Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise at this time to speak in concert with so many others who have spoken today about the career of Senator Bob Dole who today moved on to a new role and new responsibilities and left behind a legacy that is virtually unsurpassed in the history of the Senate. Obviously, the accomplishments that Bob Dole achieved, both as a leader in the Senate as well, in his earlier career, as a Member of the House of Representatives, have been chronicled pretty thoroughly both by the media as well as by Senator Dole himself today. It is a legislative record that any of us would be, I think, immensely proud to have at the end of our careers here in this institution. So, what I thought I might do instead was to just spend a minute or two talking about the personal side of Bob Dole, the side that many of us here in the Senate know but which is maybe not as well known to the American people. I have certainly come to know Bob Dole as a friend. He is somebody who, from the very day that I arrived in the Senate, had a door that was open to me, and I know it was open to others in the freshman class that makes up this 104th Congress. He is a man who did not view himself as a senior Member and we as, somehow, junior Members not to be on the same playing field, but somebody who viewed us all as Members of this institution, as equals, who treated us that way, as he treats everybody. He is a man of great compassion, a person who, through his own life's experiences, I think, probably cares about and sympathizes and understands the problems that his fellow citizens have more than virtually anybody else in national leadership. He is a person who, I think, personifies the words trust and honesty and integrity more than anybody I have ever worked with in the political process or in the private sector. I have never known anybody who has served with Bob Dole who has not said that his word was good, that his word was always one that you could count on. That is clearly a reason why he is held in such high esteem on both sides of the political aisle. These qualities, his capacity to be a good friend, his compassion for his fellow citizens, the honesty, the trust and the integrity that he brought to his service here in the Congress of the United States, make him a giant, in my opinion, a giant who will be remembered far beyond the balcony which today was named after him. But he will be remembered along with the names of Webster and Clay, Johnson, Mansfield, and others who have served and who are remembered as the important ingredients in the formation of our democracy and its continuation. I would just say this. Although my tenure in the Senate has lasted only a year and a half, I am extraordinarily proud that I had the chance for that year and a half to serve with Bob Dole. I happen to be one of those who believes that his career in public service is not coming to an end today but that in just a few months he will be back in a different role, working together with us. But I am proud that I had the chance to serve as a fellow Member of the U.S. Senate with him. Some people come to this Chamber and perhaps never are given the opportunity to work closely with one of the giants of our Nation's history and of the Senate's history. I feel very lucky and fortunate to have had that chance, even if it was only for a year and a half. I wish him and his family great good fortune as they move on to a new challenge in this political campaign, and the best of luck and best wishes for the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the successful partnership of the city of Saline, MI, and the town of Brecon, Wales in the Sister Cities Program. Thirty-years ago next month, under the People-to-People Program established by President Eisenhower, a bond was forged between these two communities. In the words of Saline Mayor Patrick J. Little, ``We have become one community separated by a large body of water. Over two generations have had the pleasure of learning about each other's culture.'' To celebrate this occasion, next month approximately 50 members of the Brecon community will visit Saline, the highlight of which will be the first ever Celtic Festival on July 6. I would like to extend a warm welcome to our visitors from Brecon, and congratulate the citizens of both cities for their three decades of cooperation and friendship.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia for once again bringing together a group of Members to discuss an issue of significance. He has been doing an outstanding job, I think, of trying to make sure the public understands exactly what it is that is happening here in the Senate of the United States with the crisis and what the prospects are for our future. Today, I will continue this discussion about the balanced budget. There seems to me to be two fairly clear questions that Americans need to ask themselves. First, why do we need a balanced Federal budget? Second, why do we need a balanced budget amendment in order to have a balanced budget? The first question was really one that I think was addressed pretty effectively last year. That was the need for bringing the Federal budget into balance. The fact is that, as numerous Members have indicated over the last couple of days, a balanced budget means for most families in this country the chance to keep more of what they earn and to spend more on their own priorities rather than spending more money on interest payments, on things like new car loans, mortgages for their homes, the repayment of student loans, and so on, as has been very effectively documented, Mr. President. When our Federal Government is forced to go into the borrowing markets at large levels and compete with private investment, the price of private investment goes up, interest rates go up. When people want to buy a new home, and in many cases their first home, they find that it is unaffordable today because of interest rates. When people need to obtain a new car, they find that it may be not the car they need for their families because of interest rates. When students start to try to pay back their student loans, they find it extremely difficult because of interest rates. The reason interest rates are high, Mr. President, is because the Federal Government is borrowing so much money. The