Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time I would like to offer an amendment for myself and Senator Domenici.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment that I have sent to the desk is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment regarding changes in the Medicare Program. It is certainly in keeping with the sentiments which have been expressed by both the Senator from Michigan as well as the current Presiding Officer when he was here on the floor a few minutes ago. Just to go through the salient points of the amendment, the amendment, in achieving the spending levels specified in this resolution, says that the public trustees of Medicare have concluded that the Medicare Program is currently unsustainable in its present form; Two, the President said that it is his goal to keep the Medicare hospital trust fund solvent for more than a decade, but his budget transfers $55 billion of home health care spending from part A to part B Medicare; Three, that the transfer of home health spending threatens the delivery of home health care services to some 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries; Four, that such a transfer increases the burden on general revenues and income taxes paid by working Americans by $55 billion; Five, that such a transfer artificially inflates the solvency of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, misleading the Congress, Medicare beneficiaries, and working taxpayers; Six, that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has certified that without such a transfer, the President's budget extends the solvency of the hospital insurance trust fund for only 1 additional year; And, seven, that without transfers, the President's budget, therefore, fails to achieve his own stated goal for the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund. Therefore, it is our amendment's sense of the Congress that in achieving the spending levels specified in this resolution, the Congress assumes that the Congress would keep the Medicare hospital trust fund solvent for more than a decade as recommended by the President and accept the President's proposed level of Medicare part B savings of $44.1 billion over the period 1997 through 2002 but would reject the President's proposal to transfer home health spending from one part of Medicare to the another, a transfer which would threaten the delivery of home health care services to 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment incorporates much of what I have been talking about here tonight and much of what we discussed during our deliberations in the Budget Committee. It is our goal on the majority side to try to achieve the two objectives that have been set forth by the President, at least his stated objectives: One, to make sure with the part A transfer of funds that Medicare remains solvent for a decade; and, two, achieve savings of approximately $44 billion in the part B portion of Medicare. We just do not think that is the way to do this or that it is an appropriate way to accomplish this objective by transferring vital services that have been covered by the trust fund into the part B portion of Medicare, the area that is not covered by the trust fund. We believe it is essential that the Congress be on record clearly as stating that. So, for those reasons, we offer this sense-of-the-Congress amendment here tonight. We hope that our colleagues will support it. We feel, as I have been talking for the last hour, and others, the Presiding Officer as well, that we are headed, with respect to the part A trust fund, in a direction of insolvency far sooner than anticipated, that, in fact, with the trust fund now operating at a deficit for the first time in history, we are waiting for the new projections, but the day of reckoning is much closer at hand. We do not think it is appropriate to stand by while the trust fund moves quickly toward insolvency. We recognize the need to act now, and act decisively. It is not inappropriate to act decisively by restraining the growth in the ways we are recommending. We are doing what is necessary to protect the fund from going bankrupt and making sure that protection extends for a decade. Similarly, we accept the President's proposal to try to reduce the part B expenses in the growth of Medicare by $44 billion under this budget. We think that is the most appropriate way to address the Medicare problems at this time. We would strongly urge our colleagues to reject the previous amendment at the proper time, when we come to vote, and to instead support our sense-of-the-Congress resolution which embodies much of what is in our budget as presented to the Senate here this evening. I yield the floor. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. We have not agreed to that at this point. Let me just state for the benefit of all our colleagues, it is also my understanding there is an interest on both sides to proceed at some point to a vote on the President's budget tonight. I think, as I understand, the Senator from California would like to have debate on her amendment tonight, not necessarily a final vote tonight. So I think we can work out something else: A vote on the President's budget can take place in a way that would allow those Members who have other obligations to fulfill them this evening and still accommodate your desire to have the debate, for the next amendment to be yours. But I do not think we have worked those two parts out. I think on your side there is an interest in making both of those things happen. I guess we just have not proceeded to the point of having that agreement worked out. This is as far as we were able to, basically, negotiate.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to get an indication of how much time has been used on each side.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Approximately 20 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I am wondering in light of that--we have Senator Frist who has been hoping to have a chance to speak to this. There are only about 5 minutes left. Can we agree to let him finish the debate to the point that the vote has been agreed to? With that, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee until the vote is at hand.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think we should begin by just reminding everybody what we are about. Pending is an amendment to the Republican budget resolution which would substitute the President's budget for our own. So I will incorporate here in my comments remarks both about that budget itself, as well as the amendment by the Senator from Tennessee. The President's budget, in my judgment, is quite deficient in a variety of ways. We can call it a balanced budget if we want to, but as the amendment before us reveals, it is only a balanced budget if drastic reductions in discretionary spending take place in the final years of that budget. But that is not the only problem with the budget. First, and foremost, I believe the budget is inadequate to deal with the Medicare crisis which faces this country. We know already that the Medicare part A trust fund is headed towards bankruptcy. We have not gotten the most recent projections of the trustees of the Medicare trust account, but we believe that the date of bankruptcy will be much sooner than anticipated just a year ago when the majority attempted to try to address the problem and were thwarted by the President and the minority. The fact is that Americans expect the trust fund to be solvent. Right now the trust fund is paying out