintain the ability to test these weapons, at least for a few more years. As our technological capabilities progress, this may very well change, and I will be willing to reexamine this position. However, for now, I believe it was necessary for our national defense to oppose the motion to table the Kyl amendment allowing continued and limited nuclear testing. Mr. President, as Members of the Congress, our first constitutional duty is to pass legislation for the raising and support of our Armed Forces, just as the Federal Government's first duty is to provide for the common defense. My votes, I believe, serve that duty and further our national security goals.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I had hoped there would be a little more time today for me to address the Senate on this issue, but we have so many speakers we are all going to have to condense our remarks. I thought I would just highlight more of a personal experience of my own and my family's trying to put this in perspective and at least outline where my views are on this issue. I have sort of an interesting distinction in that of all of the Members of this body, I am the parent with the youngest child as of this moment, a 3-week-old son who, of course, we are very excited about and love very much. He was born 3 weeks ago today. I was there for the delivery. While it was happening, my wife and I both thought a lot about the birth of our twin daughters who were born 3 years and 3 months ago. They were born prematurely. They had to stay in a hospital for several weeks in a neonatal intensive care unit. We experienced firsthand the kinds of miracles that go on today all across this country with the births, at very early stages, of babies who survive. In that neonatal unit there were children who were born weeks and weeks, including months, early and had been born with birth weights slightly over a pound who were in the hospital for many months who survived. The fact is, those were babies exactly like the babies who, in a partial-birth abortion, do not survive. We, I think, came away from that experience even more committed than ever before, both my wife and I, to the notion that we cannot allow practices like the partial-birth abortion to occur in this country. It is a deplorable, deplorable practice. It seems to me that we have to take a stand as a matter of our moral faith and beliefs as a nation in opposition to it. I have heard a lot of talk from people on all sides of this issue, none of which persuaded me in any sense that I should change the vote I cast some months ago. I also say this in conclusion. For a lot of people who say they believe in the pro-choice side of this debate but also are not pro- abortion, I believe they are sincere in that feeling. But I also hear them say so often they want to make abortion rare. I cannot believe that if that is the case, if you truly want to make abortion rare, that you would stand in the way of this legislation. If you truly believe that there should be fewer abortions, it seems to me you begin with the ones that are the most deplorable and the least justifiable. Certainly partial-birth abortion is the exact definition of that category. I hope our colleagues will join us today in overriding this veto. I thank you very much. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, as the Presidential campaign heats up, it is clear that a central issue will be economic growth. Despite recent positive economic news, the long-term outlook is not good. Growth is slow and family incomes are down. At the same time, the tax burden on Americans is at an all-time high, squeezing families while discouraging savings and investment. In response to this disturbing trend, Bob Dole has proposed an aggressive plan to both cut taxes and balance the budget by the year 2002. The goal of the plan is to spur economic growth by reducing both the size and tax burden of the Federal Government. Its centerpiece is a 15-percent, across-the-board income-tax cut designed to lower taxes on families and small businesses while spurring job creation and investment. The Dole plan would also provide families with a $500 per child tax credit, improved IRA's, and lower taxes on capital gains. For a typical family earning $30,000, his plan would allow them to keep an additional $1,261 per year, enough to pay tuition to a private school, move into a better neighborhood, or save for an early retirement. People like the idea of a tax cut, but they wonder how it can be done without increasing the Federal budget deficit or gutting essential Federal programs. In a recent radio address, President Clinton sounded that theme, attacking Bob Dole's plan by arguing that the tax cut is too big and asserting that Dole has failed to explain how we can pass them without ballooning the deficit. Neither claim is accurate. First, Bob Dole's tax cuts are an appropriate and necessary response to the record tax burdens American families currently face. Following President Clinton's World's Largest Tax Increase of 1993, the Federal tax burden has risen to 20.5 percent of GDP--its second highest level ever. Meanwhile, the combination of Federal, State, and local taxes now consumes more than 38 cents out of every dollar the family earns. The Dole tax cut would help relieve this burden by reducing taxes across the board while targeting additional tax relief toward families with children. Fully implemented, the Dole tax cut would reduce the tax burden back to where it was before Bill Clinton began raising taxes in 1993. That's hardly an excessive goal. The second objection to Bob Dole's tax cut proposal is that it will cause the deficit to balloon. That is the issue upon which I want to focus today. Far from being vague and irresponsible, the Dole tax cuts are in fact both detailed