Spencer Abraham

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I now ask for its second reading.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its first reading.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:45 a.m., Friday, March 15; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. Further, that at 10 a.m., the Senate begin consideration of S. 942 as under the previous order.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will debate the small business regulatory relief bill tomorrow. Any votes ordered in relation to that bill will occur on Tuesday. On Friday, following the small business bill debate, the Senate will resume consideration of the continuing resolution. Senators should be prepared to offer their amendments during Friday's session. Under the previous order, there will be no votes until Tuesday, March 19.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I confirm for the Senator from Nebraska that Officer Padgett is on the list.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I do not want to take much time on our side. Part of the reason these things are beginning to happen is because in order to meet various Federal court consent decrees, as well as the other regulations that have been imposed, it is forcing States to make decisions that I do not think they would make if they did not find themselves subject to it. I would be very anxious to work on it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need, but I plan to be relatively brief. I just want to comment and follow up on what the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, just said. One of the significant problems we have--and I agree with him--is the problem of people who are getting out of prison at the State and local levels before they should. The problem, though, I think, is in large measure stemming from Washington and needs to be addressed. I invite the Senator from North Dakota to join me in some legislation on which we have had hearings before the Judiciary Committee. A number of other States have been similarly affected. It turns out that Federal rules and regulations under the CRIPA legislation, as well as Federal court orders, are actually forcing people out of prisons prematurely. In my State, we entered into a consent decree with the Department of Justice back in the 1980's with respect to conditions in Michigan prisons. By 1992, we had an agreement with the Department of Justice that we had satisfied the problems that had caused this consent decree to be entered into. The Federal judge who had jurisdiction, nonetheless, even after the Department of Justice was willing to allow the consent decree to be removed, maintained continuing jurisdiction and is forcing people out of our State prisons prematurely. For the city of Philadelphia, as we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee, this is a problem that literally has meant that people arrested for committing violent crimes, because of a cap that has been placed on the amount of people who can be allowed in the prison system in Philadelphia, are not being incarcerated, are not being held. The Senator from Delaware was at the same hearing. I hope we can get together on this. I think that is a whole different set of issues, and I think it very important they not be merged into this debate. I want to make it clear, I think that is a whole separate topic, and I would like to work together with the Senator.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to discuss the Specter education amendment to the continuing resolution--S. 1594. As you know, the Senate adopted the Specter amendment yesterday by a vote of 84 to 16. This amendment provides $2.7 billion in additional funding for Head Start, job training, title I, and other education programs. Given that these additional funds are fully offset by spending cuts elsewhere, I supported the amendment. Senator Specter offered his amendment in the second degree to the Daschle amendment. Like the Specter amendment, Senator Daschle's amendment would have provided additional funding for various Federal education programs. Unlike the Specter amendment, however, the Daschle amendment was not fully offset and violated the Budget Act. In other words, while both amendments provided additional funding for education programs, the Specter amendment provides those funds in a responsible manner that does not bust the budget. On the other hand, both the Daschle and Specter amendments also provided an additional $60 million for President Clinton's Goals 2000 Program. I want to make clear that my support for the Specter amendment should not be interpreted as support for this program. Instead of funding Goals 2000, I would have preferred to use the funding for education vouchers or charter schools. transfer of f-16 aircraft to jordan

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, after months of discussion and debate on farm legislation, I was pleased that the Senate passed a farm bill Thursday, February 7, which implements revolutionary steps toward a free market agriculture system. With farmers beginning to plan for the upcoming growing season, the urgency to pass a farm bill lead to a compromise bill which, while it certainly could have taken bolder moves toward free market agriculture, is a step in the right direction. This bill offers reform, opportunity, and flexibility for farmers in a fiscally responsible way. The most significant reforms of current farm programs in this bill are the Freedom to Farm provisions which eliminate agriculture subsidies over the next 7 years. Freedom to Farm will allow American farmers to grow for the global market rather than for the Federal Government. The bill would eliminate supply control programs and requirements that farmers plant specific crops to preserve historical crop bases used to determine Government payments. These are very positive steps toward a free market in agriculture. Time after time, Michigan farmers have told me that they do not want to grow for the Government--they want to grow for the marketplace. By extricating Michigan's farmers from bureaucratic planting requirements, the Freedom to Farm provisions in this bill will allow them to produce to meet consumer demand. I would like to discuss an important change which was made in this bill before it was brought to the Senate floor. Many Michigan fruit and vegetable growers were concerned about a provision originally included in the Freedom to Farm language which would have allowed farmers receiving Government payments to grow fruits and vegetables on their land. In effect, had this been implemented, farmers receiving subsidies would have been able to