Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr President, today I rise along with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, to introduce legislation which will expand the number of health care choices available to residents of Michigan. This bill will provide Medicare beneficiaries in Michigan the opportunity to obtain health care from The Wellness Plan, a longstanding, federally qualified health maintenance organization. The Wellness Plan has been recognized by national leaders, including two former Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services, as a model managed care plan. In addition, the Wellness Plan has made significant contributions to improving the health and well-being of its enrollees, many of whom are poor women and children, by decreasing infant mortality, effectively reducing hypertension, and increasing mammography rates. The Wellness Plan has been serving the Medicaid population for over two decades. It currently has 150,000 enrollees, 141,000 of whom are Medicaid, 12,000 commercial and 2,000 Medicare. Since 1993, the Wellness Plan has had a health care prepayment plan contract with Medicare. However, technical changes enacted by Congress effective January 1, 1996, had the unintended effect of preventing the Wellness Plan from enrolling additional Medicare beneficiaries under the HCPP contract. The Wellness Plan is positioned to become a full Medicare risk contractor but currently is precluded from doing so due to the 50/ 50 Medicare/Medicaid enrollment composition rule. It must be emphasized that the Health Care Financing Administration supports the Wellness Plan receiving a plan-specific 50/50 waiver at this time. Allowing Medicare beneficiaries to participate in this program represents a small, but important step toward fulfilling Congress' commitment to improve the quality of this country's health care system. Given that the Wellness Plan has an established record with respect to both the Medicaid and Medicare programs, and that the Health Care Financing Administration supports the Wellness Plan receiving a plan- specific 50/50 waiver, I urge Congress to move this bill before the end of this session so that Michigan Medicare beneficiaries will once again have the opportunity to participate in this plan beginning in 1997.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr President, today I rise along with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, to introduce legislation which will expand the number of health care choices available to residents of Michigan. This bill will provide Medicare beneficiaries in Michigan the opportunity to obtain health care from The Wellness Plan, a longstanding, federally qualified health maintenance organization. The Wellness Plan has been recognized by national leaders, including two former Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services, as a model managed care plan. In addition, the Wellness Plan has made significant contributions to improving the health and well-being of its enrollees, many of whom are poor women and children, by decreasing infant mortality, effectively reducing hypertension, and increasing mammography rates. The Wellness Plan has been serving the Medicaid population for over two decades. It currently has 150,000 enrollees, 141,000 of whom are Medicaid, 12,000 commercial and 2,000 Medicare. Since 1993, the Wellness Plan has had a health care prepayment plan contract with Medicare. However, technical changes enacted by Congress effective January 1, 1996, had the unintended effect of preventing the Wellness Plan from enrolling additional Medicare beneficiaries under the HCPP contract. The Wellness Plan is positioned to become a full Medicare risk contractor but currently is precluded from doing so due to the 50/ 50 Medicare/Medicaid enrollment composition rule. It must be emphasized that the Health Care Financing Administration supports the Wellness Plan receiving a plan-specific 50/50 waiver at this time. Allowing Medicare beneficiaries to participate in this program represents a small, but important step toward fulfilling Congress' commitment to improve the quality of this country's health care system. Given that the Wellness Plan has an established record with respect to both the Medicaid and Medicare programs, and that the Health Care Financing Administration supports the Wellness Plan receiving a plan- specific 50/50 waiver, I urge Congress to move this bill before the end of this session so that Michigan Medicare beneficiaries will once again have the opportunity to participate in this plan beginning in 1997.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. In the absence of a speaker on the Democratic side, I yield myself up to 10 minutes to speak at this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, as we come to the conclusion of this debate, I think we should be proud of the efforts of the Senate and of the Congress. For the better part of 2 years we have now been working toward, I think, a very positive conclusion to the debate on how we assist those in our society who are the most needy. It is clear from an examination of the past 25 to 30 years that the so-called war on poverty has been, at least up until now, won by poverty. Although trillions of dollars, over $5 trillion, has been spent during this past 25 to 30 years to try to fight that war, we find today virtually the same percentage, if not a greater percentage, of Americans below the poverty line than was the case when the war began. We have spent, as I say, a lot of time debating in this Congress and in previous Congresses why that is the case. It is quite clear, and I think acknowledged now by virtually everybody who has been involved in this debate, that the process, the welfare system in this country, is a principal reason why the war has not been won. Some would say, yes, there is a problem, but we have yet to come to the proper solution to that problem. However, I disagree. Indeed, we have worked very hard for, as I say, almost 2 years in this Congress, building on work done in previous Congresses, to find the solution. I believe this legislation, although maybe not ideal from the perspective of any single Member, including the one from Michigan, is, nevertheless, a major step in the right direction. I believe this approach will work, Mr. President. It will work for a variety of reasons. First, it will work because it vests far more flexibility and far more decisionmaking and far more authority in the 50 States. There may have been a time in this country when some States and communities did not step up to their obligations to assist those in need. That is certainly not the case today. I do not know of one person in this Senate who has stood up here and said: ``My State will fail; my State will not take care of people; my State cannot meet the challenge; my State is less compassionate than the National Government.'' I have not heard one Member say that. That is because not one Member could say that, Mr. President. The States are as compassionate and as capable and more knowledgeable about the problems confronted by their citizens than bureaucrats in Washington. This legislation gives those States the chance to translate their compassion and their insight and their expertise into the action it will take to assist people in need to move out of poverty and on to the economic ladder. This legislation works, also, Mr. President, because it changes the incentives. Yes, we place some tough standards in this legislation, incentives to people to get out of the welfare dependency role and on to and into the work force. We put time limits. We put the kind of tough standards that will cause people to understand that poverty is not the way of life, that welfare is not the way of life, and to seek the assistance of government at all levels to obtain the training and the assistance and the help it will take to move into productive work. It changes the incentives in the right direction. The legislation is important, also, Mr. President, because for the first time it allows us to begin addressing one of the most important problems we confront in this country, the problem of the rising rate of illegitimacy, of out-of-wedlock births in America. We provide in the legislation incentives for States to find ways to solve the growing number of out-of-wedlock birth situations, incentives in the form of more dollars for the various problems if States can address effectively these issues and these problems, and do so without increasing the abortion rate at the same time. Finally, this legislation makes sense, Mr. President, because it means less bureaucracy. In my State of Michigan, we think we have a pretty darn good formula for addressing the problems that confront our most needy citizens. Too often, however, Washington bureaucracy and red tape make it impossible to accomplish our objectives. Just to put it in perspective, when we talk to people in our Family Independence Agency--it used to be called the Department of Social Services; we tried to change the title to change the philosophy as to our objectives in that agency--the front-line case workers, the people who are supposed to be out there at the front line assisting folks to get out of poverty and on to the economic ladder, two-thirds of their time is not spent helping people get off welfare. Two-thirds of their time is spent filling out paperwork, almost all of it coming from Washington. We believe in our State, for example, that we can take what is now a 30-page form that must be filled out by folks who are going to go on to assistance programs and reduce it to about 5 pages, one-sixth the size of the form that currently is used. The time the case worker would have spent filling out the other 24 pages can now be spent helping the recipient figure out