and well within the ability of Congress to carry out. Under the Dole plan, cutting taxes on families and small businesses would reduce Federal revenues by $548 billion over the next 6 years. How does the Dole plan offset these cuts while balancing the budget? First, it slows the growth of the Federal Government over the next 6 years. Second, it encourages economic growth to help offset a portion of these tax cuts. Let me begin with slowing the growth of Government. The Dole plan builds upon the comprehensive balanced budget resolution Congress adopted in June. That resolution calls for reducing the growth of spending by $393 billion over the next 6 years, including the phase-out of farm support payments, welfare overhaul, and Federal prison reform. On top of the balanced budget resolution, the Dole plan proposes savings of an additional $217 billion over 6 years, targeting wasteful programs like the departments of Commerce and Energy and reducing Government overhead. Mr. President, there has been much criticism and misinformation regarding these proposed savings. I have seen reports from several outside groups, both conservative and liberal, who claim these savings would literally gut whole portions of the Federal Government. This is completely false. First of all, in the spending restraints assumed in the Dole plan beyond those contained in the balanced budget resolution, Bob Dole has made it clear that they will not come from reductions to Social Security, Medicare, or Defense. Those programs are off-limits. Under the Dole plan, Medicare spending would increase by 44 percent between 1996 and 2002--a 6.2 percent growth rate, or more than two times the rate of inflation. Spending would increase from $5,200 per beneficiary in 1996 to $7,000 in 2002. Subtracting Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and interest expenses from total Federal spending over the next 6 years leaves $3.9 trillion eligible for savings under the Dole plan. Contrary to those groups that have portrayed this proposal as unreasonable, the Dole plan proposes to reduce this amount by just 5 percent--5 cents on the dollar. Let's look at it on a year-by-year basis. Projected Federal spending next year is $1642 billion--or $70 billion more than we expect to spend this year. Under the Dole plan, Government spending would continue to grow, but by $37 billion instead. Let's compare the Dole plan to President Clinton's own recommendation. Whereas President Clinton would allow Government spending to grow by 20 percent over the next 6 years, the Dole plan would hold spending growth to 14 percent--or about 2 percent per year. In other words, limiting spending growth to 2 percent per year will produce the savings necessary to cut taxes and balance the budget. Is holding the growth of Government spending to 2 percent per year reasonable? Absolutely. Under Republican leadership--and with no help from congressional Democrats or President Clinton--Congress has successfully reduced the growth of Federal spending over the last 2 years by $53 billion, or about $26 billion per year. Moreover, just this summer, we enacted a comprehensive welfare reform measure. In other words Mr. President, in response to those who claim the Dole economic plan's spending savings are too severe, I would point out that we have already succeeded in reducing the growth of Government by similar amounts. The Earth didn't stop rotating. The Sun hasn't stopped shining. And in the process, we have made the Government more efficient and more responsive to the wishes of the American voters. In addition to slowing the growth of government, the Dole plan also assumes that his pro-growth tax cuts will produce enough extra economic activity to offset 27 percent of their cost--$147 billion over 6 years. And just as we have seen with the budget savings, this assumption has been the focus of numerous criticisms from various groups. Mr. President, contrary to what some have said, assuming additional revenues from economic growth--or revenue feedback as it is called--has a long and credible history on both sides of the political aisle. In 1982, the Congressional Budget Office found that ``between roughly one-tenth and two-tenths of the static revenue loss'' from an across the board tax cut would be recouped through revenue feedback during the first year. In later years, the CBO estimated that between one-third and one-half would be recouped in later years. More recently, Clinton's Trade Representative Mickey Kantor told the House Ways and Means Committee that reductions in American tariffs would more than pay for themselves through increased exports and jobs. And just this summer, Lawrence Chimerine, chief economist for the liberal Economic Strategy Institute argued in the Washington Post that ``credible evidence overwhelmingly indicates that revenue feedback from tax cuts'' could be as high as 35 percent. For those who are unimpressed with the estimates of economists and accountants, let me give two examples of how this feedback effect puts real dollars in the pockets of both American families and Uncle Sam. In 1981, the tax burden was at a similar record high as it is today. In response, newly elected President Ronald Reagan cut tax rates across the board by 25 percent. Mr Reagan could have cut taxes in any number of ways, but he chose reducing marginal rates because he understood--as does Bob Dole--that cutting marginal rates encourages people to work harder, save more, and invest in economic growth and job creation. The Reagan tax cut worked. In 1984, real GDP growth reached 6.8 percent--the highest single year growth since 1951. In President Reagan's second term, growth averaged 3.4 percent per year--well above the anemic 2.5 percent growth we have seen under President Clinton. How did these tax cuts affect