more than it is taking in. It will reach insolvency far sooner than anticipated. What we have attempted to do, in the budget that the majority has presented here today, is to try to keep that trust fund solvent for 10 years. The President's budget attempts to do that by simply removing a very vital part, home health care, from the trust fund and moving it off the trust fund somewhere else. If that is the way we are going to approach Medicare, Mr. President, then who knows what will be taken out of the trust fund next. Americans have a right to expect that trust fund will remain constant, that the items covered will remain protected, and that every time we face a crisis, Congress does not simply remove more and more parts of the trust fund and eliminate the coverage it provides. By moving them, as they have in the President's budget, the President and his budgeteers are, in fact, moving some $55 billion of trust fund responsibility to the taxpayers as part of the general account. That is not the way to guarantee the solvency of Medicare, and it is in contrast to Republican efforts to ensure Medicare's solvency for 10 years its solvency in the budget we have presented. The second concern I think needs to be addressed is the issue of taxes. As Senator Gramm just a few moments ago indicated in a series of charts that the tax burden faced by America's hard-working families is the highest in the history of this Nation. Indeed, if the President's budget becomes the law of this land, under this budget we will move to the highest federal tax burden ever. At the same time, Mr. President, under this budget, social spending will also reach record highs at 17.3 percent of the gross domestic product of this country. That means more and more working families sending more and more dollars to Washington to pay for more and more programs that Americans find to be overbloated, bureaucratic and, in many cases, unnecessary. That is not the direction we should head, Mr. President. That is why the President's budget sends us in the wrong direction. To just once again comment on the tax portion of this budget, as I said, it heads us toward the highest tax burden in history. There has been an effort in the budget to address the question of high taxes with a purported tax cut. But when one examines the President's budget and calculates all the taxes that are cut and all the taxes that are raised, what you come up with is a final bottom line number of $6 spread over 6 years. Distributed to 250 million American people, that works out, Mr. President, to $4 per year per American. I have talked to the taxpayers in my State. When they think in terms of getting a tax break, they at least were hoping for something slightly more substantial than that, Mr. President. The $4 a year will not make much of an impact on the hard-working middle-class families of my State or any of the other States. But I would like to more totally focus my comments at this point on the amendment before us to this budget. In this amendment, we are trying to address what we consider to be the truly extremist issue before us today. That is the proposal that in the final 2 years of this budget we will see drastic cuts, across the board virtually, in the domestic discretionary spending programs, huge cuts, cuts which I think go way too far. I think probably most of my colleagues, one way or the other, would agree they go too far. To approach balancing the budget in this fashion, to approach it by having all of these cuts happen somewhere in the far distant future, and to happen at this drastic of a level, literally 100 percent of the President's discretionary spending reductions happening in the years 2001 and 2002, in my judgment, totally undermines any validity to claim that this is a balanced budget. This is the same thing as having a family say, ``Well, we're running in the red right now. We're spending more money than we take in. We've got to correct this. The way we're going to do it is not by addressing the problems over a period of time, this year, next year, and the following years, but 5 years from now we're going to eliminate all our expenditures on food.'' That might make the budget of the family balanced in the fifth year, but it is unrealistic and wholly improbable that in one year an American family is not going to consume any food. The same way, it is inconceivable that 100 percent of the discretionary spending cuts are going to take place in the final 2 years of this budget to achieve balance. Neither will happen, Mr. President. For those reasons, I think the approach that is taken in this amendment is on track. I think we have to make a clear statement to the American people that we are not going to achieve a balanced budget with any kind of cook books, any kind of gimmickry, any kind of last-year changes of this magnitude. We are going to go at it in a responsible way. So for those reasons, Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Frist amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Is there a limit on opening statement time?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield myself such time as I may need. Mr. President, once again, we have before the Senate the budget resolution that was passed by the Budget Committee under the leadership of Senator Domenici. This budget resolution achieves balance in the year 2002. It accomplishes this feat by reducing the size of Government and slowing the growth of various governmental programs. At the same time, it preserves and protects Medicare, provides full funding for education and environmental programs, and increases funding for Federal crime programs over previous levels. Mr. President, let me begin by saying I am happy that this year we are dealing with a belief that we should balance the budget. One year ago in this budget process the President was talking about $200 billion a year deficits as far as the eye could see. This year the President is talking about balancing the budget and attempting, we would argue not successfully but at least attempting, to present a budget that does bring us into balance. The differences though are considerable. The accomplishments of the Republican budget contrast strongly with the President's budget submitted earlier this year. Where we rely on tough economics and tough choices, the President's budget relies on rosy scenarios, gimmicks and deferred savings. Where we employ new ideas to help curb the growth of our entitlement programs, ideas like choice in Medicare and returning our welfare programs back to the States where they belong, the President relies on tried and, I believe, failed policies that guarantee our entitlement programs will continue to spiral out of control. Where we put our faith in individuals and families by encouraging economic growth so they can earn more, reduce the size and scope of government so they can keep more, and in the process do more for themselves and their families, the President's budget simply puts his faith in more government. The differences are these. We are offering a budget that gets to balance and achieves it by making some tough choices, choices that have to be made if we are to truly have a balanced budget. The President's budget, on the other hand, in effect says we can achieve a balanced budget painlessly, without anybody really having to suffer. That is, in my judgment, impossible. Obviously, we have to constrain the growth of government. We have to do it in a way that is fair and equitable. To say that we can accomplish this where tough choices are not needed is