plant nonsubsidized crops. This would have put those fruit and vegetable farmers who have been growing for the market without Government intervention at a disadvantage. Fruit and vegetable farmers who had never received subsidies would have been competing against subsidized farmers. Members of the committee corrected this problem before Senate floor consideration. The bill which passed the Senate maintains current policy which does not allow nonprogram crops to be grown on contract acres. During consideration of the farm bill, Senator Wellstone offered an amendment to delete language in the bill which provided congressional consent for the Northeast dairy compact. This compact would allow member States to set the price for fluid milk above the existing Federal order. Thus, the compact would have been an additional step away from free market competition in that it would establish a subsidy within a subsidized industry. Not only would the compact raise the price of milk among the New England States, it would set a disturbing precedent by allowing States to insulate themselves from competition. Mr. President, in this farm bill which attempts to move the United States toward free market agriculture, the Northeast dairy compact would have been a dangerous step backward. I was pleased to support Mr. Wellstone's amendment which passed by a 50 to 46 vote. The bill as written increases the interest rate for price support loans for farmers through the Commodity Credit Corporation by 1 percent. Senator Harkin offered an amendment which would have eliminated this increase. While it is important for farmers to have access to affordable loans, I opposed Senator Harkin's amendment. His amendment would have cost the American taxpayers $260 million. Yet, even with the increase, interest rates on price support loans would remain below commercial rates. Mr. President, this Congress has been dedicated to efforts to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. The price tag on Mr. Harkin's amendment, coupled with the fact that the loan rates are lower than commercial rates, even with the 1 percent increase, lead me to oppose Mr. Harkin's amendment which failed by a vote of 37 to 59. Senator Harkin offered a second amendment which would have reinstated the Farmer Owned Grain Reserve. Under this program, which is no longer in existence, the Federal Government paid grain farmers for grain put in storage. This created a grain surplus which depressed prices. Farmers I have talked to in Michigan are opposed to the grain reserve-- they understand that farmers cannot store themselves into prosperity. This amendment would have been out of place in a farm bill which attempts to have farmers produce for the market instead of for the Government. Along with 60 of my colleagues, I opposed this amendment. Senator Santorum who has been a strong, consistent opponent of our outdated, feudalistic peanut program, offered an amendment which would have made more drastic changes to the peanut program than were included in the bill. Unfortunately, a majority of Members of the Senate voted to table the amendment thereby effectively killing it. I voted against tabling the amendment because I believe we should have had an opportunity to support further changes in the peanut program. Senator Santorum's amendment would have phased out the quota system which was established during the depression to guarantee a high price for peanut producers. In order to do this, the Government issued quotas. Only the holders of these quotas would be allowed to grow peanuts. The quota holders are now selling the right to grow peanuts at extremely high prices which increases the price of peanuts to the consumer. Under the peanut program, the Government dictates who has the right to grow peanuts and the amount they are allowed to grow. Mr. President, I voted against the motion to table the Santorum amendment and believe that we should go further than the bill which passed to eliminate the peanut quota system. I was pleased to vote with 60 of my colleagues in opposition to the Gregg amendment which would have eliminated the new sugar provisions from the farm bill. Senator Gregg's amendment would have left the sugar program as it is today in the hopes of eliminating the program completely when it expires in 1997. Mr. President, the sugar program is different than many other agriculture programs in that it is necessary to keep a trade balance with other countries. Sugar is highly subsidized in other countries, allowing the producers to dump their excess sugar on the world market at very low prices. Eliminating our sugar program completely would give our sugar producers--some of the best producers in the world--a trade disadvantage in the world market. Unilateral elimination of our sugar program would put the most efficient sugar producers in the world at a competitive disadvantage to other producers. Furthermore, the notion that other countries would follow our lead and eliminate their support programs on their own is ridiculous. Mr. President, I have introduced legislation which would completely eliminate the U.S. agricultural price support and production adjustment programs for sugar contingent upon a GATT agreement which would eliminate export subsidies and price supports in other countries. While I firmly believe that the free market should be allowed to work, it will not work if the most efficient producers are put at a competitive disadvantage. As I have said in the past, I will continue to fight diligently on the side of free trade. I will continue to work to eliminate export subsidies and other price supports worldwide so that we may eventually achieve true free trade. Senator Dorgan offered an amendment which would have mandated that in order to receive Government payments, farmers must grow program crops. While on the surface this appears to be a reasonable amendment, it flies in the face of the Freedom to Farm provisions. Through Freedom to Farm, over the next 7 years, farmers who have received payments in 3 of the past 5 years will receive guaranteed payments--regardless of how they use their acreage. After 7 years, however, the payments will stop. Over the 7 years during which payments will be provided, farmers are expected to transition from producing for the Government to producing for the marketplace. For the Government to dictate--in any way--how the farmers are to use their land would be counterproductive and would serve only to make it more difficult for us to accomplish free market agriculture. For these reasons, I did not support Senator Dorgan's amendment which failed in a 48 to 48 vote. Mr. President, I am pleased that both the House and Senate were able to pass farm bills. I am hopeful that the conferees will act quickly to finalize this legislation so that America's farmers can begin to plan for the upcoming season and grow for the market.