families. In addition to lowering their overall tax burden, the tax cuts of 1981 helped save family incomes from declining, as they had under President Carter. Instead, median family incomes grew 1.7 percent per year under Reagan, putting an additional $4,000 in the typical families pockets every year. Mr. Reagan was not the only President to recognize the growth potential of reducing marginal tax rates. In 1962, John Kennedy was also adamant about cutting marginal tax rates. When he announced his tax cut plan in 1962, he explained his thinking with the following words: ``I am not talking about a `quickie' or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. . . . I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peacetime; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.'' The Kennedy tax rate cut proved to be one for the greatest economic successes of the postwar era. Real GDP growth jumped to 5.8 percent in 1964 and to 6.4 percent in 1965 and 1966. Today, the media calls growth rates half that size a surge. Clearly there is a consensus that a tax cut like Bob Dole's will partially pay for itself through income revenue growth. As Nobel laureate Professor Gary Becker put it, the revenue feedback effect is ``basically Econ. 101. Investors and workers in the economy respond in an important way to incentives, including tax incentives.'' Becker then points out that, if the Dole plan increases GDP growth from its current 2.3 to 3.5 percent over 6 years, the income growth effect will be ``far in excess of $147 billion. It would be more like $200 billion.'' Mr. President, I have a list of over 100 prominent economists, including four Nobel Laureates, who share Dr. Becker's support of cutting taxes and balancing the budget. These economists are from all over the country, but they have one thing in common--faith in the American family and the ability of the American economy to grow faster than 2 percent per year. By cutting marginal tax rates and allowing families to keep more of what they earn--so they can spend it on their priorities rather than Congresses--the Dole plan will help the economy grow faster, resulting in more jobs, more opportunity, and a higher standard of living for everyone. How do we offset the tax cuts? We restrain the growth of Government. By limiting the future growth of Federal spending to 2 percent per year, we can reduce income tax rates by 15 percent for every taxpayer, provide a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class families, and cut the capital gains tax rate in half--all while balancing the budget in 2002. The Dole plan is the possible dream that will result in a smaller, more efficient Government that allows families to keep more of what they earn, so they can spend it on their priorities rather than Washington's. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of economists be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate October 8, 1996 as a day on which the citizens of my State, and indeed the entire country, can take great pride in the milestone of a true Michigan institution: Ford Motor Co. For on this day, the 250-millionth Ford vehicle will roll off the assembly line. In 1903, the first Ford Model A was built by 10 employees in a small converted wagon factory in Detroit. More than nine decades later, Ford still calls Michigan home, maintaining its world headquarters in Dearborn. It is from these Michigan roots that Ford has grown into its present status as a global corporation. Ford cars, trucks and components are made in 185 plants in 36 countries on 5 continents and sold in over 200 markets. Last year, worldwide sales revenues surpassed $137 billion, factory production exceeded 6.6 million vehicles, and the company employed more than 346,000 workers. No car company has contributed more to America's love affair with the automobile than Ford From the Model T to the F-Series pickup to the Escort, Ford has built and sold some of the bestselling nameplates in automotive history. Other Ford classics, such as the Mustang and the Thunderbird, remain American cultural icons. Evidence of the positive impact of Ford Motor Co. isn't limited to our roads and highways. The results of founder Henry Ford innovative adaption of the moving assembly line to automotive production, higher volumes at lower costs, revolutionized industrial manufacturing practices around the globe. And Henry Ford 1914 announcement that he would pay $5 for an eight hour work day, twice the going rate, spawned the creation of high-skilled, high-wage jobs for American automotive workers. It is often said that Ford Motor Company ``put the world on wheels,'' and I like to believe Michigan played an integral role in this accomplishment. Our State has always offered an exceptional standard of living for its residents, in no small measure due to the presence of Ford, its suppliers and customers. On behalf of my colleagues, I congratulate Ford and its employees on this special occasion, and look forward to celebrating future milestones with Ford Motor Co. and its home State.