wrong. Other Members have already addressed the important details of the Republican budget. How it reduces overall growth in Federal spending by over $440 billion through the year 2002 while increasing funding for education, the environment and crime fighting programs. How it protects veterans' health care and homeless programs from the devastating cuts included in the President's budget. And how it protects Medicare home health care programs by keeping the program within the part A portion of Medicare where it belongs. Today, I would like just to focus on one difference between the two budgets. That is the area of tax cuts and how the Republican approach contrasts with that of the President. First, let me put the tax picture in perspective. According to the Tax Foundation, more than one-third of the average American worker's wages go to taxes. For working parents that meant they had to work until May 7 just to pay their taxes this year. The Tax Foundation calls this tax freedom day, and May 7 is the latest it has ever been recognized. Other indicators are just as ominous. Columnist Bruce Bartlett pointed out recently that State, local and Federal revenues now consume more of our national income than ever--31.3 percent of everything Americans earned last year. At the Federal level, taxes are also at near record levels. Last year, they consumed 20.4 percent of our national income. This marks only the second period in which the Federal tax burden has exceeded 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. The last period was at the end of President Carter's administration, just prior to President Reagan's tax cut proposals of 1981. President Clinton has played a very active role in helping achieve this record tax burden. As a candidate, he campaigned on a platform of middle-class tax cuts. At that time he stated, ``We will lower the tax burden on middle-class Americans.'' He even argued against raising gasoline taxes, telling voters, ``I oppose Federal excise gas tax increases.'' Why? Because a gas tax ``sticks it to lower income and middle-income retired people in the country, and it's wrong.'' That is the campaign rhetoric of 1992, but it is not consistent with his performance thereafter. As we all know, President Clinton pushed through the Congress in 1993 the largest tax increase in history: $265 billion over 5 years. Gas taxes were raised during that budget battle. The President also raised taxes on senior citizens. He raised taxes on the largest corporations, and he raised taxes on thousands of the smallest businesses. He raised taxes on the living and he even raised taxes on the dead. Then he turned around and told a Houston audience, ``You might be surprised to find * * * I think I raised your taxes too much.'' That is true. The fact is, the tax burden has been raised higher than it has ever been before, except for one point in American history. More significantly, by ranking tax burdens according to Presidents, you can see that this President has presided over the highest average tax burden of any President in the history of the country, 19.933 percent of national income. In a nutshell, the President has succeeded in completely reversing the progress made during previous administrations in moving us toward a simpler, fairer, flatter Tax Code. The Tax Code now is more burdensome, it is more complex, and it is more costly as well. What does that mean to average Americans? We can talk about numbers and percentages, as we often do on the floor here, to the point where we lose sight of its impact on real people. But what it means is this. Last year Americans paid to Uncle Sam $87.2 billion more than they would have under previous policies. For the average American family, that's over $800 taken out of their pocket each year and handed over to the Federal Government. The Balanced Budget Act which President Clinton vetoed last year would have provided partial relief from these record tax burdens. The bill would have reduced the tax burden on Americans by a modest amount, on average about $36 billion a year. In other words, the tax relief vetoed by President Clinton last fall was less than half the increased tax burdens that Americans have experienced since he took office in 1993. President Clinton vetoed the Balanced Budget Act and deprived Americans of middle-class tax relief, like the $500-per-child family tax credit, marriage penalty relief, expand IRA's, spousal IRA's, and estate tax reforms that would have given small business and family farm owners the opportunity to pass on their enterprises to their families in a way that is not feasible right now because of the high inheritance taxes. Which brings us to this year. In the President's State of the Union Address, Mr. Clinton announced that ``the era of big Government was over.'' He then sent to Congress a budget which would ensure that Government spending and income taxes remains at record levels. Once again, however, we have to look beyond the rhetoric. When the President released his budget in March, he claimed he was providing Americans with $99 billion in tax relief, enough to pay for a watered- down child tax credit. On closer inspection, however, the President also included $62 billion in tax loophole closing and other increased revenues, which means the net tax relief is only $36 billion. Finally, in an attempt to make the budget reach balance in the year 2002, President Clinton has to terminate his tax cuts in the year 2000, which reduces the total tax relief provided in the Clinton budget between 1996 and 2002 to something around $6 billion. Think about that. We are talking about net tax relief over 6 years of about $1 billion per year. There are 250 million-plus Americans. That means the President's tax cut, spread over six years, averages out to about $4 per American per year. This amount is hardly consistent with the promise that was made during Clinton's election campaign for significant middle-class tax relief. In fact, Mr. President, as I think about it, it probably means one extra trip to McDonald's per year for the average American family. But that is not the worst part. The worst part is that, while President Clinton terminates his tax cuts, his tax increases are permanent. They go on forever. The net effect is another tax increase on Americans. Between 1996 and 2006, President Clinton's budget would raise taxes on Americans by $50 billion. Add this new tax increase to the previous tax increases, and this Presidency will have cost Americans 465 billion additional dollars through the year 2002. Contrast this tax increase with the Republican budget. Our budget includes funding for the full-sized, permanent, $500-per-child family tax credit. Our goal is to reduce the tax burden for those taxpayers who need it the most--parents attempting to raise young children. For a family earning $30,000 per year in my home State, Michigan, with two children, the child tax credit would reduce their 1996 Federal income tax burden 51 percent. That is real relief from what, under President Clinton, has become the highest tax burden on families in the history of this country. That is the difference between the direction that we perceive Americans wanting to go and the direction they would have under the President's proposals. Our goal is to let American families earn more and keep more. Our goal is to give American families a chance to keep more of the dollars that they earn and to be able to use those dollars to help their families, particularly those families in the middle class who are struggling to make ends meet, working