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Pauline Gatt for receiving the Macomb Chapter of Professional Secretaries [PSI] Secretary of the Year Award. Ms. Gatt started her secretarial career after graduating from high school. She then went on to obtain her stockbroker and insurance licenses and earn her certified professional secretary designation. Currently, she is executive secretary to Joseph R. Grewe, president of Masco Tech Sintered Components in Auburn Hills. Pauline joined PSI in 1994 and has been a very active member of the Macomb Chapter. She has served on several committees, both as leader and a member. Pauline is currently team leader of the certified professional secretary [CPS] membership committee and spearheading the seminar and publicity committee for the Michigan division annual meeting. She also serves as proctor for the biannual CPS exams at Macomb Community College in Fraser. Throughout such a busy career, Pauline has found time to marry Mr. William Gatt and raise their 4-year-old son, James Gatt. Her example should serve as an inspiration to all of us concerning what we can accomplish. On behalf of all Michigan residents, I would like to wish Pauline all the best and congratulations.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the passing of Paul G. Goebel, Jr., insurance executive and longtime friend to the University of Michigan, Kent County Republicans, and the people of Michigan. Paul's life showed how hard work, honesty, and decency can still produce success in America, and how they also can produce a giving character and important good works. After graduating from the University of Michigan in 1954, Paul served a 2-year hitch in the U.S. Army. On returning home he entered the insurance business. In the mid-1960's he began work with the Goebel- Hammon agency, which became the Paul Goebel Group in the mid 1980's. This successful agency provided coverage for professional associations and businesses. In 1994 he left the business in the capable hands of his daughter, Margaret. Paul's activities were never limited to his business. He served as president of the University of Michigan Grand Rapids Alumni Club. As early as 1968 he received the Outstanding Young Man of the Year Award from the Grand Rapids Jaycees. He was appointed an honorary member of the United Way of Kent County in 1977 and served in a variety of capacities for that agency, including president. An Ada Township resident, Paul also was a big supporter of the Republican cause in Kent County and in Michigan as a whole. The son of Paul G. Goebel, Sr., mayor of Grand Rapids during much of the 1950's, he also served as a Kent County commissioner from 1972 to 1974 and was once chairman of the county GOP. In 1974 he launched an unsuccessful bid to win back for the Republicans the seat once held by Gerald Ford. Disappointing as it was, however, this loss could hardly mar a life filled with friendship, family, and an active desire to serve the community. Paul passed away on February 15, just a few weeks after being diagnosed with lung cancer. My thoughts go out to his family but, sad as I am at his passing, I also feel privileged to have known a man of his warm and giving character.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the National Association of Retired Federal Employees on its 75 years of service to our public servants and our communities. NARFE has protected the rights and retirement benefits of Federal employees and their widows now for three quarters of a century. In that cause they have grown from 14 members to an organization of half a million members with 53 State federations and more than 1,740 active local chapters in the United States, Puerto Rico, Panama, the Philippines, and Guam. In my own State of Michigan, the city of Dearborn is home to area chapter 1515, with 975 members of NARFE. These fine people contribute to the community, not only by fulfilling their official duties, but through their many acts of good citizenship, charity, and public- spirited voluntaism. In recognition of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees' service to its members, to the public at large, and to the many communities in which its members live and participate in public life, I would invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing February 19, 1996, NARFE's 75th anniversary, as National Association of Retired Federal Employees Day.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to address America's role in implementing peace accords around the world, and in providing peacekeeping troops to enforce them. As we all know, President Clinton decided unilaterally to send American ground troops to Bosnia. During our debate on that decision, I argued that our troops have too high a political profile and represent too powerful a nation to successfully implement the Dayton Accord. This is not to say, Mr. President, that our troops can never succeed as peacekeepers. In my opinion there have been and will continue to be occasions when our participation in peacekeeping efforts will advance U.S. strategic and political interests. But we do a disservice to our troops and to our Nation if we do not examine such operations coolly and dispassionately to determine whether we should, in fact, engage in them. Because we are likely to receive requests for American peacekeepers from a variety of sources in the future, Mr. President, I would like to further clarify my views on the criteria we should apply before putting our sons and daughters in harm's way. In my view it is our duty in dealing with such requests to assess the nature of the conflict and determine if our troops are appropriate. We also, however, must assess how directly events in the area impact on our interests. We then must determine whether in fact a peace exists which we can help keep, and whether our relations with any of the parties to the conflict are sufficiently close that we would be willing to assume this greater responsibility. Therefore, let me express an overall theme which I believe warrants specific elaboration. When we previously considered the issue of peacekeeping and U.S. troop deployments, I felt many in this body were searching for some absolute, universal theories to guide our actions. I do not believe that is necessary. In fact, I would argue that decisions such as these require us to accept that our national interests vary from region to region and from situation to situation. We must therefore