what training programs and what strategies will work to give them an opportunity to be productive and to get on the economic ladder. We think we should have the flexibility to get rid of the bureaucracy and to get rid of all that paperwork and concentrate on the true challenge that we have. For these reasons, I think the program that we are about to pass tonight is a sensible approach. I think it will do two things. I think it will help the people who need help and give confidence to people who have lost it in our system, the people who pay the bills, the taxpayers, who are frustrated by what they see as a losing war on poverty, confidence we are moving in the right direction. I think that will translate, Mr. President, into more support for social agencies across our States and in our communities, for charitable organizations, for other types of approaches that will assist government in getting the job done. Finally, let me conclude with a comment about one particular topic that has been discussed at great length during this debate. That is the issue of children. We all have different perspectives on this, of course. As I look back at the last 30 years, as I hear story after story from the people in our social service agencies about families in a cycle of dependency, about kids without hope, of rising crime rates among young people, of increased drug usage rates, of kids having kids, I can't help but think that what we have today has to be changed if we really care about helping kids. If we really want to help the children, we certainly should not, in any sense, continue this legacy, continue the system that has created so much unhappiness and so much hopelessness. Let us replace the hopelessness with hope, Mr. President. Let us finally put all the words and all the rhetoric of many years of campaigns and Congresses into action. Let us do it tonight. Let us finish the job and move in a new direction. Let us solve the problem. Let us help our most needy citizens in the best way possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I, too, would like to put into perspective the statements made earlier today on the other side of the aisle relating to the economy. While it may be true that in this one quarter, growth statistics are up; the fact is, for this Presidency, as was clearly documented by the Senator from Florida earlier, growth has been anemic, 2.3 percent, the lowest economic growth for any recovery in this country, literally, in this century. What is also important, as was pointed out, is the fact that the median family income of America's working families has stayed stagnant. What has not stayed stagnant is the rate of taxes paid by those average families. That has been going up, as the Senator just indicated, to an all-time record high of over 20 percent. That is why American families are feeling a squeeze. They are working harder, their incomes are not going up, but their Federal taxes are going up. We need to address that, Mr. President. Now, earlier today, we heard from the other side of the aisle several critics of letting Americans keep more of what they earn. Tax cuts were criticized. It is not surprising that it came from the other side of the aisle; it is the other side of this aisle that voted in 1993 for the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Let us talk about the kind of tax cuts that can help America's families, like those we saw in the 1960's under a Democratic Presidency and in the 1980's under a Republican Presidency. Those tax cuts stimulated economic growth and created millions of jobs for working Americans. Those tax cuts also stimulated the chance for this economy to grow, and grow at record rates. In the 1980's we saw economic growth that greatly eclipsed what we are seeing this year. It is interesting. Notwithstanding the criticism that was leveled earlier at those tax cuts, and notwithstanding the myths that have been created about those tax cuts, the truth is those tax cuts did stimulate far greater revenue to the Federal Government from taxpaying Americans, because the economy did grow, and it grew at record levels, especially during the 1980's. It is interesting also as to who paid those increased taxes. It was people at the highest ends of the income spectrum who, freed from the high-tax burdens, decided to invest and risk their dollars in creating new jobs and economic growth. That is what we had. We had economic growth. We had more jobs, and we had higher tax revenues to the Federal Government. Interestingly, in the 1990's when tax rates were raised, upper income groups are paying less and lower and middle-income groups are paying more because the upper income groups have found ways to shelter their income to avoid taxation. In the 1980's they did not do it. They used their moneys to create jobs and opportunity, and paid more taxes. The other myth that I think needs to be exploded here today is the myth that somehow cutting taxes created the deficits that we had in the 1980's. The fact is, revenues increased during the 1980's after the tax cuts by approximately 56 percent. What increased faster was Federal spending in virtually every dimension by almost 70 percent. That differential, Mr. President, is the reason we saw deficits increase-- deficits increase--under a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. So, Mr. President, let us put this in perspective. Under this Presidency, median family income has remained stagnant while taxes have gone up. Under this Presidency, the growth rate has been the most anemic in any recovery of the Nation's history over the past century. That is not a track record of great accomplishment no matter how much it is sugar-coated. What we need to do is to give the working families of this country a chance to really keep up with the needs that they have by being allowed to keep more of what they earn, and a chance for the people who create jobs and opportunity to have the incentives to invest, to risk and to create entrepreneurial activity that will give us the jobs we need for the balance of this century and the next. Thank you very much.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I fully support the remarks of my fellow Michigan Senator regarding the unfair distribution of transit funds, and how the Senate must insist on the higher total funding level of $20 million for the State of Michigan. However, I wish to further elaborate on the distribution of these funds within the State of Michigan. The Michigan Department of Transportation has provided our offices with a project by project breakdown of this distribution, which Senator Levin has introduced. Per the fiscal year 1996 Transportation Appropriations Conference report, the full $1.23 million final project funding is recommended for the Lansing Intermodal Facility. Furthermore, we, in coordination with the Michigan Department of Transportation [MDOT], recommend that at least $1.8 million be appropriated for the Grand Rapids Area Transit Authority, and at least $900,000 to the Kalamazoo Transit Authority for buses and an intermodal facility. Finally, MDOT believes that as a start-up project, no more than $764,000 is needed for the Dearborn Intermodal Facility. No more than the remaining $7.13 million, in our coordinated opinion with MDOT, should be appropriated to MDOT for statewide distribution. There are other projects enumerated in the MDOT proposal, which melds the House and Senate marks, which we also believe deserve the designated level of support. Mr. President, I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee whether he cares to comment on this proposal?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of Michigan I would like to express my deep regret at the loss of several Michigan residents who lost their lives in the explosion of TWA Flight 800 near New York. We still do not know what happened to flight 800, and therefore do not yet know if there are culprits behind it who must be brought to justice. But we do know that the lives of fine people have been lost before their time. Mr. President, six people with close ties to Michigan died in this crash. They were Courtney Johns, an 18-year-old Bloomfield Hills Marian High School graduate, headed for Paris on an exchange program. Dr. Ghassan and Mrs. Nina Haurani, citizens and parents in Grosse Pointe Shores, starting a brief European vacation. Celine Rio, an 11-year-old French girl returning to her home after a 3-week visit as part of a national cultural exchange program. Tracy Anne Hammer, a doctoral student in veterinary science and microbiology at Michigan State University, who was to give a speech on cardiac disease in doberman pinschers before a professional audience. And Elaine Loffredo, a Michigan native who gave up a career in nursing for the excitement of air travel. Mr. President, these people touched the hearts of many around them, in Michigan and elsewhere. Courtney Johns was a class leader in high school who was headed to Villanova University in the fall. She leaves behind grieving friends and a family devastated by the loss of this young, promising life. Ghassan and Nina Haurani were known in their community as loving parents and good neighbors. Termed ``joyous, giving people,'' they, too, leave behind them grieving friends and a family that will miss them terribly. Tracy Anne Hammer, traveling with her mother, was well on her way to a promising career, was, indeed to launch that career in France, when she was taken from us, her family and friends. Celine Rio, a young girl on the edge of adolescence, had learned about America and had gained a second family in the Winters, her exchange program hosts. Now the Winters and her many other friends in America must join family and friends in France in lamenting the loss of this young spirit. And Elaine Loffredo, who