hard and playing by the rules. I think the choice before the Senate is clear. On the one hand, you have a resolution that is responsive to the American voters and taxpayers in their desire to see a smaller, more effective Government with its books balanced, and, on the other hand, you have the President's budget which is responsive to the status quo and inside- the-beltway interests. I would like to just close by thanking Senator Domenici for his leadership on this issue. This is my second opportunity to vote for a budget resolution. Thanks to Chairman Domenici's resolve and guidance, I am once again proud to support and back a document that brings this Government's budget into balance. It has been 25-plus years since the Congress was able to do that, and it is under the leadership of Senator Domenici and the Republican majority that we accomplished this goal. Last year we took this goal as close as we could to the finish line by making sure that Congress ultimately passed a budget that was in balance. Unfortunately, the President chose to veto that budget. He chose to veto tax cuts for working families. He chose to veto reform of the Medicare Program to help ensure the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. And, he choose to veto a budget that will give Americans relief from the high interest rates that result from uninterrupted Federal budget deficits. years. Hopefully this year, when a balanced budget is presented to the President, we will have a different result. I hope he will sign that budget, and I hope he will agree with us that it is time to truly put the era of Big Government to rest and move in a different direction. The President's budget does not really accomplish that. The budget which the Senate Budget Committee passed last week does. I look forward to working to see its adoption here on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. ABRAHAM. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time, I yield to the Senator from Missouri such time as he may need, up to 15 minutes, to speak on the bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize tax freedom day; a day marking the people's emancipation from government taxation; a day after which the American people begin working for themselves and their families instead of for the Government; a day which continues to recede further and further every year. This year, Mr. President, America's tax freedom day arrives on May 7. In my own State of Michigan it arrives even later--on May 9. Michigan, thanks to its friendly atmosphere for economic growth and investment, is relatively affluent. Thus Michigan pays a significantly higher portion of its income in Federal taxes than do other States. We are 13th in the Nation in total taxes paid, again in large measure because the Federal Government takes more from our citizens' paychecks than from those of citizens of other States. But let us look at the overall tax picture. As tax freedom day approaches, Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate for us to ask ourselves how much of their time, what proportion of their paychecks the American people feel it is fair for them to be asked to pay to the government. When I first saw the results of the Roper Poll on this subject I was surprised to note that Americans of all stripes--whatever their race, sex, income level, or political persuasion--felt it was fair for them to pay a full 25 percent or one quarter of their income taxes. More astounding, however, is the proportion they actually must pay in taxes--over 38 percent. Americans are willing to pay a quarter of their incomes in taxes, Mr. President, but that is not enough for our government. No, our government taxes away over 38 percent of the income of the average American family. And the trend is toward more, not less. The government imposes ever- higher taxes on America's working families. Commerce Department data reveal that in 1995 total taxes as a share of the gross domestic product were the highest in U.S. history. Federal, State, and local government receipts consumed a record 31.3 percent of GDP. Mr. President, this figure is simply astounding. Even at the height of World War II, with America fighting for her very existence, total taxes only consumed 25 percent of GDP. In 1992, only 4 years ago, taxes consumed 30 percent of GDP. What does this mean? It means that taxes have risen by 1.3 percent of GDP--of the size of our entire domestic economy--since Bill Clinton became President. And what does our President propose to do about this deplorable situation, in which our economy is operating under the highest tax burden in history? Recent experience does not provide much hope for relief. In 1993 President Clinton signed into law the largest tax increase in history: $241 billion. The President raised taxes on gasoline. He raised taxes on Social Security recipients. He also hit our senior citizens by reinstating the highest estate and gift tax rate of 55 percent. He raised taxes on small business owners. And he passed a retroactive tax increase on the incomes of America's working families--not only increasing taxes on their future incomes, but actually taking a portion of the incomes they already had earned. The President's tax hikes directly and indirectly increased the tax burden on millions of middle-class taxpayers. Small wonder he recently admitted that he ``may have'' raised taxes too much. But President Clinton's contribution to higher taxes does not end there. When we Republicans sought to emancipate American families from some of their tax burden--to make their tax freedom come earlier in the year--President Clinton was ready, with his veto. Americans should judge for themselves the effects of Clinton tax policies on their ability to keep what they earn for themselves and their families. They should ask themselves a few simple questions. First, do you have children? If so, President Clinton's veto of our Balanced Budget Act is costing you $500 per child in tax savings--the amount of the tax credit we attempted to give you. Second, are you married? If so, President Clinton's veto is denying you tax savings from a higher joint standard deduction. Married couples with average incomes of $50,000 who claim the standard deduction are paying $217 more than they would otherwise, because of the President's veto. Third, are you trying to save for your retirement? If so, and you earn more than $40,000 a year or have a nonworking spouse, President Clinton's veto cost you $1,120 in IRA tax savings. Fourth, are you planning to adopt a child? If so, President Clinton's veto cost you a credit of up to $5,000 to defray adoption expenses. Fifth, do you care for an elderly parent at home? If so, President Clinton's veto is denying you savings from a $1,000 eldercare deduction--that's between $150 and $280 out of your pocket and into the Government's. Sixth, do you plan to earn taxable capital gains--for example by selling your house when you retire? If so, President Clinton's veto is preventing you from keeping more of your profits. The GOP reforms would have seen that you were taxed on only half of your net capital gain. And finally, are you paying off a student loan? If so, President Clinton's veto is costing you savings from a maximum $2,500 deduction on the interest paid for the first 5 years of repayment. This veto delayed tax freedom day to May 7--the latest date ever. This veto extended to 3 hours, out of the typical 8-hour workday, the time Americans must work just to pay taxes, the longest ever. This veto means that the value of the