consider our options on a case-by-case basis. These situations almost never call for black-or-white, do-or-die, absolute decisions. Instead we are usually presented with a sliding scale of U.S. interests, transitory levels of progress toward establishing a just and lasting peace, and fluid relationships with the parties involved. It may be possible to develop a theoretical model to address these gradations, and give us a quantitative output as to whether or not we should intercede, but I doubt such a model would be workable if it could even be developed. Therefore, I believe we must accept that these situations are best analyzed on an individualized and prudential basis, where the sliding scales of U.S. national interests, the probability of success, and the current state of U.S. international relations are all measured against one another. Having said that, Mr. President, let me now discuss one area where I believe some generalizations can be made regarding the deployment of U.S. troops as peacekeepers. I believe American troops are singularly ill-suited to serve in traditional peacekeeping roles, and that their deployment in such roles should be the exception rather than the rule. Because our national interests are so extensive and widespread, we almost always will be seen as an interested party, taking sides in the conflict rather than serving as neutral arbiters. Traditional peacekeeping demands objectivity and strict neutrality. Peacekeeping troops themselves may be forced to take action against one side or the other in particular circumstances, but they must be perceived as being, on the whole, scrupulously neutral. Our troops are the fighting forces of the world's sole remaining superpower. This means that they bring to the field their status as fighting forces for the world's sole remaining superpower, and the living representation of our Nation's political will. Because our influence and interests are so far-flung, the mere presence of our troops in a particular area is a political statement. Both sides will see our troops as potential allies or enemies who can decide the outcome of a continued conflict. Therefore, I believe traditional peacekeeping is best conducted by smaller countries who are not perceived to have any vested interest in the outcome of a conflict; who, because their country's interests are marginal in the area of conflict, are undeniably neutral. However, even if circumstances favor use of American peacekeepers we must keep in mind that our ability to deploy troops is not sufficient reason to do so. In my view this administration has too willingly committed our troops and national resources to foreign hot spots on the naive assumption that we can and should develop a world police force. Mr. President, I believe we must remember that a peacekeeping mission is not just another peacetime deployment overseas. It is a dangerous situation in which troops are intentionally placed among warring parties in order to construct some sense of order and discipline. American troops are highly visible and so will be especially at risk in these conditions. This makes it our duty, as policy makers, to commit troops only where our vital interests are at stake. We neither can nor should subordinate our interests to those of any abstract, world-wide organization beholden to dictators who see us as enemies. Rather, in deciding whether to deploy U.S. troops to a particular area, we first must weigh the extent to which success in that area will advance our national interests. Only where vital national interests are at stake should we expose our troops to extraordinary danger. Mr. President, please let me also reiterate my earlier statement as to the sliding-scale of interests that usually lay before us. The more directly and significantly our national interests are effected by instability in a particular area, the greater will be the argument for the deployment of U.S. troops. Again, I do not believe that there is some definitive level of American interests that signals the call for U.S. involvement, but rather, the effect upon our interests must be measured against the degree to which the other criteria I have established are impacted. Which brings me to my second criteria--the probability of success in furthering our national interests. It makes little sense to me to undertake a mission that has little or no chance of success unless the threats to our national interests are so great, that such a high level of risk is justified. With peacekeeping, compared to other, more traditional military missions, the risk should be low given the relatively low return we can expect from a mission, which by definition, is supposed to be nonconfrontational. I will repeat again that there is not, in my opinion, some definitive level of risk which we should not cross in a peacekeeping mission; the measurement of that risk should be weighed along the sliding scale of national interests and broader international relations we maintain with the various parties to the conflict. Furthermore, the probability of success will, in my opinion, be much greater for those conflicts where a peace is already at hand, arrived at by the parties themselves from a true desire to end the conflict and find some common ground from which to build a future. In those situations, a peacekeeping force from a trusted friend may be just the step necessary to allay fears and allow the peace process to continue. But when the United States, from a position of superiority or paternalism, attempts to impose a peace upon warring factions in an essentially unresolved conflict, the underlying issues continue to smolder, and the chances for success drop dramatically. There is, however, a third factor which I believe must be considered in any decision to deploy U.S. forces: the degree to which our relationships with the countries of the region will be improved by our participation. At times, for example, while both sides of a conflict wish for peace, one side or the other is so frightened that only American assurances will be sufficient to quiet them. Furthermore, there are countries who are such trusted friends and allies, that their security is a national interest for us too. And just as I have stated earlier regarding the sliding scale with which I believe we should make such analyses, the closer and more significant our relations are with the countries of the region, the more willing we should be to deploy our troops in support of a peace accord. But in such a case we must not seek merely to mimic traditional peacekeepers like the Swedes or Fijians, following some inflexible policy of impartiality. Rather, we should, in my view, make clear that