way to end the Federal Government's borrowing is to bring the Federal budget into balance. That is what we have been trying to do here. But the goal is not just simply to balance the budget one time in the year 2002, as we have been focused on; it is to keep the Federal budget under control and the growth of Federal spending under control well beyond that date. There is a very simple reason why 2002 has to mark the beginning, not the end, of the efforts to balance the budget. As we have learned and as I think economists on all sides now would agree, projecting the growth of Federal spending out beyond the year 2002, projecting the growth of entitlement programs as they at least currently are expanding, will find the Federal Government by the year 2010, 2012, 2013, depending on your analysis, but some point about 15 years from now at the point where literally all Federal revenue, all tax collections in total, will only pay for the interest payments that have to be made on this huge Federal debt and for the entitlement payments that will be required at the current rate of growth of Federal spending. That means not $1 for national security, not $1 for education and training, not $1 for law enforcement to protect the safety of our citizens, not $1 for transportation and infrastructure, not $1 for any other priority unless the Federal Government borrows that $1 or prints that $1. We know we are not going to go back to the days of the printing press, Mr. President. So that leaves only one option: The further borrowing of money at levels far greater than we ever have before. If we do not bring the growth of Federal spending under control and balance the budget today, that is the prospect, that is the future we look forward to. In fact, it would require so much Federal borrowing that I think private investment in this country would effectively be crowded out entirely, bringing us the kind of economic crisis that we have never confronted before as a nation. That is the future. The question is, Why do we need an amendment so we do not bring about that future? I think what has happened over the last few months is a pretty clear indication exactly why we need a Federal balanced budget amendment in our Constitution. The fact is, Mr. President, we now have virtually everybody singing, it would appear, from the same song sheet. We should have to balance the Federal budget. The President says it, although a year ago he did not. The Members of the Republican party in the Senate and the House of Representatives have, not once but twice, passed a balanced budget. This year Democratic Members and Republican Members on the Senate side got together and offered a third version. The fact is, everybody now says they are for it; and everybody in Congress has now found a balanced budget they could live with and vote for. But we still do not have it. The reason we do not have it, Mr. President, is very simple: There is no discipline in the process that requires us to come to final agreement. So the President, as we saw last winter, could call down leaders of Congress and spend hours talking in generic terms about the Federal Government and how he wanted to balance the budget, but no one was under the pressure that a constitutional amendment would bring in order to balance that budget.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Georgia. For that reason, we have deadlock. For that reason, we did not reach cloture. For that reason, there was no finality. On we went, on we go-- people all claiming to be for a balanced budget, but not willing to make the ultimate tough decision to get there. As we saw last year, the President would say 7 years, 9 years, 10 years, whatever amount of years seem to satisfy the audience, voters, or polls. We did not get the balanced budget. Mr. President, it is imperative that we do so. We have to consider exactly where the country will be if we continue to flounder along. As we learned yesterday, just to take one specific program area, Medicare, we know where we are going to be if we do not bring about the kind of discipline in the fiscal process that the Senator from Georgia has been talking about the last 2 days. Where we will be in the year 2001; the Medicare trust fund will go bankrupt. We are no longer talking, as has been the case in the past, in general terms about a bankruptcy somewhere in the distant future. We are not talking, as even we were last year, about having 7 years to solve the problem. We are talking about bankruptcy of the Medicare trust fund on our doorstep in 5 years. We are talking for the first time, Mr. President, not about the Medicare trust fund running a surplus, but it is now running a deficit. If that is not enough of a wakeup call, I ask my colleagues, what would it take? Obviously, there are some who believe you can continue to put this off. Indeed, the Senator from Georgia today brought us this card which quotes from Wednesday's Washington Times: ``The Democrats said they are not concerned that Medicare will go broke because Congress has always acted at the last minute to avert disaster.'' That may have been the way the Democratic Congress acted in the past. This Republican Congress does not believe in putting off and putting off and putting off the solutions to the problems that Americans, particularly that our seniors confront, Mr. President. Not only that, but we understand if we do not solve the problem today with a well-thought-through plan, the only alternative way to fix the problem at the last minute will be the kind of plan that I do not think most Americans are going to want or going to tolerate. In fact, we have a sense of what that plan will be. Congressman Stark from California, who is the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee that oversees the funding of the entitlement programs, the person who would be chairman of that subcommittee if his party were in charge of the House of Representatives, said the Democrats probably would resort to either a Government takeover of the hospital and health-insurance payment system, or raise payroll taxes. For Americans who are trying to understand the difference between what we are suggesting on our side, Mr. President, and what the opposition is suggesting, I think this quote probably encapsulates things about as vividly as it