found such joy in air travel and in the people she met--I am told that meeting Mother Theresa was a highlight of her career--was taken from her husband and other family and friends, by this explosion. Mr. President, these were fine people, leading fine lives until they were taken from us. I know I speak for my entire State of Michigan when I tell families and friends of those we have lost that we share their loss, and that our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Gertrude Ramsay Crain. With her passing on July 20, America's publishing industry lost one of its most accomplished members. After 4 decades of dutifully covering the Detroit business community, Mrs. Crain's presence will certainly be missed. In 1916, G.D. Crain, Jr., Mrs. Crain's late husband, founded Crain Communications. Eighty years later, this company employs 900 people worldwide. A leader in the area of business reporting, Crain Communications publishes 29 business newspapers and magazines. Among the most popular of these are Crain's Detroit Business, Automotive News, Auto Week, and Detroit Monthly. This company is a testament to the American Dream. Crain Communications demonstrates that those who work hard and are passionate about their product can succeed. Prior to her retirement earlier this year, Mrs. Crain held a variety of positions within Crain Communications, from secretary to assistant treasurer to chairman. During her tenure, Mrs. Crain's commitment to her craft did not go unnoticed. In addition to being the first woman inducted into the Junior Achievement of Chicago Business Hall of Fame, Mrs. Crain received an honorary doctor of humane letters degree from the University of Detroit, and was the 1993 recipient of the Magazine Publishers of America Henry Johnson Award, the highest honor given by the advertising and communications industry. Although Mrs. Crain made Chicago her home, Detroit can consider itself a fortunate beneficiary of her life's work. An invaluable asset to both communities, the value of Mrs. Gertrude Crain's contributions will live on for quite some time. We in Michigan are fortunate, indeed, to have had this woman and her family's company in our midst.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, last night Rich DeVos was honored in Detroit at the National Republican Leadership Award Dinner. Unfortunately, votes here in the Senate prevented me from attending. I am particularly sorry to have missed this event because I hold Rich in the highest possible esteem. His life's story is a continuing series of examples to us all of strong character, hard work, and principled generosity. After serving his country in the Air Force in World War II, Rich co- founded a flying school and commercial air charter service with Jay Van Andel. Three years later he co-founded an import business with the same partner. In 1959, he and his partner founded the Amway Corp. That venture grew to be one of the world's largest direct selling companies, recording $6.3 billion in sales last year. Rich is also owner and chairman of the NBA's Orlando Magic basketball team. Having succeeded through his own hard work, Rich has devoted more and more of his time to helping others. His speeches and books spread the word about compassionate capitalism, and he leads by example. He serves on numerous boards, including service as chairman of Gospel Films and the Butterworth Health Corp. He has given freely of his time and money for charitable organizations such as the National Organization on Disability, and for the cause of political and economic liberty. Rich is the recipient of literally dozens of prestigious awards, including the Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award from the American Legislative Exchange Council and the William Booth Award from the Salvation Army. He is a great friend to liberty, a great servant to those in need and a great credit to the state of Michigan. I, for one, have always been inspired by his work and his character; Rich DeVos is indeed one of our Nation's true heroes.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, Max M. Fisher was honored last night in Detroit at the National Republican Leadership Award Dinner. Unfortunately, votes here in the Senate prevented me from attending. I am particularly sorry to have missed this event because I hold Max in the highest possible esteem. Max Fisher's life exemplifies all that is good about our Nation and our people. Max joined with two partners to form his own oil company, Aurora Gasoline, in 1933, only 3 years after graduating from college. He became chairman of the board of Aurora in 1957 and went on to serve on the board of directors of Marathon oil in 1962. Max has served on the board of directors of numerous corporations and continues to serve on the boards of Comerica and Sotheby's. I can think of no man who has done more for his community than Max Fisher. He has served as founding chairman of Detroit Renaissance, founding member and former chairman of New Detroit, member of the board of Sinai Hospital, and in numerous other responsible positions helping individuals and communities. Central to Max's philanthropic mission has been his heroic efforts on behalf of Israel and world Jewry. He has served as chairman of the board of governors of the reconstituted Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, General Chairman of the United Jewish Appeal, Chairman of the Board of United Israel Appeal, and President of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds. In political life as well, Max has made great contributions. He has been an advisor and supporter of the last four Republican Presidents. In addition, he has been a supporter of the Republican National Committee for more than 40 years. We on the Republican side of the aisle owe our own special debt to Max. But all of America, as well as Israel and numerous persons around the world, owe him our thanks. With this statement I pay tribute to a great man, whose life's efforts demonstrate the awesome impact one individual can have on his surroundings.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues from Tennessee and Pennsylvania and other States, all of whom are trying find themselves in the same position as we do in Michigan. States across America know best how to deal with the problems of the people who live in those States. Places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and many other jurisdictions have attempted to address the problems of their most needy citizens in thoughtful ways designed to try to the best degree possible move people from dependency on government programs to the economic ladder. In Michigan we have been doing a variety of things over the past few years on a bipartisan basis; I would add to try to establish a set of programs that will work. These programs will work in Michigan. They might not work in Tennessee, or they might not work in New Hampshire. They might not work in Kentucky, or Pennsylvania. They are designed to work in Michigan. That is the way we believe welfare reform needs to be addressed, giving States the kind of flexibility to design programs best able to serve the constituencies in their jurisdictions. It is interesting. The legislation which recently passed in Michigan with respect to welfare reform passed the Michigan State senate by a vote of 30 to 7. It passed the State house of representatives by a margin of 85 to 22. I promise my fellow Senators that is not a reflection of the partisan makeup of those legislative chambers. A 30- to-7 vote in the Michigan Senate and 85-to-22 vote in the Michigan House of Representatives reflects an overwhelming bipartisan decision to put in place a set of welfare reforms that will work for our State. That is what has happened. These reforms come on the heels of others that have been implemented in the last 2 years. The results of Michigan's welfare reforms to date have been very impressive. Michigan's AFDC caseload has dropped from 221,000 cases in September 1992 to 176,000 cases in May 1996, a decrease of 45,000. The current AFDC caseload level is the lowest in nearly 25 years in Michigan. The caseload in our State have decreased for 26 straight months, and has fallen by more than 20 percent over the past 2 years. During fiscal year 1994 alone, nearly 30,000 individuals were placed into employment and since September 1992 over 90,000 AFDC cases have been closed as a result of earned income from employment. In addition, by January 1996 the number of cases with earned income had risen 31.1 percent compared to the 15.7 percent of cases with earned income in September 1992. Mr. President, this reflects a successful effort undertaken on a bipartisan basis in my State of Michigan designed to address the concerns and the problems of the neediest people in our State. We believe we have the best insight into solving Michigan's problems--a better insight than anyone in other States, and certainly a better insight than those in the bureaucracies in Washington. For that reason, Mr. President, I join in this amendment. We want to give Michigan the chance to go further, to continue the success that we have had, to build on that success to try to make sure that everybody in Michigan who in any sense desires the opportunity to move onto the economic ladder gets the chance to do so. So that is why I join in this amendment. The legislation which was passed in Michigan that became then the waiver sought from the Federal Government and that is part of this amendment here tonight is, I think, the right solution for our State. It is what the people of Michigan on a bipartisan basis have said is the right solution for our State. It frees us to give us the flexibility to move forward and solve people's problems rather than spending too much time solving problems created by bureaucracy. Just