we will not tolerate threats to our interests, or to the interests of our friends. Precisely because we always are perceived as choosing sides, such a statement of interest, if backed up by military presence, will be believed. Two cases where we have become involved may shed some light on how I think we should apply these criteria. In the Sinai, America saw the confluence of vital national security interests, a strong probability of success emerging from a peace accord initiated and completed by Egypt and Israel, and a conflict where two of our close allies requested our involvement. The Middle East conflicts of the last 50 years have repeatedly placed the United States at odds with the Arab world. The threats to the vital energy supplies of the West's industrial base threatened our most significant national interests. Indeed, the world-wide economic recessions of the late 1970's and early 1990's are both directly attributable to the oil shocks of 1973 and 1990. The threats to our national security alone were sufficient to warrant our involvement. But, in this case, the criteria of our international relations with the involved countries was also met through our ties with Egypt and Israel. The Camp David Accord was a consummation of a growing United States-Egyptian relationship, heralding a breakthrough in United States-Arab relations. Started with the shuttle diplomacy of Henry Kissinger, and culminating in the extensive military-to-military relationship developing through our assistance programs, the deployment of American troops to the Sinai helped cement our emerging relationship with Egypt. Furthermore, our commitment to Israeli sovereignty and security has always been a cornerstone of United States Middle East policy. Our participation in the Sinai multinational observer force directly improved our relationship with both countries, helped stabilize the Middle East, and directly represented our commitment to the success of the Camp David Accords. It is doubtful our close relations with either country, the successful establishment of Palestinian authority, or the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Agreement, would have been possible without our peacekeeping pledge. Finally, the probability of success for the Camp David Accord was particularly high given that the combatant states themselves initiated the process and had the most to lose by its failure. It was apparent from the start that both Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin wanted peace, but needed assistance in finding a way to protect their vital national security interests. In such a situation, the good offices provided by the United States, and the assurances to Israeli security provided by the presence of our troops, were the critical elements in securing the Accord. The Dayton agreement, on the other hand, in my view represents a situation in which an American peacekeeping presence is not justified. As I stated during the authorization debate, there is a American interest in resolving the Balkan conflict arising from the threat of broader European instability, the strain the conflict places on our relationships with our NATO allies, and the friction it causes between Eastern and Western Europe. But none of these threats is so far along the scale of national interest that they warrant our involvement in and of their own right. In fact, when measured against the other criteria of success probability and our relationships with the regional states, I believe a compelling case is made for the United States to participate in a peacekeeping mission. As I just explained, I believe American troops are particularly ill suited to serve as traditional, impeccably neutral peacekeepers. They present too ripe a political target and bring too much political baggage simply because of the flag they fly. Because there are alternatives to United States ground involvement, including the provision of air and naval forces, logistical support, and financial resources to support other nations' forces, I believe it is wiser to use smaller, more traditional peacekeeping forces from areas such as Scandinavia, Africa, and Asia. Furthermore, I am not convinced the Dayton Accord was anything other than an imposed peace by a paternalistic Clinton administration. Whereas both the Israelis and Egyptians had concluded that further use of arms was fruitless and counterproductive, the Balkan parties, in my opinion, believe force may still be a legitimate tool to achieve their political aims. In fact, the Washington Times of 31 January 1996 quoted a draft version of a new national intelligence estimate as stating, ``the former combatants share a deep, mutual distrust and will continue to seek achievement of their fundamental goals, rather than accommodation, even as the Dayton agreement proceeds * * *. They will see compromise as a zero-sum game and attempt to divide and manipulate the international community in the way the accords are implemented.'' Until all sides truly want peace, I am doubtful that any peace agreement, no matter how elegantly crafted, will hold in the long run. An imposed peace is, to me, only conflict delayed. Once we leave, I believe the conflict will start anew. Mr. President, I wish we could decide when and where to deploy American troops in support of peacekeeping missions by consulting a checklist of clearly definable and easily quantifiable criteria. Unfortunately, the world is not so simplistic. Each conflict, each situation that begs our involvement, each call for America to serve as policeman or arbiter of justice, presents an enormous range of national security concerns. Along the broad scales of national interests, international relations, and mission success feasibility, we must identify the net result for each situation and determine what action will best advance our national goals. It is not easy, it is not clean, but we must do it. Often times, I believe we will discover that our national interests are not sufficiently implicated to warrant the disproportionate risk under which our military must labor simply because they are the highly visible political force of the world's only superpower. But at other times, especially when our interests do lie with the protection of one or more parties to a conflict, the deployment of U.S. peacekeepers may reasonably advance our national interests. At times like these, we must be ready and willing to make such a commitment to assisting our friends and allies in achieving true and lasting peace.