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Kelly Services on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Founded on October 7, 1946, in Detroit, MI, by William Russell Kelly, Kelly Services blazed a trail in the office staffing industry. Built on a strong reputation of caring for its customers and employees, Kelly has grown into a Fortune 500 company. Today, Kelly provides the services of more than 675,000 employees annually to 200,000 customers. With more than 1,300 offices around the world Kelly is a major player in the office staffing industry. Recognizing the changing needs of our economy, Kelly has branched out into legal services, full as well as partial office staffing, assisted living, and the research and development of software for testing and training products. Kelly's innovative training and testing programs have kept it at the head of its industry. The experience of this Michigan company shows that hard work and dedication to quality service and integrity pave the road to success. Mr. President, I am proud that Kelly Services, based in Troy, MI, is part of the vibrant and growing business community in my State of Michigan. The quality and innovation shown by this aggressive enterprise under the leadership of President and Chief Executive Officer Terence E. Adderley have been an inspiration to all business people in my State. Through its contributions to area businesses it has improved life in the 37 Michigan communities in which it has branches, as well as the communities all over the world in which it conducts business. Kelly Services has been celebrating its anniversary throughout this year. The company will host a major event at its headquarters in Troy on October 7. I would like to extend my best wishes to Kelly Services for a festive celebration and for another 50 years of superior success through superior service.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia, again, for his efforts to bring us together here to focus on various vital matters before the Senate and before the American people. Mr. President, I have taken the floor on several previous occasions to discuss the problem of abusive prison litigation and this Congress' efforts to attack that problem. The last time I did so was April 19, 1996. At that time, I expressed my disappointment that President Clinton had just vetoed the Commerce- Justice-State appropriations bill. Contained in that bill was the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a carefully crafted set of provisions designed to stem the tide of prison litigation. In my view, this was a very important piece of legislation. Lawsuits by prisoners and lawsuits over prison conditions were completely out of hand. One figure captures the situation very well. In fiscal year 1995, prisoners--inmates in prison--filed 63,550 civil lawsuits in our Federal court system. That is a little over one-quarter of all the civil lawsuits filed in Federal courts that year. It's also far more than the 45,788 Federal criminal prosecutions initiated that fiscal year. In short, Mr. President, we saw, in fiscal year 1995, prison lawsuits outnumber prosecutions under our Federal system and account for one- quarter of all the lawsuits brought in this country in the Federal system. One prisoner sued because he had been served melted ice cream. For this he claimed $1 million in damages. Fortunately, the judge ruled that the right to eat frozen ice cream was not one of those the Framers of the Constitution had in mind. Another sued because when his dinner tray arrived, the piece of cake on it was ``hacked up.'' A third sued demanding LA Gear or Reebok ``Pumps'' instead of Converse tennis shoes. This kind of abusive litigation is not only frivolous, it costs money and cost the taxpayers a lot of money. The National Association of Attorneys General estimated that the States were spending about $81 million to battle cases of the sort I just described--this even though the States win 95 percent of these cases early in the litigation for reasons that are obvious. We were determined to do something about this problem in the Congress, so as part of the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill in 1996 we passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act. This legislation charged prisoners a fee for filing any lawsuit, while making it possible for the prisoners to pay that fee in installments. If a prisoner filed more than three frivolous cases, however, the prisoner would no longer be able to pay the filing fee in installments. He or she would have to pay the full fee up front, unless a court found this would create imminent risk of bodily harm. In addition, prisoners who filed frivolous lawsuits would lose their good time credits, thus making their stay in prison longer. And judges were given authority to screen out frivolous cases on their own. The legislation was designed to put an end to another aspect of the prison litigation problem: Seizure by Federal judges of the power to run prison systems. These seizures have consequences that range from the ridiculous to the disastrous. In my own State of Michigan, judicial orders resulting from Justice Department lawsuits have resulted in Federal courts monitoring our State prisons to determine how warm the food is, how bright the lights are, whether there are electrical outlets in each cell, whether the prisoners' hair is cut by licensed barbers--this despite the fact that no court has ever found that any of these conditions regarding which it is giving orders violate the Constitution. The orders issued by a judge in Philadelphia were even worse. There a Federal judge had been overseeing what had become a program of wholesale releases of up to 600 criminal defendants per week. Why? To keep the prison population down to what the judge considered an appropriate level. Thousands of the released defendants were then rearrested for new crimes including in one 18-month period 79 murders, 90 rapes, 959 robberies, 2,215 drug dealing charges, 701 burglaries, 2,748 thefts, and 1,113 assaults. In the interest of justice and public safety, we wanted to stop this, and the means were simple and fully in keeping with everyone's rights. We simply required in that same Prison Litigation Reform Act that no judge could take over a prison without first holding that it had violated the Constitution and explaining how the order was necessary to correct the violation. We also directed that the judge give due regard to public safety in deciding what kinds of remedies to require. And we established stringent limits on the power of the courts to order prisoners released. Existing orders would have to meet these new standards. If they did not, they would have to be dissolved immediately on motion of the prison authorities, unless the court found that the orders were necessary to correct an on-going violation of a Federal right. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that legislation. At the time, the President said his veto had nothing to do with our prison litigation proposals. Instead, he said, he was vetoing the bill over other matters. We took the President at his word and included our proposals in a second piece of legislation. This time, the President signed the legislation. Unfortunately, the President's top ranking officials in the Department of Justice seem intent on inventing a new kind of veto, veto by lawyering. This effort started almost as soon as the ink from the President's signing pen was dry. A mere 11 weeks after signing the bill, his Department of Justice was filing briefs all around the country that would undermine the clear intent of our legislation. The briefs claimed that, far from requiring the courts to stop running the prisons for the comfort of prisoners, that law authorized them to continue to do so indefinitely. Thus, according to President Clinton's Justice Department, Federal judges should continue to tell Michigan how warm the food should be, how bright the lights have to be, and who should cut the prisoners' hair. And by the logic of their position, judges should also continue to dictate prison population size and order excess prisoners released-- this even if the Constitution contains no such requirement and even if the release orders jeopardize public safety. At least they should do this while they are investigating whether the prison ever violated any provision of the Constitution, an investigation that can take quite a bit of time. The Department of Justice has come up with a host of legal theories to explain why the reform act should be read to require indefinite judicial supervision of prisons for the benefit of prisoners. It is difficult to say which is more ludicrous, the original or the current theory. The original theory, now abandoned in the face of questions from Members of this body and the National Association of Attorneys General, was that the phrase ``violation of a Federal right'' includes violations of the very decrees the reform act was adopted to end. The current theory stands on its head the reform act's requirement that existing decrees be automatically stayed 30 days after a motion to end one has been filed unless there has been a final ruling on the motion. According to the current Justice Department theory, this requirement in fact means the decrees are not automatically stayed, and, indeed, that nothing should happen to them at all until the court conducts its own exhaustive inquiry as to whether conditions at the prison have ever violated any constitutional provision. These theories are unpersuasive, Mr. President. Even Judge Harold Baer, the subject of some attention for his theory that running away from the cops gave no grounds for reasonable suspicion, rejected these theories and ended judicial rule at Riker's Island. Judges there had been dictating such crucial matters as the brand and exact concentration of cleanser to be used in certain areas. The theories are ludicrous but the end result is not. These interpretations make a mockery of this Congress, they make a mockery of the law, and they make a mockery of the American people's desire to have prisons run to promote the public order, not to promote the comfort of our prisoners. Further, even if they desperately try to protect existing decrees, President Clinton's Department of Justice continues to threaten exactly the kinds of lawsuits the reform act was supposed to end. For example, a mere 4 days after President Clinton signed the reform act, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights threatened to sue Gov. Parris Glendening of Maryland over conditions in Maryland's supermaximum security prison. Supermaxes are reserved for the most dangerous prisoners, murderers and rapists who continue their violent behavior in prison. What were the egregious unconstitutional conditions that led President Clinton's Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights to threaten suit? The fact that supermax prisoners are not allowed to socialize enough and are not getting enough outdoor exercise. The Department calls these conditions unconstitutional because they are the ``mental equivalent of putting an asthmatic in a place with little air to breathe.'' Fortunately, this particular veto by lawyering will ultimately succeed only if President Clinton's Justice Department persuades the courts to go along with it. I do not expect that it will. So far the results are not promising for the Justice Department. So far, the judges who have decided these issues, interestingly, all of them Democratic appointees who had either taken over the running of prisons themselves or had inherited them from a predecessor who retired, rejected half the arguments urging them to retain control. Mr. President, other parts of the Reform Act, the ones designed to cut back on individual prisoner lawsuits, which President Clinton's Department of Justice has no role in enforcing, already are showing their effects. Prisoner filings since the bill's enactment have declined sharply. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice, through its attempted veto by lawyering, is delaying and undermining the effectiveness of critical portions of the Reform Act. The Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on this matter next week. It is my intention to propose an amendment to whatever proves to be the most appropriate legislation, either this year's Commerce-State- Justice appropriations bill or perhaps another omnibus appropriations bill, that clarifies once and for all it is time for abusive prison litigation to end, whether it is brought by prisoners or by President Clinton's Department of Justice. It is unfortunate we must clarify once again the clear intent of such recently enacted legislation. But public safety and the costs of our prison system are too important for us to allow this inappropriate veto by misinterpretation. In short, I am here today to say that if we are truly serious about getting tough with crime, we ought to begin immediately to take the Prison Litigation Reform Act and administer it in the exact clear sense that Congress intended it to be administered. That is not happening today. I am extraordinarily disappointed by it. I intend to be on the floor as often as necessary to bring about the correct interpretation of that legislation or to add new legislation that eliminates any possibility of misinterpretation in the future. Prisons should be tough time for prisoners and the rights of victims should take priority. That is what I believe everybody in this Chamber is committed to doing, and if necessary we will have to enact more legislation to get the job done. But I am very disappointed in the actions of the Department of Justice to date because it is certainly inconsistent with what we demand and what the American people I believe want to see happen in the area of prison reform. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is correct.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is accurate. I would say to the Senator from Georgia, we were told when the first veto occurred, because this legislation was included in a broader bill, that the legislation, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, was not the basis for the veto; that, in fact, it was supported. When the second bill was signed, we assumed the Justice Department would seek to make sure the provisions of that Litigation Reform Act would be enacted and followed by the courts. Instead, what we have seen is the Department of Justice intervening in lawsuits in a way that would, in fact, preclude, rather than allow, States to extricate themselves from these various judicial circumstances where judges were running the prison systems with no clear evidence of a constitutional violation ever having occurred. Instead, we find the Justice Department finding ways to allow the judges to stay in charge and to allow for various things such as we have seen around the country, where these prisoner lawsuits are growing in number, where judges are requiring prisons and State authorities to expend millions of taxpayer dollars simply to ensure and improve the comfort of prisoners. We think that is the wrong direction.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on September 25, 1996, the March of Dimes will honor Elias Brothers Restaurants executives Louis Elias, Gabriel W. Kassab, and William H. Morgan as the recipients of the 1996 Family of the Year Award. Established in 1993, this award is presented annually to a family whose outstanding commitment and support of the March of Dimes deserves recognition. And without question, these three members of the Elias Brothers family are duly deserving of this honor. Louis Elias, founder and chairman of the board of Elias Brothers Restaurants, has a distinguished past as a community servant. After 4 years as a city councilman, Mr. Elias served as mayor of Hazel Park from 1953 to 1961. He has also received the highest honor of knight commander in the Order of St. Ignatius of Antioch and was also knighted into the most exclusive philanthropic organization in the world, the Knights of Malta, in December 1982. Gabriel Kassab, president of Elias Brothers Restaurants, has for years dedicated his time and energies to helping others. He has served as a member of the executive board of the Detroit Council of the Boy Scouts of America, president of St. George Orthodox Church, president of the Michigan and National Restaurant Associations, and as a member of the advisory board of Southfield's Providence Hospital. William Morgan, senior executive vice president of Elias Brothers Restaurants and Big Boy International, also has a distinguished list of public service efforts to his credit. He is past president of the Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce and the Clinton Valley Council of the Boy Scouts of America, and past chairman of the Rochester Crittenton Hospital Development Council. Mr. Morgan today sits on the executive board of the Michigan State University Development Council. All three of these men have remained dedicated over the years to the generous support of the efforts of the March of Dimes. The Elias Brothers family has committed itself to the cause of preventing birth defects, and with the extraordinary contributions of Louis Elias, Gabriel Kassab, and William Morgan, our country has moved that much closer to the realization of this noble and important goal. On this special occasion, I offer my congratulations to each of these civic leaders and to the March of Dimes. I also offer my thanks, on behalf of the entire State of Michigan, for the countless number of children's lives they have touched.