to put that in perspective, we did a study in Michigan. We talked to the people on the front lines in the social services department which we now call the Family independence department. We discovered, interestingly, that two-thirds of the time of the folks whose job it is to help people get out of dependency is spent not helping people get out of dependency but is spent handling paperwork and redtape, most of it emanating from Washington, and only one-third of this time is spent trying to actually assist the folks who they are trying to help. Our legislation will try to put the priorities where they ought to be. The proposal that we include in this amendment, this waiver that was sought, includes a number of innovations that will assist Michigan. It will require attendance for all adult AFDC, food stamp, and State general assistance applicants or recipients at a joint orientation meeting with the family independence agency and Michigan's Jobs Commission personnel as a condition of eligibility. It will require recipients to enter into a family independence contract. It will require compliance with work activity requirements within 60 days. Failure to comply will result in the loss of the family independence and AFDC benefits, and food stamps for a minimum of 1 month, and until there is compliance with work requirements. It will require teen parents to live in an adult supervised setting and stay in school. Failure to comply will result in case closure. The proposal includes many other similar programs designed to place incentives into the structure for people who, in fact, want to get out of dependency and onto the economic ladder. But at the same time our waiver is designed to give people some of the tools they need to be on that ladder. It provides greater employment-related services, guaranteed access to child care, guaranteed transportation so people can get to the jobs we hope to create and make available to them, and guaranteed access to health care for anyone leaving welfare for work--in short, assistance and incentives for those seeking employment just as we also include increased responsibility for individuals receiving assistance. Third, our program will remove unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations; provides a vastly simplified application form reduced from the current 30 pages down to 6; provides for the most dramatic simplification of AFDC food stamp and medical assistance anywhere in the country, and it streamlines services by establishing a single point of contact with the welfare office for each welfare recipient regardless of the mix of benefits received. Finally, the program encompassed in this amendment will strengthen families and increase community involvement. It provides additional funding for prevention services to help keep children safe and strengthen families. And, it will allow faith-based organizations to work with communities to address the needs of welfare recipients. In short, it is a balanced approach tailor-made to assist those in Michigan who are needy, and those in Michigan who are currently dependent on Government support in the best way we can craft to get out of that dependency and onto the economic ladder. We recognize how to do this in Michigan for our citizens. We have developed a plan that has moved us a long way in the right direction. If we were given the opportunities created by the waiver we have sought, which we embody in this amendment, we think we can go the final steps it takes to give the people in our State opportunity regardless of where they live, regardless of economic condition, and regardless of their current status. We will give them hope. That is what I believe this overall welfare reform bill before us is designed to do, to give States the flexibility, to give States the opportunity to design programs that will work for them, not programs that work in one State but programs that work individually State by State, not programs dreamed up in Washington but programs designed in State capitals and in major cities of this country for the people who live in those communities. For that reason, I strongly support this amendment. I believe that if Michigan, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and other States are given this flexibility, given the chance to have the programs they have designed put into place, it will create the kind of opportunity we want for every American citizen. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for bringing it before us this evening.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to recently released facts on the condition of our economy, and the fate of the American people in that economy. For too long, Mr. President, we have been subjected to the old canard that tax cuts favor only the rich, while intrusive government programs help the poor. The experience of this administration proves that this is not so. Under the high-tax, high-spending policies of the current administration, the rich have gotten richer while the rest of America has been caught in a Clinton crunch of stagnating wages and increased taxes, finding it increasingly hard to make ends meet. Federal taxes have risen under this administration to their second highest level in U.S. history. Federal revenues have risen from 19 percent of gross domestic product in the first quarter of 1993 to 10.5 percent in the first quarter of 1996. Taxes reached their highest level in 1981, just before the Reagan tax cut took effect, at 20.8 percent of GDP. At the peak of World War II, in 1945, taxes consumed just 20.1 percent of GDP. Have this administration's high taxes produced a more equal income distribution in America? Hardly. As the rich have become richer, most Americans have seen their incomes stagnate. The average real income of the top 5 percent of households rose by 19.8 percent between 1992 and 1994. Those in the top 20 percent of households experienced an increase of 10.1 percent. Meanwhile, those in the bottom 80 percent of households saw an average increase of only 0.6 percent. The result: The share of total income going to the top 5 percent increased from 17.6 percent in 1992 to 20.1 percent in 1994, and the share going to the top 20 percent rose from 44.7 percent to 46.9 percent. Republicans are not the party of envy. We do not believe it is government's job to penalize Americans for doing well in a free market economy. However, we can tell that something is wrong when the already well off are the only ones to see their incomes go up. And that is exactly what has happened under this administration. Real median family income in 1994 dollars has fallen from $40,890 in 1989 to $38,782 in 1994. So far in the Clinton administration real median family income has averaged just $38,343, compared to $39,632 in 1992. Real compensation per hour, wages plus benefits actually fell 0.7 percent in 1993 and 0.5 percent in 1994, and grew only 0.3 percent in 1995. This compares with a 2.1 percent growth rate in 1992. Why have most Americans experienced stagnant wages? Because the Clinton expansion, held back as it is by excessive taxes, has been lackluster at best. In 1995 real GDP grew at only a 1.3-percent rate. Growth in output per hour has fallen from 3.2 percent in 1992 to 0.1 percent in 1993, 0.5 percent in 1994 and 0.7 percent in 1995. And the much-vaunted drop in the unemployment rate from 5.6 percent in May to 5.2 percent in June hides a deeper problem. The broader measure of unemployment, the U-6 rate, actually rose from 9.5 percent to 10 percent. This rate includes discouraged workers who have left the labor force and those working part time who cannot find full time work. Indeed, Mr. President, much of the decrease in the unemployment rate is illusory because 7.7 million workers now must hold down two jobs to make ends meet. Even holding down two jobs is proving insufficient for many Americans to survive the Clinton crunch. The personal saving rate has fallen from 5.9 percent in 1992 to 4.5 percent in 1995. Consumer debt has skyrocketed from $731 billion in 1992 to over $1 trillion in 1995. And the American people cannot shoulder that much debt. The credit card delinquency rate reached 3.53 percent in the first quarter of 1996, compared with 2.93 percent in the fourth quarter of 1992. And personal bankruptcies reached 252,761 in the first quarter of 1996, only slightly below the yearly rate in the early 1980's. At this rate, personal bankruptcies will reach 1 million this year, an all time high. What we have, then, is a weak recovery held back by an astounding burden of taxation. I am not engaging in mere hyperbole, Mr. President. Federal taxes would have to be cut by $111 billion this year just to get the tax burden back to where it was when President Clinton took office. Worse, this extra tax burden has brought us greater unemployment than would otherwise be the case, along with consumer hardship for all but the wealthiest Americans. Mr. President, my friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of claiming that their's is the party of working families. But the economic news of recent months shows this to be false. Those who know how to hide their incomes do better under their high tax policies, while other Americans must take on extra work and go into debt just to hold ourselves and our families together. It is my hope that we can learn from this experience and set our Nation back on a course of lower taxes, less government and greater opportunity for the ordinary working families of America.