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Peter Cristiano on his long and successful service to the city of Southfield, MI. Mr. Cristiano began his public service in Southfield in 1960, when he was chosen superintendent of parks and recreation. By 1964, he had been appointed deputy city administrator. From 1968 to 1980, he served as Southfield's city administrator, moving on to the city council in 1981 and serving as council president from 1986 to 1988. Peter won numerous awards during his tenure in Southfield, including the Governor's Distinguished Public Employee Award, the Jaycees' ``Man of the Year,'' and the International City Managers Association's Management Innovation Award. He won these awards the hard way: By making substantial improvements in his city's structure and way of life. Capital improvements, park land acquisition, and development, addition of a sports arena, municipal golf arena, and an animal control facility, all were part of his program to improve Southfield, as were new police-court facilities, a senior adult housing complex, and a new headquarters fire station and training center. As important, Peter initiated and implemented a nationally renowned life support unit emergency medical service--one of the first of its kind in the Nation. And Peter restored the city's lovely historical site, ``The Burgh,'' for all of us to enjoy. Peter will be missed as a fixture of Southfield city government. His long, dedicated service helped his community in many concrete ways. And his example should serve as an inspiration to all of us concerning what we can accomplish for our neighbors. Thankfully, Peter will not be leaving us altogether; instead he is merely giving up his government position to concentrate on his duties as president and CEO of his own telecommunications company. I would like to wish Peter all the best in his new endeavors and thank him for all the hard work and good service he has done for his community.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce the Illegal Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 1996. This bill would crack down on the problem of illegal immigration without retreating from our historic commitment to legal immigration. There is a broad consensus that illegal immigration is a significant problem that demands immediate attention. But in addressing that problem, we must not blur the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. The overwhelming majority of legal immigrants are law- abiding, hard-working people who make a positive contribution to our economy and our society. An omnibus immigration bill recently reported out of the Judiciary Subcommittee for Immigration overlooks this distinction. Rather than focus on illegal immigration, the omnibus bill would reduce the quotas for certain categories of legal immigration, eliminate other categories altogether, and impose stifling new taxes and red tape on American businesses that employ talented immigrants. The omnibus bill would also burden every American worker and business with a new national- identification system that would vastly expand the power of the Federal Government in the workplace. The bill I introduce today has a more targeted approach. First, the bill aims to take back control of our borders. It would nearly double the number of border patrol agents, adding 900 such agents for each of the next 5 fiscal years. It would provide new equipment and support personnel for these agents. And it would significantly increase the criminal penalties for the practice of smuggling aliens across our border. Second, the bill would for the first time address the problem caused by persons who overstay their visas. According to the INS, roughly half of all illegal aliens enter the United States with legal, nonimmigrant visas and then remain here after their visas expire. Yet, incredibly, under current law there is no penalty for overstaying one's visa. Moreover, visa overstayers are virtually never caught by the INS, so overstaying is for many aliens a risk-free choice. But the Illegal Immigration Control and Enforcement Act would change all this. Persons who overstay a visa would be ineligible for additional visas for at least 3 to 5 years. Since many visa overstayers hope to reside here legally one day, this penalty would have a significant deterrent effect. To help catch those persons who nevertheless stay here after their visas expire, the bill would authorize the addition of 300 new INS investigators in each of the next 3 fiscal years, who would focus exclusively on visa overstayers. The upshot should be a significant reduction in the numbers of these illegal aliens. Third, the bill would streamline the deportation of criminal aliens. Although, under current law, aliens convicted of felonies after entry are deportable, they are, in fact, rarely deported because of their ability to seek repeated judicial review of their deportation order. That would change under the provisions in my bill, which are stronger than those in the omnibus immigration bill. Under my bill, aliens who are convicted of serious crimes would simply be deported upon completion of their sentences without any further judicial review of their deportation order. These provisions would apply to nearly half a million alien felons currently residing in this country. Fourth, my bill would also respond to the pleas of businesses, particularly small businesses, who wish to follow the law but whose efforts to do so are thwarted by the bewildering array of documents that, under current law, are acceptable for employment verification. To help these employers, the bill would reduce the number of acceptable employment verification to a relative handful of documents familiar to all employers. Finally, Mr. President, the bill I introduce today also includes important welfare reforms similar to those in H.R. 4, the bill that was sent to the President and vetoed. Like H.R. 4, my bill would deny Federal means-tested benefits like welfare, food stamps, and SSI to illegal aliens and sharply restrict the eligibility of legal aliens to receive these benefits. Unlike the omnibus bill reported out of the Judiciary Subcommittee for Immigration, however, my bill would not continue to apply these provisions to immigrants who become citizens of the United States. In my view, we should not create classes of American citizens for this purpose. In summary, Mr. President, we need to focus our efforts on those areas where the real problem lies. By doing so, my bill would address our legitimate concerns about illegal immigration and welfare abuse without abandoning our commitment to family reunification, imposing new taxes and fees on American employers, or handing the Federal Government sweeping new powers in the workplace.