dependent exemption continues to decline. Our families are having a harder time supporting their children, in part because the exemption has lost much of its value. For the dependent exemption to be worth the same it was worth in 1960, it would have to be $3,800 today--$1,300 more than the current $2,500. In short, President Clinton's policies have chained America's working families to ever-higher taxes, making it harder and harder for them to support themselves. His policies have cut the growth of Americans' real personal disposable income. They have hurt the economy, increased taxes and reduced by nearly $2,600 the amount of money every American household can use to support itself. They have contributed to a situation in which more and more families have two working parents not out of choice but out of economic necessity. At the same time these policies have reduced the size of parents' paychecks--even as parents face increased costs for their children's education, worries over their own retirement and concern that they are spending enough time with their kids. Americans today are, and have every right to be worried about their jobs, concerned about their future, and angry that the American Dream of moving up through hard work seems to be slipping out of reach. In one generation, Mr. President, the Government has doubled the amount of money it takes from the American people. It has severely restricted our freedom from taxation. And what have we gotten in return? Certainly not safer and better schools. Certainly not safer and cleaner streets. Certainly not reduced drug-use and juvenile crime. Certainly not lower levels of welfare dependency and hopelessness. No, Mr. President, what Americans have bought with their tax freedom is nothing more than increased Government control over their lives. And this must end. We must free our people from the chains of overtaxation and overregulation. We must see to it that Americans earn more and keep more of what they earn so that they can do more for their families and communities. We must institute reforms that will encourage economic growth, lower tax burdens, and empower America's working families to once again take charge of their own lives, helping themselves and their neighbors. What does this mean in practice? To begin with, Mr. President, it means relieving American families of the burden imposed by the Clinton tax increases. This is why we must pass the $500 exemption for all children under the age of 18. It also means reducing the amount Americans must pay for gasoline by rolling back the 1993 Clinton gas tax increase that unfairly burdens lower income working families. It also means we must create more and better paying jobs through incentives like a capital gains tax cut that will encourage businesses to invest in resources that create jobs. And it means helping people save for the future by encouraging retirement savings and portability. Finally, Mr. President, it means balancing the budget and stopping Government from overspending. It means regaining control over the cost and size of Government so that the tax burden and regulatory burden both may be lifted from the shoulders of the American people. America always has been the land of freedom and opportunity. In large measure this has been true because we have recognized that opportunity--the chance to build a decent and rewarding life for yourself and your family--depends on freedom. Only with the freedom to work, move, and invest as we see fit can we make the most of our capacities. It is our job, Mr. President, to restore Americans' opportunity by freeing them from a Government that taxes too much and prevents them from pursuing their own good, and the good of their families and neighbors. Tax cuts, growth incentives, and renewed responsibility in government spending and regulation will emancipate the American people from the chains of taxation and overregulation. More than this government cannot provide. Less than this, Mr. President, we dare not provide. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this week I and several of my colleagues--Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Craig--came to this floor to discuss the disturbing rise in drug use in this country since the beginning of the Clinton administration. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal editorialized on the same subject. I ask that the editorial be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: Waiting to Exhale Now, in April 1996, with eight months left on a four-year term, Bill Clinton flies the press into Miami so he can be seen standing shoulder to shoulder with General Barry McCaffrey, a decorated war hero he's enlisted to lead a war on drugs. Standing among schoolchildren Monday, the President poured his great rhetorical heart onto the drug war. Along the way came these key words: ``Make no mistake about it, this has got to be a bipartisan, American, nonpolitical effort.'' Translation: Don't blame me for this problem, especially during an election campaign. In fact, Bill Clinton's retreat in the drug war is among the worst sins for which his Administration should be held accountable. After years of decline in drug use, recent surveys make it clear that a younger generation of Americans is again at risk. The number of 12-to-17-year-olds using marijuana increased to 2.9 million in 1994 from 1.6 million in 1992. Marijuana use increased 200% among 14-to-15-year- olds during the same period. Since 1992, according to large surveys of high school students, there has been a 52% increase in the number of seniors using drugs monthly. One in three report having used marijuana in the past year. Private anti-drug advocates such as Jim Burke of the Partnership for a Drug Free America and Joe Califano of Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse have been running alongside this drug fire, yelling for help to anyone who'd listen. Better late than never, of course, and it is good that Mr. Clinton wants to mend his ways with General McCaffrey. We applaud the appointment and think General McCaffrey has sounded many right notes. Legalization, he says, ``is out of the question.'' A quarterly regional analysis put out by his office brings the problem up to date: ``A recent New York State high school survey reports that 12% of New York teens said that they smoked marijuana at least four times a month, double the number in the 1990 survey.'' Discussing ``Emerging Drugs.'' the report notes methamphetamine's popularity in the San Francisco area: ``in addition to its use by young users who combine it with heroin (``a meth speedball'') it can also be found in `biker's coffee,' a combination of methamphetamine and coffee popular among young, fairly affluent urbanites.'' Additionally, the report notes that ``Club drugs, a name which generally includes MDMA, Ketamine, 2c-B, LSD, psilocybin and a range of other hallucinogens, are increasingly mentioned in this quarter.'' These recent events are not a coincidence. The drug retreat was the result of a series of explicit policy decisions by Mr. Clinton and those around him. Which is why we think it is worth focusing on the meaning of his wish that the anti-drug war be ``bipartisan, American, nonpolitical.'' This means that between now and November's election no one is allowed to utter the phrase ``didn't inhale.'' No one is allowed to remember Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders talking about drug legalization, even as her own son was arrested and convicted on drug-sale charges. Nor should anyone be allowed to bring