possibly could. The Republicans had offered a plan here over a lengthy period of time to reduce the growth of spending in entitlement areas--not cutting, but just reducing the growth of that spending--through more prudent and efficient operation of these programs, by giving seniors, to take the Medicare case as an example, giving seniors the kind of choice the rest of us have as to how we will deal with our health care, but basically preserving intact a system that gives individuals control over how they take care of themselves in the health care they receive. Now, if we do not address this problem in the fashion Republicans are offering, to avert disaster and bankruptcy in Medicare, the alternative will be this: A system the Democrats will design that will include either the hiking of payroll taxes or a total Government takeover of the health-care system. I actually predict, Mr. President, that if we wait any longer, under the Democratic scheme you will get both of these--not one, both. So that, Mr. President, puts it in pretty clear contrast, what the options are for Americans today. If we balance the budget, if we put a constitutional amendment in place that requires discipline not just for 1 year but for the future of this country, then we can guarantee our children the kind of security that we have had, the kind of knowledge that if they work hard, play by the rules and do their jobs, they will have choice over their destiny. If we do not, their destiny is going to consist of higher taxes, Government-run health care, and more Government intrusion into their lives. As far as I am concerned, Mr. President, when I talk to the people of my State, the answer to this question is pretty simple. People in Michigan want to control their own destinies, give their children more opportunity, and see the Government run the way their families are run. Keeping their own budget balanced is a challenge most American families and almost every Michigan family confronts every day. I think we should expect no less here in Washington. For that reason, I am very disappointed the balanced budget amendment failed. I continue to join and will join with the Senator from Georgia and others to do our best to make sure sooner or later the balanced budged amendment to the Constitution passes.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, along with several of my colleagues, I rise today to commend the many people helping to conduct our fight against breast cancer and to promote participation in an event that has increased in stature each year it has been held: the National Race for the Cure. Saturday morning, June 15, several thousand people will gather down on the mall near the Washington Monument to compete in the 1996 National Race for the Cure, either by participating in a 5 kilometer run or a one mile walk. The purpose of this race is to help raise money for and focus attention on breast cancer, one of the major threats to the lives and health of women in this country. Numerous corporations have made financial and in-kind contributions to help support this event--including several Michigan corporations such as Kelloggs, General Motors and Ford--and they are to be commended for their generosity and dedication. Also, the U.S. Postal Service will be unveiling a stamp promoting early detection and treatment of breast cancer. The race is put together by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the largest private funder of research dedicated solely to breast cancer in the U.S. Efforts such as the Race for the Cure and other events held in 67 cities in 35 States and the District of Columbia enable the Susan G. Komen Foundation to fight breast cancer through a combination of research advocacy, education, screening and treatment. We are on the edge of crucial breakthroughs in the area of breast cancer research and treatment. For instance, researchers at the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health have located the section of the gene that they believe dictates the genetic and hereditary nature of breast cancer. The efforts of private organizations such as the Komen Foundation, when combined with the work done through Federal agencies such as NIH, increase the real likelihood that a cure for breast cancer will be discovered in the foreseeable future. Breast cancer education and activism are not new to the Abraham family. Ever since my Mother's death back in 1982 from breast cancer, our family has been involved in efforts to heighten awareness and promote early detection of this devastating disease. Among our recent activities, just last month, my wife Jane and I participated in the Michigan Race for the Cure. Jane is also serving on the Congressional Committee for the National Race for the Cure being held next Saturday. Too often it takes the loss of someone close and dear to one's heart to properly focus our attention and energy on spreading the word about silent killers like breast cancer. That is why it is critical for those of us who have experienced the tragedy of breast cancer to speak out and inform women--and men--of the dangers of ignorance and procrastination. And it is vital that men become involved in this issue as well, reminding their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters of the importance of early detection and treatment. It is only through such efforts that we can see to it that people no longer have to lose a loved one before learning the bitter truth about this devastating and deadly illness. Once again, I want to commend everyone involved in putting together this year's race. I urge Members and their staff to participate in the race itself and to provide support to the broader cause of increasing education, treatment and research in the battle against breast cancer.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Michigan in sponsoring this legislation. I think that Federal Prison Industries plays an extremely valuable role in giving prisoners something useful to do with their time and helping them to develop the self-discipline and other virtues that enable people outside of prison to lead productive lives. I am convinced, however, that these same goals can be accomplished within the parameters set by this legislation. I also see no reason why the law abiding owners of small businesses and the workers they employ should be deprived of any opportunity to bid for a class of government contracts in favor of FPI. Finally, I appreciate Senator Levin's acceptance of my suggestion to include section 2, which I believe provides useful encouragement to FPI to try to concentrate its expansion efforts in the direction of goods that the Government presently acquires by importing them.