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is fitting that during February, Black History Month, The Forum magazine awards its honors to African-American pioneers. These outstanding men and women of African- American descent have succeeded in the face of discrimination and other hardships. Chosen for their contributions to the Flint community and other parts of Michigan, they have shown their commitment to excellence in public service. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to each of the following 1996 African-American pioneer honorees: Judge Ramona Roberts, the second African-American female judge elected in Genesee County, and the only such judge currently serving. Dr. Nanette Lee Reynolds, the first African-American female director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Mrs. Valaria Conerly Moon, the first and only African-American female director of the Valley Area Agency on Aging. Louis Hawkins, the first African-American city clerk for the city of Flint. John Selmon, the first African-American dean of the Detroit College of Business-Flint campus. Joseph Abraham, president of the AFL-CIO, the longest serving--at 20 years--union president in Flint and one of the longest serving in the United States. Clydell Duncan, Sr., the recently retired police chief for the city of Flint--the second African-American police chief and the first African-American captain in the Flint Police Department. And last but certainly not least, Mayor Woodrow Stanley, who has done such a fine job as the first African-American mayor elected to serve two terms in the city of Flint.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce the Illegal Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 1996. This bill would crack down on the problem of illegal immigration without retreating from our historic commitment to legal immigration. There is a broad consensus that illegal immigration is a significant problem that demands immediate attention. But in addressing that problem, we must not blur the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. The overwhelming majority of legal immigrants are law- abiding, hard-working people who make a positive contribution to our economy and our society. An omnibus immigration bill recently reported out of the Judiciary Subcommittee for Immigration overlooks this distinction. Rather than focus on illegal immigration, the omnibus bill would reduce the quotas for certain categories of legal immigration, eliminate other categories altogether, and impose stifling new taxes and red tape on American businesses that employ talented immigrants. The omnibus bill would also burden every American worker and business with a new national- identification system that would vastly expand the power of the Federal Government in the workplace. The bill I introduce today has a more targeted approach. First, the bill aims to take back control of our borders. It would nearly double the number of border patrol agents, adding 900 such agents for each of the next 5 fiscal years. It would provide new equipment and support personnel for these agents. And it would significantly increase the criminal penalties for the practice of smuggling aliens across our border. Second, the bill would for the first time address the problem caused by persons who overstay their visas. According to the INS, roughly half of all illegal aliens enter the United States with legal, nonimmigrant visas and then remain here after their visas expire. Yet, incredibly, under current law there is no penalty for overstaying one's visa. Moreover, visa overstayers are virtually never caught by the INS, so overstaying is for many aliens a risk-free choice. But the Illegal Immigration Control and Enforcement Act would change all this. Persons who overstay a visa would be ineligible for additional visas for at least 3 to 5 years. Since many visa overstayers hope to reside here legally one day, this penalty would have a significant deterrent effect. To help catch those persons who nevertheless stay here after their visas expire, the bill would authorize the addition of 300 new INS investigators in each of the next 3 fiscal years, who would focus exclusively on visa overstayers. The upshot should be a significant reduction in the numbers of these illegal aliens. Third, the bill would streamline the deportation of criminal aliens. Although, under current law, aliens convicted of felonies after entry are deportable, they are, in fact, rarely deported because of their ability to seek repeated judicial review of their deportation order. That would change under the provisions in my bill, which are stronger than those in the omnibus immigration bill. Under my bill, aliens who are convicted of serious crimes would simply be deported upon completion of their sentences without any further judicial review of their deportation order. These provisions would apply to nearly half a million alien felons currently residing in this country. Fourth, my bill would also respond to the pleas of businesses, particularly small businesses, who wish to follow the law but whose efforts to do so are thwarted by the bewildering array of documents that, under current law, are acceptable for employment verification. To help these employers, the bill would reduce the number of acceptable employment verification to a relative handful of documents familiar to all employers. Finally, Mr. President, the bill I introduce today also includes important welfare reforms similar to those in H.R. 4, the bill that was sent to the President and vetoed. Like H.R. 4, my bill would deny Federal means-tested benefits like welfare, food stamps, and SSI to illegal aliens and sharply restrict the eligibility of legal aliens to receive these benefits. Unlike the omnibus bill reported out of the Judiciary Subcommittee for Immigration, however, my bill would not continue to apply these provisions to immigrants who become citizens of the United States. In my view, we should not create classes of American citizens for this purpose. In summary, Mr. President, we need to focus our efforts on those areas where the real problem lies. By doing so, my bill would address our legitimate concerns about illegal immigration and welfare abuse without abandoning our commitment to family reunification, imposing new taxes and fees on American employers, or handing the Federal Government sweeping new powers in the workplace.