up White House deputy personnel director Patsy Thomasson's admission to a congressional committee that some dozen White House employees, including senior staff, had been ``requested to be part of an individual drug testing program'' because of their prior drug history. Ms. Thomasson's experience in these drug mop-up duties extends back to her days in Arkansas when she took over the business of Dan Lasater--Little Rock bond dealer, Clinton campaign contributor and friend-of-brother Roger--while Mr. Lasater served prison time for ``social distribution'' of cocaine. This week Mr. Lasater is testifying before the Senate Whitewater Committee, and we assume he will be asked to enlighten the committee about the millions of dollars of mysterious trades that his firm made through an account without the knowledge of the account's owner, Kentucky resident Dennis Patrick. On matters of pure policy, among Bill Clinton's first acts was to cut spending on the war. The staff of the Office of National Drug Control Policy was cut to 25 from 146. Drug interdiction funds were cut. The number of trafficker aircraft seized by Customs fell to 10 from 37 in FY '93-'95. Drug czar Lee Brown wandered the nation's editorial pages seeking the public support he rarely got from his President. New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel announced: ``I really never thought I'd miss Nancy Reagan, but I do.'' Finally, about a year ago, Mr. Clinton received a stinging letter from FBI Director Louis Freeh and DEA director Tom Constantine, charging that the President's anti-drug effort was adrift. So now we have General McCaffrey, who says, ``There is no reason why we can't return America to a 1960s level, pre-Vietnam era level of drug use.'' Sorry, General, but pre-Vietnam America is not coming back. General McCaffrey's current President is a founding member of the generation that transformed America in the years of Vietnam and those that followed. It bequeathed to all of us a culture and ethos of such personal and moral slovenliness that we must now enlist a battle-hardened soldier to save the children of the anti-Vietnam generation from drugs. It is perhaps the most perfect, bitter irony that when these parents now exhort their children to stop using marijuana (of a strain that is significantly more potent than anything they dabbled in), the kids reply: ``Why should we? We're not hurting anyone.'' Basically, we'd very much like to know exactly why Bill Clinton took a powder on the drug wars after he became President. There was in fact a rationale of sorts offered at the time for the change in tone and direction. In contrast to what was thought to be the Republican approach of throwing people in jail for drug offenses, the Clinton approach would emphasize prevention and treatment. There is a case to be made for prevention and treatment, but the heart of our complaint with this President's attitude on drugs has to do with what we would call it character, its moral content. Unlike the Reagans, you will never see the Clintons articulating the war on drugs as an essentially moral crusade. With its emphasis on treatment and programs and prevention, it is mainly the kind of effort that the sociologist Philip Rieff identified as the triumph of the therapeutic. Rather than the school-marmish Nancy Reagan, the Clintons, like the generation of liberal constituencies that they lead, are going to be rhetorically correct, believers in the powers of bureaucratic healing--and nonjudgmental. In their world, no one is ever quite caught for disastrous personal behavior or choices. Instead of absolution, there are explanations. This, in our opinion, is the real reason the drug war waned when Bill Clinton became President. The message this new President sent to his young, yuppie, MTVish audiences was that he was just too cool to go relentlessly moralistic over something like recreational drugs. Sure he had an anti-drug policy in 1992 and a czar and speeches, but Bill Clinton wasn't going to have any cows over the subject. Surely, the drug-testing White House staff understood that much. We don't doubt that a lot of people in this country, especially parents of teenaged and pre-teen children, would very much like to rediscover General McCaffrey's pre-Vietnam world of less constant cultural challenge. But the people who turned that culture upside down, making it a daily challenge for parents, have at last been given the chance to run the government. But this death-bed conversion on drugs simply lacks credibility. As much as we applaud General McCaffrey's new offensive, only a triumph of hope over experience could lead anyone to believe it would be sustained past November if Mr. Clinton and his crowd are returned to the White House.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Polish-American community and Polish people around the world on a very important occasion in world history. May 3, 1996, marks the 205th anniversary of the adoption of Poland's first constitution. The concept of a constitutional democracy was introduced to Poland by Thaddeus Kosciuszko, a hero of the American Revolutionary War. The similarities between the Constitution of the United States and Poland are numerous, including protection of sovereignty and national unity, securing of individual and religious freedom for all persons, separation of powers encompassed in the judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and power derived from the will of the people. These strong principles have endured in both countries, and has made Poland an independent nation and leader in Central-Eastern Europe. I am pleased to be able to join Senator Dole and my other Senate colleagues in cosponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 51 which commemorates this very important anniversary. My home State of Michigan has been blessed with a wonderful Polish-American community and I extend my warmest congratulations to them and to the national Polish- American community on the commemoration of this anniversary.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. No. In the situation you described, where the student continues to work in good faith toward his degree, the professor's directive to the student would constitute good cause for the student falling out of status temporarily.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. My intention is not to displace current INS practice with respect to students who continue to work in good faith toward their degree but who temporarily fall out of status because of circumstances beyond their reasonable control.