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Michigan in sponsoring this legislation. I think that Federal Prison Industries plays an extremely valuable role in giving prisoners something useful to do with their time and helping them to develop the self-discipline and other virtues that enable people outside of prison to lead productive lives. I am convinced, however, that these same goals can be accomplished within the parameters set by this legislation. I also see no reason why the law abiding owners of small businesses and the workers they employ should be deprived of any opportunity to bid for a class of government contracts in favor of FPI. Finally, I appreciate Senator Levin's acceptance of my suggestion to include section 2, which I believe provides useful encouragement to FPI to try to concentrate its expansion efforts in the direction of goods that the Government presently acquires by importing them.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. The objective of our amendment is to actually accomplish the goal of funding the violent crime reduction trust fund for the years 2001 and 2002. The trust fund is currently set to expire just 4 years from now. This amendment keeps the fund going through the year 2002, providing necessary support for prison grants, the COPS Program, the Violence Against Women Program, and so on. To pay for it, we have offset funds from the 600-function programs for the years 2001 and 2002. We point out that even with this offset, there will still be more dollars in this budget for those programs than was in the administration's request for those programs, and, therefore, we think this is an effective way to both guarantee adequate funding for 600 programs and maintain the violent crime reduction trust fund.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment offered by myself, Senator Hatch and Senator Coverdell is designed to effectuate the goals of the first-degree amendment, but rather than doing it by sense of the Senate, we actually want to get the job done.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I would yield myself 5 minutes to speak on and in relation to amendment No. 3986 by Senators Wellstone and Kerry. This is an amendment which pertains to the violent crime reduction trust fund. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Since the time has not been yielded back, I am not in a position at this point to offer a second-degree amendment that I had considered, but I anticipate doing that at the appropriate moment. I do want to speak in relation to this issue though because I think it is a fairly significant one. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that has been offered talks in terms of full funding of the violent crime reduction trust fund. I think, Mr. President, we should go further than just put this in the context of a sense of the Senate. Indeed, my intention is to offer a second-degree amendment which would accomplish the goal of fully funding the violent crime trust fund by moving moneys for the years 2001 and 2002 from function 600. It is my view that we should also stop, the administration should be much more up front and much more consistent with regard to the facts concerning the COPS Program, and I think in addition that we should take action to minimize the administrative overhead in relation to the COPS Program. The second-degree amendment which I will offer tomorrow along with Senator Coverdell would try to accomplish both of these objectives. Specifically, under the current law the violent crime trust fund is set to expire in the year 2000, just 4 years from now. This amendment that we intend to offer would provide the funds to keep it going to the year 2002. That would mean funds for the prison grants; the GREAT Program; Violence-Against-Women Program; violent crime reduction programs for the Justice Department; INS, DEA, FBI; funding for the immigration initiative and border control programs; Byrne grants, and the COPS Program. We will be offering this amendment in due course to the Wellstone amendment because we feel the issue deserves more than just the sense- of-the-Senate recognition. We believe the trust fund needs to be protected. The underlying Republican budget already fully funds the trust fund. We plan to carry it forward through the year 2002. In terms of the offset, it is our belief to fund this there would be corresponding reductions to function 600 in the budget. For those Members who might argue we should not be reducing this function below what was reported by the Senate Budget Committee, I point out that the Republican budget includes significantly more funding under function 600 in the years 2001 and 2002 than the President's budget that we voted on last week. Specifically, over those 2 years the Republican budget currently exceeds the President's budget in the following areas: Low-income housing, $4.26 billion more; refugee and entrant assistance, $189 million more; child care and development block grants, $330 million, the WIC program, over $1 billion more, and the Commodity Assistance Program, $66 million more. In other words, even after the amendment we would plan to bring tomorrow is adopted, the Republican budget will still provide more funding for these programs within the 600 function than the budget that the President has offered. At the same time, it would give us the ability to fully fund the violent crime trust fund. So at this point I conclude my remarks in that I must become the Presiding Officer here. I will be yielding time to the Senator from Georgia so that he might make further comment on this. At this point I call upon him. Mr. EXON addressed the chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. If the Senator from Delaware would like to go ahead, I think actually the Senator from Georgia will take over this seat so he can take it upon himself.