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, from July 19 to August 4 over 10,000 athletes from 197 countries competed in the Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta, GA. For 17 days, the athletic exploits of these individuals captivated the entire world. While all performed with distinction and deserve our recognition, such is the nature of Olympic competition that only a select few can rise to the medal stand. From my State of Michigan the following 10 exceptional men and women can now be added to the elite ranks of Olympic champions: Gold medals: Tom Dolan, Ann Arbor, 400m IM, swimming; Grant Hill, Detroit, forward, basketball; Annette Salmeen, Ann Arbor, 800m FR, swimming; Sheila Taormina, Livonia, 800m FR, swimming. Silver medals: Dana Chladek, Bloomfield Hills, whitewater slalom K-1, kayak; Tom Malchow, Ann Arbor, 200m fly, swimming; Eric Namesnik, Ann Arbor, 400m IM, swimming. Bronze medals: Mark Lenzi, Ann Arbor, 3m springboard, diving: Floyd Mayweather, Grand Rapids, featherweight, boxing; Jeffrey Pfaendtner, Detroit, men's lightweight four, rowing. Mr. President, most of us can only dream of Olympic competition, or watch it from the sidelines. These dedicated men and women worked, trained, and sacrificed to make their dream a reality. They practiced until their God-given talents were honed to their fullest. They were rewarded with victory and the knowledge that they had performed, under intense pressure, up to their full potential. I offer my congratulations to these fine Michiganians. I also offer my thanks, on behalf of my State, for making us proud of them for a job well done.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on September 25, 1996, the March of Dimes will honor community activist Jeanne O. Busse as its 1996 Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year. Established in 1984, this award is presented annually to ``deserving individuals who have demonstrated outstanding contributions and commitment to improving the quality of life in his/her community, the county, and the State of Michigan.'' As a community servant, Jeanne Busse has fulfilled this criteria and then some. The litany of positions Mrs. Busse has held over the years is surpassed only by the list of awards that have been showered upon her. Her years of commitment to her church, St. Anne Parish in Warren, includes a stint as president of the Council of Catholic Women for the Archdiocese of Detroit. Her involvement with the Boy and Girl Scouts of America spans more than six decades, and just a small sample of the other civic organizations in which she has served include the United Community Services, Warren Friends of the Public Library, Michigan Cultural Commission, and the Warren Consolidated Schools Board of Education. Mrs. Busse's exceptional good deeds have garnered her recognition as the Warren Jaycees Woman of the Year and the Macomb County Council for the Arts Volunteer of the Year. Some of her other awards include: the Council of Catholic Women/Archdiocese of Detroit Beatrice Zilly Award, the Warren Consolidated Schools Honorary Scholastic Letter Award, the United Community Services Tracey McGregor Volunteer Award, and the James Coughlin Award for Service to Scouting, to name just a few. In addition, ``For Service to the Citizens of Warren, Michigan,'' Busse Park has been established and named in her honor. For her selfless commitment to her fellow citizens Jeanne Busse is more than deserving of the accolades that come her way. I salute her for her public service, and applaud the March of Dimes for choosing such a deserving figure on whom to bestow this honor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the grand opening on October 12, 1996, of the expanded Farmington Family YMCA. On this day, an organization with a record of community service spanning more than three decades will open the doors of a new 15,000 square foot facility to the families of Novi, West Bloomfield, Farmington, and Farmington Hills. Chartered in 1965, the Farmington Area YMCA has over 4,200 members and more than 30,000 users annually. The completed expansion, for which all construction funds were raised privately, includes a second swimming pool to service physically challenged individuals. The new facility is also better equipped to aid the rehabilitation efforts of patients participating in an existing partnership program with Providence, Botsford General, and Sinai Hospitals. This institution can truly be characterized as a family serving YMCA. While it currently provides all latchkey programs for students in the Farmington and Farmington Hills school districts, the YMCA can now offer greater babysitting and child care services in addition to a special ``Kids Zone.'' Not only will families benefit from the expansion; the State of Michigan recently awarded the city of Farmington Hills a special grant to initiate a collaborative program with the YMCA and the Farmington public schools to serve the needs of young teens to assist in a community wide effort to prevent juvenile delinquency. Finally, while expanding the physical structure provides the space to implement these programs, without the dedication of the exceptional volunteers involved with the YMCA, the completion of this ambitious project would have been impossible. Their efforts truly are commendable, and on this upcoming October 12 I salute these community servants and congratulate the families of the Farmington area on the many years of enjoyment they will receive from their expanded YMCA.