Mr. ABRAHAM. No, I do not intend the sanctions to apply in cases where, for reasons like those described in the examples you've cited, a student has accumulated a total of 60 nonconsecutive days out of status over the course of his studies. I expect the 60-day period will normally be continuous for purposes of our visa-overstayer provision. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I had planned to offer, along with Mr. DeWine, Mr. Roth, and Mr. D'Amato that would have addressed the enormous problem this country has with deporting aliens who commit violent and other felonious acts against Americans. Because the amendment is not germane at this time, I will not be offering it, but plan to raise this issue again at another time. Let me start by outlining the problem we have right now with criminal aliens in this country. Noncitizens in this country who are convicted of committing a variety of serious crimes are deportable and should be deported. These are not suspected criminals: These are convicted felons. And there are about half a million of them currently residing on U.S. soil. More than 50,000 crimes have been committed by aliens in this country recently enough to put the perpetrators in State and Federal prisons right now. The reason these criminal aliens are here, despite their deportability under U.S. law, is that they are able to manipulate our immigration laws by requesting endless review of their orders of deportation. These are convicted criminals obstructing the operation of law by abusing unduly generous provisions of judicial and administrative review. As long as a petition for review is pending, they cannot be deported. Meanwhile, because there is nowhere to put them, many of them are released into the general population, never to be seen again. Thus, at present, aliens who are convicted felons are deported at a rate of about 4 percent a year. Parenthetically, I would like to note that the study from which most of these figures are drawn--a Senate report on criminal aliens in the United States dated April 7, 1995--was conducted under the auspices of one of the cosponsors to the amendment I am offering today--my distinguished friend and colleague from Delaware, Mr. William Roth. The bill presently before the Congress does a great deal to address many of the obstacles to ensuring that these individuals are in fact expeditiously deported. As introduced, it included provisions adding a variety of serious offenses to the crimes that constitute aggravated felonies; providing that aggravated felons are not permitted to sue the Government on the grounds that their deportations were not expeditious; providing for regulations to be issued by the Attorney General permitting INS officials to enter final orders of deportation stipulated to by the alien; providing that Federal judges are authorized to order deportation as a condition of probation; and requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress once a year on the number of and status of criminal aliens presently incarcerated. While these provisions were helpful, they were not enough to prevent a criminal alien from using the key dilatory tacits presently used by these individuals to avoid deportation. Accordingly, during Committee consideration of this bill, I sponsored a package of four amendments addressing the criminal alien problem. My amendments were cosponsored in whole or part by four Senators on the Judiciary Committee and all were accepted by the committee in lopsided votes. The package of amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee and now part of the pending bill will do the following: First, prohibit the Attorney General from releasing convicted criminal aliens from custody; second, end judicial review for orders of deportation entered against these criminal aliens--while maintaining their right to administrative review and the right to review the underlying conviction; third, require the Attorney General to deport criminal aliens within 30 days of the conclusion of the alien's prison sentence--with exceptions made only for national security reasons or on account of the criminal alien's cooperation with law enforcement officials; and fourth, permit State criminal courts to enter conclusive findings of fact, during sentencing, that an alien has been convicted of a deportable offense. These amendments, now part of the bill, will go a long way toward ending the procedural chicanery by which criminal alien's make a mockery of our laws. Still, loopholes remain, especially during the administrative review process. The amendment I had planned to offer to the illegal immigration bill would have sought to close these loopholes by doing the following: First, criminal aliens would be required to raise all claims for relief from deportation in a single administrative process including one appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The problem is this: While we have eliminated judicial review for orders of deportation entered against most criminal aliens, we have not eliminated their capacity to request repetitive administrative review of the deportation order. We have shortened the process, but it could still take, literally, a decade or more to complete the administrative procedures. For example, criminal aliens will still be able to: First receive a hearing on their deportability from the immigration judge and then appeal that to the Board of Immigration Appeals; second, return to the immigration judge, this time requesting asylum, and then appeal that to the Board of Immigration Appeals; third, request 212(c) relief from the order of deportation and appeal that to the Board of Immigration Appeals; fourth, since several years will frequently have passed during the first rounds of administrative review, make a motion to reopen on the basis of changed circumstances, such as the connections to the community the criminal alien has formed, and frequently, the children the criminal alien has had while these other requests for relief were pending; fifth, continue to make additional motions to reopen. Criminal aliens should be allowed only one bite at the apple. What needs to be done is this: Require that criminal aliens submit all claims for relief from deportation to the immigration judge and to the Board of Immigration Appeals the first time around. The amendment I am was going to offer does just that. Second, judicial review for orders of exclusion entered against these criminal aliens would end. This is a delaying tactic, much abused by excludable criminal aliens. Extensive--even repetitive--judicial review of orders of exclusion may be tolerable for other excludable aliens. There is no justifiable reason to tie up the system with such requests by criminals. Third, the number of immigration judges, members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and lawyers handling deportation cases at the INS would be doubled. There are not enough judges within the INS to expeditiously dispose of deportation hearings with or without the streamlining provided by the other criminal alien provisions in this bill and the Terrorism Prevention Act. This amendment will double the number of members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, double the number of immigration judges-- special inquiry officers, and double the number of INS attorneys handling deportation proceedings. The criminal alien amendments I offered during the committee mark-up of the illegal immigration bill require the AG to deport criminal aliens within 30 days of the later of their release from incarceration, or issuance of the final order of deportation. Such a requirement will be of no avail if the INS does not have enough judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals to dispose of these deportation proceedings. In 1995, the number of board members of the BIA was increased--to 12 members in all. Meanwhile, it is conservatively estimated that there are almost half a million criminal aliens currently residing in this country. If only a quarter of those criminal aliens now on U.S. soil request deportation hearings and an appeal to the BIA--which is probably an extremely conservative estimate--12 board members will have to process over 100,000 appeals only to get through the deportations of these criminal aliens. We will never reduce this backlog without adding much-needed personnel to handle these deportation proceedings fairly and expeditiously. Doubling their number is a modest increase if we are serious about deporting deportable criminal