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a brave warrior in the fight against child abduction. Special Agent Roy Johnson of the Detroit FBI Field Office is being honored today by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for his heroic efforts in rescuing Adam and Eleazar Alvarado, aged 11 and 3, from their abductors. Adam and Eleazar are the children of migrant farm workers from Mission, TX. They were abducted in Benton Harbor, MI, on October 14, 1995. The boys had walked to a grocery store to buy potato chips while their mother was washing clothes in a nearby laundromat. They were abducted by Boyd Dean Weekly, a convicted child molester then out on bail on charges involving the sexual abuse of an 8 year old girl. Less than 10 days later Special Agent Johnson recovered the Alvarado children and arrested their abductor. Johnson accomplished this amazing feat by responding quickly and decisively to news of the abduction. He requested that NCMEC broadcast fax posters--in English and Spanish--of the missing children to all law enforcement agencies. Expeditiously searching out and following up on a number of leads and sightings, he concluded that the abductor was taking the children south. Special Agent Johnson then quickly and tirelessly disseminated information to all FBI field offices in the Southern United States. These efforts produced leads concerning possible sightings in Alabama, and it was concluded that Weekly was headed toward New Orleans. An FBI team set up surveillance in New Orleans' French Quarter. Soon thereafter the agents observed and arrested Weekly, who was driving a stolen car with the missing children in it. Special Agent Johnson's hard work, working with numerous offices and agencies, tirelessly following leads, disseminating information, and coordinating efforts, should inspire us all. His example shows that children abducted by strangers can be recovered safely if the response from law enforcement officers is swift, efficient, and thorough. I would like to congratulate him on a job well done, the other three law enforcement officers being honored by NCMEC for their extraordinary service resulting in the recovery of missing children, and NCMEC for its continuing, important efforts on behalf of children.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on Friday, May 3, 1996, I had the honor and pleasure of hosting a luncheon here in the U.S. Senate on behalf of furthering awareness and understanding of the neurological disorder neurofibroma- tosis. The luncheon, held in the Russell Caucus Room, was sponsored by Neurofibromatosis, Inc., a national nonprofit organization with chapters around the country which provides support for individuals and families affected by NF. NF, Inc., also promotes greater education and awareness of NF and helps spur further research into its causes and treatment. Neurofibromatosis is one of the most common genetic conditions of the nervous system. NF can strike any family, and there is no known cure. NF is a progressive disorder that causes tumors to form on nerves throughout the body. It manifests itself in two genetically distinct forms, the most common of which strikes approximately 1 in 4,000 individuals. Although unpredictable, NF can cause hearing loss, vision impairment, seizures, bone deformities, learning disabilities, and cancer. Congress has consistently supported aggressive research into NF and has encouraged the National Institutes of Health to coordinate their activities in order to intensify research into NF's link to learning disabilities and its connection to other serious tumor diseases, including cancer. In addition to providing Members and their staff with the opportunity to learn more about NF, the luncheon gave the organization's membership an opportunity to present awards to several individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the cause of finding a cure for and effective treatment of NF. Our colleague Senator Nancy Kassebaum was recognized for her work on behalf of NF and other genetic conditions as a member--and now as chairman--of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Human Genome Research, also received an award for his work in this area. Much of what is now known about the link between NF and human genetics is the result of research conducted by Dr. Collins while he was a professor and researcher at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor from 1984 until his selection in 1993 to head the human genome project. And Dr. Martha Bridge Denckla, director of the developmental cognitive neurology division of the Kennedy-Krieger Institute in Baltimore, was named the 1996 NF, Inc., scholar, recognition for the significant contribution she has made to the understanding of NF and learning disabilities. However, the highlight of this event for me was meeting and talking to two other individuals who played prominent roles in the luncheon's program and who happen to hail from my State of Michigan. The first person, Mrs. Rosemary Anderson, has a long record of activism on behalf of individuals with NF and their families. Rosemary Anderson currently resides in Grand Rapids and is co-president of the NF Support Group of West Michigan. Rosemary joined a fledgling NF support group back in the mid-1980's and, shortly thereafter, took over running it along with another colleague, Bette Contreras. Since then she and Bette have turned this group into an instrument of information, education, and emotional support that has become indispensable to the people of west Michigan with NF and their families. Through Rosemary's work at the NF Support Group of West Michigan, she came to know and work with Dr. Francis Collins during his tenure at the University of Michigan. They have continued to stay in touch and remain good friends, and therefore, it was quite fitting that Rosemary was chosen to formally introduce Dr. Collins at the luncheon. The other person is Rosemary's daughter, Ms. Gillian Anderson. Gillian, who grew up in Grand Rapids and now lives in Vancouver, British Columbia, is the star of the hit Fox Network television series, ``The X Files.'' Gillian was kind enough to appear at the luncheon which introduced her to Capitol Hill and drew public attention to the NF cause. While in Washington, DC, she took other steps to promote greater awareness of NF and to seek increased funding for