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great personal sadness that I note the passing of Alex Manoogian, a highly respected community leader and businessman from Detroit, MI. Mr. Manoogian was revered as the most influential leader in the Armenian-American community in Detroit and throughout the United States. Mr. Manoogian came to the United States from his native Armenia in the 1920's, and settled in Detroit shortly thereafter. He soon founded the Masco Corp., a small venture which by 1936 became the first company owned by an Armenian to be listed on the stock exchange. He married the former Marie Tatian, who passed away in 1992, and was the father of a daughter, Louise, and a son, Richard. Mr. Manoogian was a member of the Armenian General Benevolent Union [AGBU] and the Knights of Vartan. By the 1940's he had been elected the national commander of the Knights and director on the central board and then president of the AGBU. In 1970, the AGBU voted him life president, and then in 1989 honorary life president, for his tremendous contributions. Under Mr. Manoogian's leadership, the Knights of Vartan Brotherhood established an endowment fund through which it donated services to the church and other charitable, educational, and cultural organizations. Also under his leadership, the AGBU established the Alex and Marie Manoogian Cultural Foundation, which has supported the publication and translation of many scholarly and literary works, funded cultural activities and provided assistance to needy Armenian intellectuals and educators throughout the world. Mr. Manoogian was a generous man who contributed to various hospitals, museums, libraries, universities, schools, and other charitable and cultural organizations in the United States and around the globe. He leaves us with many institutions throughout the world bearing his family name. In recognition of his international philanthropy, Mr. Manoogian was awarded the Ellis Island Award, the Knight of Charity Award, the Presidential Medal from Argentina, the Cross of St. Gregory the Illuminator by His Holiness Vasken I, the Catholicos of all Armenians, the First Order of the Cedars by the President of Lebanon, the Cross of St. James by his Beatitude the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the 50th Anniversary Medal by the Prime Minister of Armenia. The President of the Republic of Armenia awarded him the honor of National Hero, and the President of Nagorno-Karabagh bestowed upon him the Medal of Honor of Artzakh. He was a fine man, whom I personally shall miss. I extend my deep condolences to the Manoogian family. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to recognize today as Metro Detroit Youth Day in my home State of Michigan. I commend the many sponsors and organizers of this event, being held today at Belle Isle's athletic field in Detroit. Recognizing the importance of leisure and recreation in improving the lives of youth, the sponsors and organizers of Metro Detroit Youth Day have dedicated their time and resources to giving young people in Detroit an opportunity to participate in recreational activities in a safe, yet competitive, environment. Metro Detroit Youth Day emphasizes the need for physical education and fitness with the need for good sportsmanship. It brings together community leaders, business leaders, service organizations, and young people. Over 14,000 youth and 700 volunteers will participate this year. I would like to pay special tribute to the following cochairs of Detroit Youth Day. In chairing this event, they have given young people examples to follow and have been role models for many others in the community--both young and old. They truly have made this day count. And so, I commend Harold Edwards of MichCon; Edward Deeb of Michigan Food and Beverage Association; Sharon Williams of Omni-Care; Tom Moss of West Side Athletics; Detroit Police Chief Isiah McKinnon; Ernest Burkeen of the Detroit Recreation Department; and Keith Bennett with Starr Commonwealth Schools. In 1991, Metro Detroit Youth Day received the 477th Point of Light Award. In the spirit of that award, I offer congratulations and thanks to all who continue to make Metro Detroit Youth Day a success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reform our campaign financing system. I am doing so because I feel that it is important to dispel the all too common notion that candidates are improperly influenced by campaign contributions. In my view it is not difficult for an honest politician to arrange financing in a way that avoids the appearance as well as the reality of corruption. But, because too few candidates choose to impose these rules on themselves, we need legislation to show them the way. When I ran for the Senate in 1994 I voluntarily imposed limits on the contributions I would accept from out-of-State sources and from political action committees. I refused to accept any more than 20 percent of overall contributions from PAC's. I also refused to accept more than 25 percent of overall contributions from out-of-State donors. I did this because I wanted to make sure that the bulk of my support came directly from Michiganians. And, with this policy in place, I won handily. I am certain that other candidates would find that they can run successful campaigns with such self-imposed limits. More important, these limits would increase politicians' accountability to their constituents and decrease the appearance of special interest influence. Unfortunately, too few candidates appear willing to take the crucial step of placing limits on their own campaigns. Thus, to increase accountability, my bill would codify limits similar to the ones I imposed on myself in the 1994 campaign. All Federal candidates would have to follow the same rules, dictating that they receive no more than 20 percent of overall contributions from PAC's and no more than 33 percent of overall contributions from out-of-State/ district donors. Additionally, in my bill, I have proposed a system of PAC democracy. This system would mandate that PAC's receive input from their donor- members, whereby all donor-members would have a vote in how and where the PAC donations are to be distributed. Furthermore, I have proposed that the individual contribution limit be increased to reflect the monetary realities in 1996, and that this limit be indexed each year after based on the consumer price index. I believe that campaign finance reform should begin at home--with candidates pledging to abide by their own self-imposed limits. I have codified contribution limits in my own campaign finance reform bill; a bill which I believe has the effect of permitting candidates to speak freely while curbing the influence of special interest and out-of-State moneys. By limiting these nonconstituent contributions, we can increase communication between candidates and voters, enabling voters to make better, more informed decisions concerning who can best represent them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reform our campaign financing system. I am doing so because I feel that it is important to dispel the all too common notion that candidates are improperly influenced by campaign contributions. In my view it is not difficult for an honest politician to arrange financing in a way that avoids the appearance as well as the reality of corruption. But, because too few candidates choose to impose these rules on themselves, we need legislation to show them the way. When I ran for the Senate in 1994 I voluntarily imposed limits on the contributions I would accept from out-of-State sources and from political action committees. I refused to accept any more than 20 percent of overall contributions from PAC's. I also refused to accept more than 25 percent of overall contributions from out-of-State donors. I did this because I wanted to make sure that the bulk of my support came directly from Michiganians. And, with this policy in place, I won handily. I am certain that other candidates would find that they can run successful campaigns with such self-imposed limits. More important, these limits would increase politicians' accountability to their constituents and decrease the appearance of special interest influence. Unfortunately, too few candidates appear willing to take the crucial step of placing limits on their own campaigns. Thus, to increase accountability, my bill would codify limits similar to the ones I imposed on myself in the 1994 campaign. All Federal candidates would have to follow the same rules, dictating that they receive no more than 20 percent of overall contributions from PAC's and no more than 33 percent of overall contributions from out-of-State/ district donors. Additionally, in my bill, I have proposed a system of PAC democracy. This system would mandate that PAC's receive input from their donor- members, whereby all donor-members would have a vote in how and where the PAC donations are to be distributed. Furthermore, I have proposed that the individual contribution limit be increased to reflect the monetary realities in 1996, and that this limit be indexed each year after based on the consumer price index. I believe that campaign finance reform should begin at home--with candidates pledging to abide by their own self-imposed limits. I have codified contribution limits in my own campaign finance reform bill; a bill which I believe has the effect of permitting candidates to speak freely while curbing the influence of special interest and out-of-State moneys. By limiting these nonconstituent contributions, we can increase communication between candidates and voters, enabling voters to make better, more informed decisions concerning who can best represent them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, every 4 years, for 2 weeks the collective attention of the world falls upon those exceptional men and women who possess the drive, ability, and character to compete as Olympians. From July 19 to August 4, 1996, the centennial anniversary of the Modern Olympic Games will be held in Atlanta, GA. On this occasion, America's greatest athletes will face their