aliens. Fourth, criminal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes would be added to the list of aliens ineligible for naturalization. Naturalization already requires that the alien demonstrate good moral character and have resided in the country for at least 5 years, among other things. Yet aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are able to delay their deportations for many years allowing them to, first, achieve the 5 year requirement for naturalization, and, second, apply for naturalization 5 years after their conviction. This not only injects into the deportation process an extremely powerful incentive for criminal aliens to delay their deportations, but rewards those who have not only been convicted of serious crimes to become citizens, but rewards the criminal aliens who have been able to manipulate the system in order to avoid being deported. There are already various types of aliens that are foreclosed from naturalization. This amendment adds convicted criminals to the list. It is not unreasonable for the Congress to conclude that aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes while guests in this country cannot be deemed to have demonstrated good moral character for purposes of naturalization. These are all reasonable reforms--reforms, I believe, that would shock most Americans only by their absence from current law. Let me give just one example of why these reforms are needed. This example is not hypothetical. It is a real case of what happens when this country tries to deport noncitizens who are convicted of committing serious crimes in this country. The case of Lyonel Dor is typical in all but one respect. Dor was an illegal alien, whereas the great majority of the criminal aliens in this country are lawful permanent residents. Lyonel Dor entered the United States illegally in 1972. Six years later he was convicted of first degree manslaughter for participating in the murder of his aunt and served 6\1/2\ years in prison. Illegal immigrants are deportable. Legal immigrants who help murder their aunts are deportable. Yet Dor remained in this country for at least another 5 years after serving his prison sentence. He accomplished this by requesting and receiving unending review of the order of deportation against him. Dor was first ordered deported in March 1985. As of late 1989, Dor had not been deported. I do not know whether Lyonel Dor was ever deported or whether he is still here, requesting still more review. But I do know that during that 5 years, Dor received 13 administrative proceedings and 4 judicial proceedings for review of the order of deportation against him. Every one of these proceedings concerned this country's attempt to deport Dor--an illegal immigrant and murderer. In two of the four judicial proceedings, Federal courts ordered that Dor not be deported--so that the order of deportation against Dor could be subjected to yet more review. It is important to note that, although Dor's multiple requests for review of the deportation order were granted--upon review, not one of his claims was found to have any merit. Dor requested asylum, this was denied. Dor requested withholding of his deportation, this was denied. Dor requested adjustment of status, this was denied. Dor again applied for adjustment of status, and it was again denied. Dor applied for a writ of habeas corpus, this was denied. Each one of these requests for waiver of deportation was appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and sometimes to the courts, as well. Five times throughout these proceedings, Dor requested that his case be reopened. These requests, too, were denied. And these denials, he appealed. This example is far from unique. To the contrary, it is rather typical. I could cite many, many others. It is time for this to stop. Some reforms Senator Hatch included at my suggestion in the anti- terrorism bill that was recently enacted will go a long way toward stopping it. The reforms contained in the legislation now before the Congress, including those from the original bill and those added through the amendments I offered at markup, would go still further in that direction. I am sorry that on account of the procedural posture we are in, made necessary by the effort of some Members to bring up matters entirely extraneous to reforming illegal immigration, we will not have the opportunity to consider this additional amendment. I expect, however, to find an occasion in the near future to ensure its consideration.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I very much appreciate the kind words of my colleague and friend from Wyoming.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I similarly acknowledge the efforts of Senator Simpson both with respect to the broad subject of immigration policy over the last 17 years and, more specifically, his hard work on the bill before the Senate on illegal immigration. The positions which I have advocated on a number of the issues that are part of this bill, in some cases, have been this opposition to his position, and, in some cases, they have been on the same side. They have always been advocated with great respect for his efforts here. I must say I sympathize with his feelings about some of the rhetoric which those outside of this Chamber have launched during the past couple of months as we have dealt with this issue before both the committee and here on the floor. I, too, have been the target of many rather unusual, strange, and exaggerated charges, as well as complaints. In my State of Michigan, in fact, groups who oppose some of the views I have on this issue have even launched paid media campaigns critiquing my activities here in the U.S. Senate on these issues. I am both an admirer of Senator Simpson's efforts and a sympathizer with the role he finds himself thrust into when he chose to become involved in highly important issues that touch a large number of Americans. I comment now and finish on the comments I made earlier with respect to the implications of this verification system on the American people. We have been told as a starting point that the bill, without this pilot program, would be gutless, it would be toothless and, in various other ways, be a bill unworthy of us here. I cannot help, when we talk about exaggerated rhetoric, be a little shocked and surprised at those allegations, because I consider the bill as it currently stands, even if it did not have these pilot programs, an extraordinary piece of legislation that will combat many of the problems this country has with illegal immigration, and combat them squarely, head on, effectively, whether it is increasing the border patrols, whether it is cracking down on and ensuring the deportation of alien criminals, whether it is in partially penalizing the visa overstayers who make up such a large percentage of the illegal alien population, or whether it is sharply reducing the availability of public assistance programs to illegal aliens. All of these, I think, combined, will play a very effective role in dramatically reducing the illegal immigration problems we confront. Equally, I think, we will see that the provisions in the legislation which protect employers, particularly small employers, from charges of discrimination, in cases where no intent to discriminate exists, are going to, likewise, allow us to address the problem of individuals who are legal aliens securing employment in this country and do so, I think, with great effectiveness. (Mr. BROWN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles be added as a cosponsor for the amendment.