NF research. She and Rosemary appeared on the local ``Fox Morning News'' show, and Gillian taped a public service announcement on NF which is to be aired nationally over the Fox Network. Mr. President, it was truly wonderful to see how much that crowd admired Gillian Anderson. I think every person who attended that luncheon stayed afterward to have their picture taken with her and have her sign an autograph for them--either on the NF, Inc. newsletter or on magazine covers which contained her picture. However, I was moved even more by the poignant and compelling remarks that Gillian made as the luncheon ended. Her touching comments, revealing her own experience and perspective regarding NF, captivated the audience. I would like to share her comments with my colleagues because I think, in many ways, they transcended the issue, neurofibromatosis, that brought so many people to that event in the first place. Her remarks really conveyed the despair and the hope that surround every disease or condition for which there is no cure or effective treatment. As intimate and personal as her observations were, I believe they warrant expression to a wider audience than was able to hear and learn from them that afternoon. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask that a transcript of Ms. Gillian Anderson's remarks be printed in the Record. The transcript follows:

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of this side, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in accordance with the earlier unanimous consent agreement, at this time I move to table the Rockefeller amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the Rockefeller amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Abraham amendment, beginning at 8:30 p.m. this evening, with the first vote being the standard 15-minute vote, the following vote being limited to 10 minutes in length.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the majority is prepared to yield the remainder of its time on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Let me yield myself up to 5 minutes to also speak on the amendment. Mr. President, as I look at this amendment that is before the Senate offered by the Senator from Nebraska in response to the previous amendment from the Senator from Missouri, once again I am struck by the approach that is being taken with regard to the President's budget. I talked several times about the President's budget during the course of this debate and tried to point out the extent to which the claims the budget includes relief for America's taxpayers are exaggerated. Once again we see the approach being taken to make sure taxpayers end up with less. The President's budget claims initially it will provide Americans with $99 billion in tax relief. When you include the various so-called corporate loopholes and other increased revenues involved with the President's budget, the net tax relief drops to $36 billion. Then, when you terminate the various tax cuts as triggered in the year 2000, it reduces total tax relief between the year 1996 and the year 2002 to $6 billion approximately. Mr. President, $6 billion works out to about $1 billion a year, or 250 million Americans working out to $4 per American per year in the budget that the President is offering. That is not a lot of tax relief by my standards. I think it would not be seen that way by the American people. Here comes yet another wrinkle. An amendment that would further change the bottom line on taxes with regard to this budget. Indeed, by increasing the revenue side of this equation by an additional $13 billion, we now eliminate all of the tax relief contained in the President's budget and instead have turned the President's budget, should this amendment pass, into one which would have a net tax increase of $7 billion. I cannot imagine that is the approach the American people want us to take, to actually increase, on a net basis, the taxes we burden them with. Some will argue that these taxes would somehow fall on the corporations, the big companies, and so on. I question that, Mr. President. It seems to me the big taxpaying entities have discovered a lot of ways to pass along the taxes to the average working families in America. Indeed, during the recent debate about the gas tax repeal, we were told that the 4 cent repeal would never get to the consumers because the intermediate-stage corporations would somehow find a way to pocket the dollars for themselves. If that is true for the gas tax, it will certainly be true for this tax. If this increase is put into our budget, we will again see the actual people paying for it, the hard- working families of our country. I have to stand in support of what the Senator from Washington just said, complimenting the Senator from Missouri for his amendment and urging its support and urging our colleagues to oppose an increase in taxes as would be contained in the amendment being offered by the Senator from Nebraska. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself 10 minutes to speak to the amendment. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia and I from time to time agree on things in the Chamber, and on this occasion we disagree on the approaches being taken to Medicare. Let me just begin by trying to put in context the magnitude of the problem which we confront. While it may be true in the past there have been projections that Medicare, the part A trust fund was headed toward insolvency at some point in the future, we have never come this close before in the following sense. We have never before faced a situation where we actually were paying more dollars out of the trust fund than taxpayers were paying into the trust fund, but that, indeed, is where we are today. Last April, the Clinton administration estimated that the trust fund balance would increase by $4.7 billion in fiscal year 1995 and 1997 would be the first fiscal year in which it would run a deficit. However, Department of Treasury figures indicate now that the Medicare Program ran a deficit of $37 billion in fiscal year 1995, 2 years earlier than expected. CBO has projected that based on this change in circumstance, Medicare is now likely to become insolvent as early as the year 2000. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record at this point a letter from the head of the CBO, June O'Neill, which indicates their projected timetable. Mr. President, the concerns I think all of us have about the solvency of the part A trust fund are ones that need to be addressed. They need to be addressed decisively. I agree with the Senator from West Virginia that we must confront the long-term population projections, the aging of the baby boom generation and the impact that will have on Medicare, but I do not think we should postpone dealing with that problem until down the road in some commission. I think we have to begin laying the foundation for dealing with that problem now. That is what we are trying to do with the Republican budget before the Senate here tonight. New estimates, as I said, by the Congressional Budget Office post the year 2001 as the likely point at which the trust fund part A will be insolvent. Matters seem to be getting worse. Last year, Republicans offered a systemic change, an effort to try to create a competitive choice system for Medicare recipients. We were able to get that through the Congress, but, unfortunately, it was vetoed ultimately. But the direction we are moving in is one that will try to address this problem both short term and long term. Contrary to some of the comments that have been made, the Finance Committee has had, it is my understanding, 13 hearings already on Medicare in this Congress. But the fact remains that there are two basic choices for us to make here in the U.S. Senate. The President has offered a proposal which essentially maintains the solvency of the part A trust fund by shifting, from the part A trust fund, vital programs, home health care, to the tune of approximately $50 billion, maybe a little bit more than $50 billion, and through that mechanism produces a greater solvency for the trust fund. We, on our side of the aisle, do not think that is the appropriate way to address the problem. Countless Americans depend on the part A trust fund to provide those home health care services. Moving them out of the trust fund, moving them into the general account, making them, instead, subject to congressional deliberation and imposing their costs on the taxpayers, or to force those programs to be competitive with others, is not the way to go. If that is the solution we are going to take every time the trust fund approaches insolvency, if we say the answer is to move parts of the programs under the trust fund out of the trust fund, I do not think that is providing seniors with much security at all. In fact, I think for any senior who is listening to this debate, I would warn them if we set the precedent saying the way we are going to address the pending insolvency of the Medicare part A trust fund is by taking away services and putting them up for negotiation and debate in part B, or in some other way to be dealt with by the Congress, we are undermining the confidence that seniors will have in Medicare, and it will continue in my judgment. So, instead of approaching it that way, what we have attempted to do on the majority side is to provide what we think is a comprehensive approach to guaranteeing the solvency for 10 years of the part A trust fund. In addition, what we have done is to take the President's own number, which is $44 billion of savings in the part B Medicare portion of the budget. So what that means is that we are taking action that will guarantee the solvency of part A for 10 years, through the year 2006. That is, I think, a goal worthy of us and one that we should, I think, accomplish for purposes of protecting the American people who are dependent on Medicare. And we are using the President's own projected savings in part B of $44 billion to arrive at our Medicare objective. Now that may not be the approach that others support. They seem to feel we need to try to increase the funding. But if we increase the funding in Medicare we are only creating, I think, a more serious insolvency problem. If we do not begin now to reform the programs to create the options and the choices for Americans so we can begin to reduce the rate of growth of the Medicare Program, we are inviting even greater problems at a sooner point, in my judgment. We strongly oppose the amendment that is being offered. We think that the President's approach is not the proper way to go. We think that the approach of just spending more money without trying to reform the system is not the approach to take. Certainly we do not think the way to go is to have the usual solution around here of more taxes to fund programs. We need to reform the programs themselves. So, for those reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. It is my understanding, I say to Senator from West Virginia, we at least will not vote on anything before 8 o'clock. There is an agreement to not have any votes prior to that. At whatever point debate on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia ends, if there is no further debate, I plan to speak briefly about it. I am prepared to offer another amendment which, I think, would be in order, which will address Medicare and probably open up further discussion about the topic we have been discussing for the last half hour or so. Whatever point we decide there is no further debate on this, I am prepared to bring another amendment for discussion. I do not believe there is an agreement on specifically when we would vote. My understanding is we would not vote on anything prior to 8 o'clock.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I say to the Senator, I do not know of any other people right now on our side who are prepared to speak. I have been told several Members were coming to the floor earlier, but I have not seen them. I am not certain we will not have speakers. I have a few brief comments to make on the amendment before us, and I am prepared to bring up another amendment discussing the topic of Medicare that I presume we will debate for some period of time. I have received no further word from anyone on our side with an interest in speaking. I do not know whether on your side there are others who plan to come down. It is my understanding there are approximately 30 minutes left on each side.