counterparts from 197 countries. All of our Nation's citizens have a vested personal interest, and deservedly so, in the accomplishments of our athletes and coaches. However, it is the families, friends, and neighbors of these individuals who are especially qualified in their pride. Olympic talent cannot be attained overnight, it takes years to hone and develop; undoubtedly an impossibility without the support and encouragement provided by local communities. At least 30 individuals with distinct ties to my State of Michigan will take part in the upcoming centennial Games. Whether native born and raised, to attend school, to train, or to coach, they all share some sort of affiliation to the Great Lakes State. While the following men and women will participate in the Olympics first and foremost as Americans, I would like to take a moment to recognize them also as Michiganians: Bob Allshouse, Birmingham, team leader, table tennis. Frankie Andreu, Dearborn, men's road, cycling. Thomas Carlton Bruner, Ann Arbor, 1,500m free, swimming. Pam Bustin, Haslett, defender, field hockey. David DeGraaf, Lansing, circle runner, team handball. Tom Dolan, Ann Arbor, 400m free, 200m, 400m IM, swimming. Greg Giovanazzi, Ann Arbor, assistant coach, volleyball. Charlie Greene, East Lansing, assistant team leader, track and field. Grant Hill, Detroit, forward, basketball. Mora Kanim, Ann Arbor, assistant coach, volleyball. Al Kastl, Mount Clemens, team leader, Greco-Roman wrestling. Mike King, Grand Rapids, head coach, archery. Charles Karch'' Kiraly, Jackson, beach volleyball. Tom Malchow, Ann Arbor, 200m fly, swimming. Ann Marsh, Royal Oak, women's foil, Fencing. Floyd Mayweather, Grand Rapids, featherweight, boxing. Al Mitchell, Marquette, head coach, boxing. Eric Namesnik, Ann Arbor, 400m IM, swimming. Connie Paraskevin-Young, Detroit, women's track, cycling. Suzanne Paxton, East Lansing, women's foil, fencing. Jeffrey Pfaendtner, Detroit, men's lightweight four, rowing. John Piersma, Ann Arbor, 200m, 400m free, 800m FR, swimming. Annette Salmeen, Ann Arbor, 200m Fly, 800m FR, swimming. Kent Steffes, Ann Arbor, beach volleyball. Todd Sweeris, Grand Rapids, men's doubles, table tennis. Sheila Taormina, Livonia, 800m FR, swimming. Kirk Trost, Ann Arbor, assistant coach, wrestling. Jon Urbanchek, Ann Arbor, assistant coach, swimming. MaliVai Washington, Ann Arbor, men's doubles, tennis. Eric Wunderlich, Ann Arbor, 200m breast, swimming. The founder of the modern Olympic games, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, is credited with having written the Olympic Creed, which is as follows: ``The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.'' It is inevitable that next month in Atlanta records will be broken, heroes will be born, and Olympic legends will be created. However, before the first event gets underway and the medal counts begin, each and every athlete and coach deserves our respect and admiration. For in the spirit of the Olympic Creed, the dedication to undergo the years of intense training and preparation necessary to become an Olympian, is a significant victory in itself. To be chosen to represent one's country, and State, is an awesome responsibility; and I have full faith and confidence our athletes and coaches will perform with distinction. I salute these extraordinary men and women for their achievements thus far, and look forward to news of even greater successes on their part in the days ahead.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep condolences to the King family of Battle Creek, MI, who lost S. Sgt. Ronald Lewis King due to the terrorist act which took place at the Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. My prayers and thoughts are with his mother, Mrs. Beatrice Robinson of Battle Creek, MI, and his wife, Mrs. Melvia Y. King of Bellevue, NE. Staff Sergeant King was a contracting journeyman with the 55th Contracting Squadron from Offutt Air Force Base, NE. He was proudly serving our country in Saudi Arabia, and know I speak for many in the State of Michigan who feel this tragedy very deeply. We must do everything we rightfully can to prevent future tragedies of this sort and to see to it that the perpetrators of this terrible act are brought to justice. I reiterate my support for the cooperative efforts between the United States and Saudi Arabia to ensure that those terrorists who committed this crime will be apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, to introduce legislation that will allow the State of Michigan to proceed with the third phase of its comprehensive welfare reform program, known as ``To Strengthen Michigan Families.'' This legislation is similar to legislation which recently passed the House of Representatives that authorized the State of Wisconsin to proceed with its latest welfare reform initiatives without requiring formal waiver approval by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 1992, Michigan began a comprehensive overhaul of its welfare reform programs. This effort, called ``To Strengthen Michigan Families,'' was guided by four major principles that distinguished it from existing Federal welfare policy. First, Michigan sought to eliminate many of the existing disincentives for welfare recipients to find work and to earn money. Second, Michigan proposed to end the elements in the current system which serve either as an incentive for families to split up or as a disincentive for couples to become or to remain married. Third, Michigan sought to instill increased personal responsibility among welfare recipients by making greater demands of them with respect to finding work or obtaining the education and skills necessary to finding future employment. Fourth, Michigan sought to supplement these changes in personal and familial behavior with a commitment to greater involvement on the part of community-based institutions, especially faith-based organizations. With reforms in each of these areas, Michigan began its crusade to end long-term, chronic welfare dependency. It required executive action by the Governor, acts of the State Legislature, and waivers from HHS from many burdensome or counterproductive regulations that were symptomatic of the existing failed system. And in 1994, Michigan enacted and began implementation of its second set of comprehensive welfare reforms, building on the foundation established by the original reform initiatives. The results of Michigan's reforms to date have been impressive and demonstrate Michigan's success in moving people off of welfare. Michigan's AFDC caseload has dropped from 221,884 cases in September 1992 to 176,634 cases in May 1996--a decrease of 45,250 cases. The current AFDC caseload level is the lowest in nearly 25 years in Michigan. Caseloads in our State have decreased for 26 straight months and have fallen by more than 20 percent over the past 2 years. There is similar evidence that Michigan's emphasis on placing welfare recipients into employment activities has been effective. During fiscal year 1994 alone, nearly 30,000 individuals were placed into employment. In addition, by January 1996, the number of cases with earned income had risen to 31.1 percent, compared to the 15.7 percent of cases with earned income in September 1992. The most recent figures available--May 1996--for percentage of caseload with earned income is 29.1 percent. Since September 1992, over 90,000 AFDC cases have been closed as a result of earned income from employment. In developing the latest round of reform initiatives, Michigan created advisory committees to make policy recommendations in four core areas of public assistance: AFDC and other cash assistance, child care, child protection, and Medicaid. These advisory committees were each comprised of 50 to 100 people selected to represent a broad cross- section of community leaders, service providers and advocates, and users of services. These advisory committees conducted over 400 focus group meetings involving more than 4,000 participants. Their objective was to analyze the current system and identify barriers to greater program efficiency and to moving people more quickly and compassionately from welfare to self-sufficiency. The advisory committees were a key reason why these reforms received such strong bipartisan support in the Michigan State Legislature. The Michigan State Senate adopted the reform package on a vote of 30 to 7. The State house of representatives passed the legislation by a margin of 85 to 22. In the latest series of reforms, we impose tougher requirements on welfare recipients, but we also pledge more assistance--including child care, transportation and health care--in helping those who are attempting to make the transition from welfare to work. The goal is not to punish people who receive welfare. Rather, we believe people who are in need of assistance and receive it have some important responsibilities of their own. We stand ready to assist them as long as they are willing to make genuine efforts toward becoming self- sufficient. Mr. President, if Congress and the President cannot agree on comprehensive welfare reform legislation at the national level, I believe individual States must be allowed to implement their own bold and innovative new approaches to ending welfare dependency. Under the present system, States are required to obtain prior approval from HHS before they implement many types of reform. The latest package of Michigan reforms would require 76 waivers. When you consider that during the 3\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration HHS has only approved 67 waivers nationwide, there is tremendous concern as to how long it will likely take for all of Michigan's waivers to become approved--if they ever are all approved. The bill I am introducing today will provide the State of Michigan the