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on September 25, 1996 the March of Dimes will honor Clintondale Community School District Superintendent Dr. Raymond M. Contesti as its 1996 Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year. Established in 1984, this award is presented annually to ``deserving individuals who have demonstrated outstanding contributions and commitment to improving the quality of life in his/her community, the county, and the State of Michigan.'' It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a community servant more deserving of this recognition. In addition to his duties as superintendent, Dr. Contesti is currently president of the board of trustees of the Mount Clemens General Hospital, a member of the board of directors of M.C.G. Telesis, and a member of the Macomb/St. Clair Private Industry Council. In previous years he has held a number of civic posts within Clinton Township, including service on the board of trustees, zoning board of appeals, parks and recreation committee, Junior Chamber of Commerce, planning commission, civic center committee, and much more. Dr. Contesti's dedication to public service has been recognized by numerous local institutions. In 1994, the Clinton Valley Boy Scouts named him their distinguished citizen of the year. In 1995, the M.C.G. Foundation named Dr. Contesti their citizen of the year. Continuing in this trend, in 1996 Dr. Contesti will again be commended as citizen of the year, by an equally worthwhile institution, the March of Dimes. For his selfless commitment to his fellow citizens Raymond Contesti is more than deserving of the accolades that come his way. I salute him for his public service, and applaud the March of Dimes for choosing such a deserving figure on whom to bestow this honor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I have to indicate that with a certain amount of pride. It is Spencer. He is named after his father.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much.

Mr. ABRAHAM. We have twin daughters who are 3 years old, Betsy and Julie, and now they have a little brother.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is correct. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, I am happy to inform you as of 2:25 p.m. yesterday afternoon the third baby in the Abraham family was born. I am proud of our new son named Spencer who has joined us.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from Georgia for his continuing leadership in providing us opportunities to address issues of importance. Today I am glad that we are talking about the burdens that face American families, because young families confront a lot of challenges as we move to the end of this century and into the next one. In my own family, we have added a new member since the last time I spoke in this Chamber, just yesterday afternoon. So we, as is the case with all other families that are growing in number, are looking at the challenges we have, and they are challenges in a variety of areas. One of them is obviously the financial challenges that new families and young families confront. When I am in my State of Michigan, and I suspect the same is true in Georgia, Tennessee, or any other of the 50 States, what I hear from my constituents, from working families, is a very common theme. It is the theme that even though people seem to be working more they find they have less and less to show for it. We have heard it described as a squeeze on the middle class. We have heard it described in a variety of other ways, but we have heard it described consistently in my State for a number of years. I have sat down with the families to try to find out exactly why they feel this way and what it is that has led to this situation. The very simple fact is, Mr. President, a major reason why our working families are having a harder time making ends meet is that the tax burdens they are confronting, each going up at a pace that is faster than the family income is going up. That, indeed is exactly the case for most people in America. Indeed, during the last 3 to 4 years, family incomes have been absolutely stagnant. Meanwhile, Federal taxes have been going up. In many States, State taxes and local taxes have been going up, as well. Indeed, it is interesting to note, Mr. President, that across the board we see families confronting a higher and higher responsibility in terms of their paychecks headed to Washington than ever before. Right now, the Federal tax burden is the largest portion of the family budget, 26 percent, which is more than housing, food or education costs. When you add on the burdens of State and local taxes, the percentage goes from 26 all the way up to 38 percent. When you think about that, Mr. President, you think about almost 40 percent of the average family's income being sent to government to pay for programs and services, you realize the extent to which families do feel the crunch. The crunch has created a very interesting set of changes. It has meant that where in the past one person was working was enough for the family to stay ahead of the game, today, often it is two people working at more than one job. At least in the case of the people of my State of Michigan the solution, it seems to me, is quite clear. Unless we are going to get to the point where families working two jobs and two breadwinners working two jobs is inadequate to allow working families to keep up, we have to give them some relief. The one way the Federal Government can provide that relief is by reducing the tax burden that these families face. Mr. President, I do not have the time today nor do I intend today to go into a variety of ways by which we can ease that burden. But I think the kinds of plans that have been put forth by Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, calling for across-the-board tax relief, combining that with a $500- per-child tax credit is a step in the right direction. I think that is what the families of Michigan, the families of America can benefit from. I add, Mr. President, in closing, in our State of Michigan we reduced taxes 21 times in the last 5 years. That has produced record levels of employment and it has not caused a budget deficit. We have balanced the budget and created a surplus at the same time. We need to give families that relief. I look forward to working within the Senate to accomplish that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is fine.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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