Mr. ABRAHAM. And I can offer my amendment when we either exhaust the time or it has been yielded back. Mr. President, I will speak to the amendment for such time as I may need at this point. I want to make a couple of points, following up on my earlier statement. As you know, Mr. President, I expressed the concern that we have on our side over the way the President has attempted to address the Medicare issue. Specifically, the provisions in his budgets which would transfer the home health care expenditures from the part A to the part B fund. The Senator from West Virginia has indicated that the rationale from a policy standpoint for doing this is the fact that some 16 years ago, or just prior to the year 1980, there was a limit on the duration of part A's coverage for home health care and a prerequisite of a previous hospitalization was necessary to trigger that part A coverage. I only say this. If we are going to use as a standard for changes in Medicare the fact that at one time we did it differently, there would certainly be plenty of other Medicare-related issues then that would fall under that policy justification. For example, last year, there was a pretty significant debate here before the Senate over the question of the percentage of part B premium that would be paid by the recipients, by the people in the Medicare Program, a debate on whether or not the percentage would be dropped from 31 to 25 percent. It was argued at that time that we should not maintain a 31 percent, we should reduce it. That is a debate that has passed, but the fact is, there was a time in the program where the percentage of co-pay of the part B recipients was much higher than 31 percent. So I do not think it is at least a reasonable justification to say that, because 17 years ago, the Medicare Program was structured a certain way, that that alone, or in any sense, is a justification to return to that approach. The same, presumably, is true for a variety of other ratios, formulas, reimbursements, and so on, whether it is for direct medical, education, or other components. Clearly, they have changed over the years. It just seems to me that to say we can move home health care out of part A because at one time it was structured differently does not reach the most important element here, which is, by doing this, we are changing dramatically the expectations of part A Medicare recipients. Those people believe that home health care is, in fact, part of that trust program. It is, in fact, not subject to the availability of funds or the need to either increase taxes or find other spending cuts to justify payments for it. And that is why we feel the President's budget does not really meet the challenge for us. I would like to say a couple of other things with respect to the specifics of the amendment before us. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's Medicare proposal would not maintain solvency of the part A Medicare trust fund for the full 10 years that we want. In fact, the projection is that it would be insolvent by the year 2005. Now, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that, in the President's budget, the reductions in the growth--I will give the President the benefit of the doubt and not call it a cut. By reducing the growth by $116 billion, the President's budget maintains solvency not for 10 years but for 9 years. If, in fact, the $50 billion that is proposed in this amendment were used to increase the rate of growth of the Medicare Program, as proposed in our budget, then the actual total net change under our budget would only be $108 billion over the period of time our budget covers, through 2002. In other words, it would be less savings than in the President's budget. So, in other words, if this amendment were to pass, Mr. President, then we would be, in fact, not ensuring the solvency of part A of the trust fund as long as the President even does, and we believe on this side that the President's proposal to maintain solvency through 2005 is not adequate. So I think it is important for our colleagues to understand that, in supporting this, they are in fact supporting an amendment that would bring about the insolvency even earlier than that which would be the case under the President's budget, and certainly which would be the case under our budget. I also wanted to clear up one other point, Mr. President. In the tax cut provisions in the budget we are offering, the total amount of $122 billion, I believe, is targeted--it does not, in fact, even cover fully the $500-per-child tax credit. So there, in fact, would not be enough money to fund the other tax cuts beyond the $500 tax credit in the budget which we have. To summarize, we have several facts that I think need to be revisited. First, the Medicare trust fund is going broke. At the current rate of growth in spending, at the current rate of projection from the Congressional Budget Office, it will go broke in 2001. We cannot let that happen, Mr. President. Second, I think we want to make sure that its solvency is not maintained for a short duration of time--3, 4, 5, 6 years--but we want it to be solvent for 10 years. The President's budget would not accomplish that. If this amendment passes, our budget would not accomplish that either. Finally, we on the majority side do not want to eliminate the home health care protections under the part A trust fund. The President's budget would do that and, obviously, there is a sharp difference there. So, in short, Mr. President, we are prepared and desire to fix and repair the trust fund and maintain solvency for a decade. We think that is the least we can do to address this problem at this time. In our judgment, at least, anything short of that does not meet the mark, does not provide our seniors with the protections they need, does not provide the trust fund with the protection it needs. We want to give families a chance to keep more of what they earn. That is why we have the money in this budget for a tax cut. But it is not connected to the Medicare issue at all. Once again, to portray it that way is simply inaccurate. We have the Medicare part A trust fund headed toward bankruptcy. For the first time, in 1995, it was actually spending more than it was taking in. The time has come to repair it for a sufficient period of time, and to allow us to focus on a broader and even longer term fix, which is clearly needed. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.