latitude it needs and deserves to conduct effective welfare reform until it can be enacted at the national level. As I discussed earlier in my remarks, Michigan's leadership in the area of welfare reform is well-known. To date, the reforms have been very successful--both in moving people off of welfare and in improving the quality of life for those who remain on welfare. The latest round of reforms follows in the tradition of tough but compassionate welfare policies that we in Michigan started in 1992. The people of Michigan deserve to be allowed to move forward expeditiously with these latest reform initiatives. It is my hope that the Clinton administration will move quickly to approve all of the necessary waivers that have been requested. If that does not happen, the legislation that I have introduced in the Senate today--and that my friend and colleague Representative Dave Camp is introducing today in the other body--will be available for us to bring to the floor for debate and hopefully passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the reforms included in the most recent proposed reforms in the Michigan program be included in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, to introduce legislation that will allow the State of Michigan to proceed with the third phase of its comprehensive welfare reform program, known as ``To Strengthen Michigan Families.'' This legislation is similar to legislation which recently passed the House of Representatives that authorized the State of Wisconsin to proceed with its latest welfare reform initiatives without requiring formal waiver approval by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 1992, Michigan began a comprehensive overhaul of its welfare reform programs. This effort, called ``To Strengthen Michigan Families,'' was guided by four major principles that distinguished it from existing Federal welfare policy. First, Michigan sought to eliminate many of the existing disincentives for welfare recipients to find work and to earn money. Second, Michigan proposed to end the elements in the current system which serve either as an incentive for families to split up or as a disincentive for couples to become or to remain married. Third, Michigan sought to instill increased personal responsibility among welfare recipients by making greater demands of them with respect to finding work or obtaining the education and skills necessary to finding future employment. Fourth, Michigan sought to supplement these changes in personal and familial behavior with a commitment to greater involvement on the part of community-based institutions, especially faith-based organizations. With reforms in each of these areas, Michigan began its crusade to end long-term, chronic welfare dependency. It required executive action by the Governor, acts of the State Legislature, and waivers from HHS from many burdensome or counterproductive regulations that were symptomatic of the existing failed system. And in 1994, Michigan enacted and began implementation of its second set of comprehensive welfare reforms, building on the foundation established by the original reform initiatives. The results of Michigan's reforms to date have been impressive and demonstrate Michigan's success in moving people off of welfare. Michigan's AFDC caseload has dropped from 221,884 cases in September 1992 to 176,634 cases in May 1996--a decrease of 45,250 cases. The current AFDC caseload level is the lowest in nearly 25 years in Michigan. Caseloads in our State have decreased for 26 straight months and have fallen by more than 20 percent over the past 2 years. There is similar evidence that Michigan's emphasis on placing welfare recipients into employment activities has been effective. During fiscal year 1994 alone, nearly 30,000 individuals were placed into employment. In addition, by January 1996, the number of cases with earned income had risen to 31.1 percent, compared to the 15.7 percent of cases with earned income in September 1992. The most recent figures available--May 1996--for percentage of caseload with earned income is 29.1 percent. Since September 1992, over 90,000 AFDC cases have been closed as a result of earned income from employment. In developing the latest round of reform initiatives, Michigan created advisory committees to make policy recommendations in four core areas of public assistance: AFDC and other cash assistance, child care, child protection, and Medicaid. These advisory committees were each comprised of 50 to 100 people selected to represent a broad cross- section of community leaders, service providers and advocates, and users of services. These advisory committees conducted over 400 focus group meetings involving more than 4,000 participants. Their objective was to analyze the current system and identify barriers to greater program efficiency and to moving people more quickly and compassionately from welfare to self-sufficiency. The advisory committees were a key reason why these reforms received such strong bipartisan support in the Michigan State Legislature. The Michigan State Senate adopted the reform package on a vote of 30 to 7. The State house of representatives passed the legislation by a margin of 85 to 22. In the latest series of reforms, we impose tougher requirements on welfare recipients, but we also pledge more assistance--including child care, transportation and health care--in helping those who are attempting to make the transition from welfare to work. The goal is not to punish people who receive welfare. Rather, we believe people who are in need of assistance and receive it have some important responsibilities of their own. We stand ready to assist them as long as they are willing to make genuine efforts toward becoming self- sufficient. Mr. President, if Congress and the President cannot agree on comprehensive welfare reform legislation at the national level, I believe individual States must be allowed to implement their own bold and innovative new approaches to ending welfare dependency. Under the present system, States are required to obtain prior approval from HHS before they implement many types of reform. The latest package of Michigan reforms would require 76 waivers. When you consider that during the 3\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration HHS has only approved 67 waivers nationwide, there is tremendous concern as to how long it will likely take for all of Michigan's waivers to become approved--if they ever are all approved. The bill I am introducing today will provide the State of Michigan the latitude it needs and deserves to conduct effective welfare reform until it can be enacted at the national level. As I discussed earlier in my remarks, Michigan's leadership in the area of welfare reform is well-known. To date, the reforms have been very successful--both in moving people off of welfare and in improving the quality of life for those who remain on welfare. The latest round of reforms follows in the tradition of tough but compassionate welfare policies that we in Michigan started in 1992. The people of Michigan deserve to be allowed to move forward expeditiously with these latest reform initiatives. It is my hope that the Clinton administration will move quickly to approve all of the necessary waivers that have been requested. If that does not happen, the legislation that I have introduced in the Senate today--and that my friend and colleague Representative Dave Camp is introducing today in the other body--will be available for us to bring to the floor for debate and hopefully passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the reforms included in the most recent proposed reforms in the Michigan program be included in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, under President Bill Clinton, the Federal tax burden as a percentage of national income has risen to the second highest level in American history. As reported by economist Bruce Bartlett, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the first quarter of 1996 Federal taxes consumed 20.5 percent of gross domestic product. Only during periods of war and other unique economic circumstances has the tax burden risen to such levels. For instance, at the height of World War II in 1945, and of the Vietnam war in 1969, Federal taxes took only 20.1 percent and 20.3 percent of GDP, respectively. During the late 1970's and early 1980's, double-digit inflation and a Tax Code that was not indexed for inflation pushed the tax burden to an all-time high of 20.8 percent of GDP. President Clinton's 1993 tax increase--the biggest tax increase in the history of the world--is largely responsible for raising the tax burden from 19.2 percent of GDP in President Bush's last year to today's 20.5 percent of GDP. In my view, there is absolutely no justification for imposing such a heavy tax burden on the American people. We ought to let American people keep more of what they earn so that they can do more for their families and communities. And the best way to accomplish this is to reduce income tax rates for everyone by at least 15 percent. I ask that Mr. Bartlett's Detroit News editorial be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. The editorial follows: [From the Detroit News, June 24, 1996] A Surging Record of Clinton Tax Load (By Bruce Bartlett) Recently released data show federal taxes continuing their relentless upward trend. As I have previously reported, federal taxes consumed 20.4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) last year--the second highest level in American history. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, however, in the first quarter of 1996 federal revenues have risen by another 0.1 percent to 20.5 percent of GDP. As the figure indicates, federal revenues have now risen by 1.5 percentage points of GDP during the Clinton administration. This works out to an increase of just over 0.1 percent of GDP every quarter Bill Clinton has been in office. On this basis, we can anticipate that by the fourth quarter of 1996 federal revenues will equal their all-time high of 20.8 percent. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that gross domestic product will amount to $7,584 billion in 1996. Thus if revenues were simply to return to the level they were at when Bill Clinton took office, we would have to cut taxes by $114 billion this year. And every quarter that tax revenues as a share of GDP rise another 0.1 percent, we must increase the size of the tax cut by an additional $7.6 billion. Predictably, the Clinton administration is hostile to the idea of a tax cut. With the sole exception of John F. Kennedy, no Democratic president in history has ever proposed a major tax cut. Democrats always want to hold on to every last dollar of the taxpayers' money--no tax cut is ever as valuable to them as the equivalent amount of government spending. Even if they were convinced that a tax cut was justified, it is always ``unfair'' to cut tax rates because that means that those who pay the most taxes get a bigger tax cut. That is why Democrats like tax credits, because they are tax equivalent of government spending. Republicans, by contrast, have historically supported tax rate reductions and increases in tax exemptions, which allow people to keep more of their own money. Republicans in Congress, therefore, committed a fatal error when they made the $500 child credit the centerpiece of their tax plan. It essentially is Democratic tax policy. As a result, the differences between the two parties on the central issue of taxation have become blurred. Moreover, the Republicans' obsession with balancing the budget at all costs has blinded them to the need for a tax cut vastly larger than the minuscule $122 billion over six years that they have proposed in their latest budget. They should be talking about a tax rate reduction of at least 15 percent across the board.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sincere condolences to the families and friends who lost their loved ones in the horrible terrorist act which took place at the Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. My prayers and thoughts are with the victims and with those who lost their loved ones or who had their loved ones injured by this terrorist attack. And, like every Member of this Senate, I am fully supportive of United States and Saudi cooperative efforts to ensure that those terrorists who committed this crime will be apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our top priority today and always ought to be the protection and safety of all the citizens of our country wherever they may reside or are stationed. We are all very proud of the American servicemen and women who serve and represent our country all over the world. We must do everything we rightfully can to prevent future tragedies of this sort and to see to it that the perpetrators of this terrible act are brought to justice. When incidents like this occur, we in the United States become acutely aware of the highly sensitive position that we, as Americans, are often in at home and abroad. Whether it is a foreign or domestic terrorist, we must unfortunately take extra precautions and institute extra security measures to protect ourselves. The administration has greatly emphasized how the Saudi Government has acted with urgency and professionalism in assisting with our response to this tragedy. I believe this highlights the deep and significant relationship the United States does have, and must continue to maintain with the Saudi Government, bilaterally, and in conjunction with our other gulf allies. Just as the United States has steadfastly refused to bow to terrorism, so to must we preserve and sustain this critical bilateral relationship in order to continue to fight against terrorism.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns regarding S. 1219, the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996, and to explain my vote against the cloture petition. Let me begin by stating that I support campaign finance reform. However, the reform we need is not to be found in S. 1219. In my view, the biggest problem with the way our political campaigns are financed is that it gives rise to the perception that special interest donations are dominating the political agenda. Indeed, many Americans believe that special interest money is the source of great corruption in our political campaign system. While we should try to address this problem statutorily, I feel it is unnecessary to wait for legislation before those of us concerned act. To that end, when I ran for the Senate in Michigan in 1994, I personally imposed my own limits on the amounts I would accept from both out-of-State sources and political action committees, and they were as strong or stronger than those in S. 1219. I lived up to that pledge and still won my seat. Now I recognize that not everyone will disarm unilaterally, so I do believe we must seek to achieve a similar outcome legislatively. Unfortunately, S. 1219 is overly broad and, if anything, likely to tilt the field even further in the direction of special interest influence. In my view the central question we must address in reforming campaign financing is ``whose voice shall be heard during the campaign?'' The proposals set forth in S. 1219 would have the ironic effect of limiting the speech of the candidate while expanding the speech of the special interest groups. The proposed legislation would encourage candidates to abide by certain expenditure limits, thereby restricting their ability to communicate with the voters. Conversely, the legislation does little to curb the ability of special interest groups to spend their money independently of any restrictions. This allows interest groups to define the central issues of the campaign. It forces candidates to follow the lead of these interest groups, preventing the voters from hearing directly from the candidates and judging for themselves which candidate has the proper positions and the proper priorities. I believe that the solution begins with limiting the amount of out- of-State/district contributions and PAC donations as I did in my own campaign. By limiting out-of-State/district contributions we can address the perception that House and Senate Members are not primarily focused on the priorities of their own constituents. Similarly, by placing a limit on the amount of PAC contributions a candidate may receive, we can address the concern that public officials are unduly influenced by special interest groups. Mr. President, I am also concerned about provisions in S. 1219 which shift resources from the private sector to the candidates. These provisions, in effect, allow candidates to do as they please with other people's involuntarily extracted money. The idea that taxpayers, through special postage rates, should subsidize complying campaigns, seems to me wrong. And, just as the taxpayers should not be obligated to finance someone else's political speech I feel it inappropriate to extract such subsidies from the owners of broadcast entities. Mr. President, I believe that campaign finance reform should focus on limiting PAC and out-of-State/district money. I have codified these limits in my own campaign finance reform bill which I believe has the effect of permitting candidates to speak freely while curbing the influence of special interest and out-of-State moneys. In contrast, S. 1219 permits the increased influence of special interest money while curbing candidates' ability to communicate with the voters. For these reasons, I have voted against cloture and look forward to advancing my own legislation in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, I joined 40 Republicans to oppose the nomination of Alice Rivlin to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. I wanted to take a moment now to explain my vote. Let me emphasize that my vote should not reflect personally on Dr. Rivlin. Instead, it was exclusively based upon the manner in which the Clinton administration has not been forthcoming regarding its budget submission for fiscal year 1997. As has been made clear in previous debates, in order to reach balance by the year 2002, the Clinton budget would require dramatic discretionary spending cuts in 2001 and 2002. These cuts would affect programs across the Government, including veterans' health care, medical research, and WIC. Subsequent to the submission of this budget, several Cabinet Secretaries testified before Congress that the spending cuts required under the President's budget were subject to renegotiation on a yearly basis and should not be taken literally. In other words, the President's own appointees, who helped put his budget together, were claiming that the policies necessitated by that budget were not going to be pursued. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Rivlin has been requested to account for the conflict between the President's budget and the testimony of his Cabinet Secretaries. As of this afternoon, however, Dr. Rivlin has been unable to provide what would be termed, in my opinion, as a suitable explanation. That is why I opposed her nomination. Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, let me make myself clear. I have no misgivings about Dr. Rivlin's fitness or ability to fill the position to which the President has nominated her. Instead, my vote reflects my dismay at Congress' inability to get a straight answer from the administration about whether it stands behind its budget submission or not.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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