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to address several of the votes cast today. Among other items, the Senate voted today to uphold the Budget Act with respect to the Kennedy and Harkin amendments. Let me make my position clear; I support full funding for education and continued vigilance over Medicare fraud. In the past, I have offered several amendments to protect education spending from cuts as well as to create new initiatives to fight Medicare fraud. My Medicare fraud amendment was a key part of the Medicare reforms vetoed by the President as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Nevertheless, I did not support any amendment to the continuing resolution which would result in the shutdown of the Federal Government. By forcing this bill to return to the House for additional debate, these amendments would have done just that. Already we have seen the Government shut down twice in the past few months. The most recent shutdown lasted a record 21 days. Another shutdown is simply unacceptable. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that the text of my bill, S. 1504, the Victims Restitution Enforcement Act of 1995 be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1504, the Victims Restitution Enforcement Act of 1995. I do so because I am convinced that justice demands we devise an effective mechanism for enforcing orders of restitution owed by criminals to the victims of their crimes. We take an important step today with the adoption of H.R. 665. This bill makes restitution mandatory and thereby sends a clear message to criminals that they will be made to pay for their crimes. I also believe it is critical that we let victims know that at last they will be entitled to some relief. In order to help realize the promise of H.R. 665's mandatory victim restitution, however, I believe further steps are needed. To that end, the bill I am introducing today will bring important and needed changes to the enforcement mechanisms covering orders of restitution in Federal court. This bill will further ensure that restitution payments from criminals to their victims become a reality. S. 1504 will provide four major advantages to victims named in criminal restitution orders. First, restitution orders would be enforceable as a civil debt and payable immediately. Right now, most restitution is collected entirely through the criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as directed by the probation officer, which means restitution payments can't begin until the prisoner is released. This bill makes restitution orders payable immediately, as a civil debt, speeding recovery and impeding attempts to avoid payment. Without this provision, it will remain easier for the Government to go after students who have defaulted on their student loans than it is for the Government to enforce an order of restitution against convicted criminals. Of course, this provision will impose no criminal penalties on those unable to pay. It will simply allow civil collection against those who have assets. Second, this bill will add a whole new arsenal of weapons for collecting victim restitution payments. If the debt is payable immediately all normal civil collection procedures--principally the Federal Debt Collection Act--can be used. This bill also explicitly gives victims access to other extensive civil procedures already in place for the collection of debts. We want to make criminals pay, not burden our courts or our Federal criminal prosecutors. Thus we should not be unilaterally deciding to place enforcement of all victim restitution within the criminal process, but should permit the Attorney General to place responsibility for collecting restitution payments on Government attorneys charged with collecting other civil debts. Third, this bill will make restitution judgments subject to criminal enforcement for 5 years. Current law only allows enforcement of an order of restitution by the United States in the same manner as fines are enforced, permitting the limited use of some criminal sanctions. Presently, for example, the court will be permitted to resentence a criminal who wilfully refuses to make restitution payments--but nothing short of that. This bill will add a variety of less draconian criminal sanctions to the court's arsenal, such as modification of the terms or conditions of parole, extension of the defendant's probation or supervised release, or revocation of probation or supervised release. The bill will thus retain the fines mechanism, and improve on the criminal sanctions, as well as add a number of purely civil methods of debt collection. Fourth, this legislation will give the courts power to impose presentence restraints on defendant's use of their assets in appropriate cases. This will prevent well-heeled defendants from dissipating assets prior to sentencing. Without this provision the whole victim restitution law may well be useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases in which a defendant has the means to pay full restitution at once, if the court has no capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill-gotten gains prior to the sentencing phase, frequently there will be nothing left for the victim by the time the restitution order is entered. The provisions permitting pre-sentence restraints are similar to other such provisions that already exist in the law for private civil actions and asset forfeiture cases. For example, they require a court hearing and place a preponderance of the evidence burden on the Government. Finally, this bill will prevent the defendant from denying the essential findings underlying a criminal restitution judgment in any future civil action brought by the victim. All victims named in a restitution order will be able to bring a civil action to enforce the order in State court without having to relitigate the essential findings of the criminal judgment against the defendant. This provision merely corrects an aberration in the law. Currently the United States and some--but not all--victims are permitted to use the criminal judgment in subsequent civil proceedings. Indeed, under current law, the only victims who absolutely cannot use the essential findings of a criminal judgment in a subsequent civil action are victims who happen to live in states with mutuality requirements for collateral estoppel, and who have been victims of crimes in which the defendant did not plead guilty. This makes no sense. In such instances there has already been a full criminal trial in Federal court convicting the defendant under a higher burden of proof than is required in a civil action. Ordinarily, the victim would be able to take advantage of the criminal conviction, just as the United States can. And in fact, victims are often able to use anything the criminal has agreed to in a plea bargain because those statements constitute judicial admissions. But because of a clause in the law that limits the effect of criminal judgments in subsequent civil actions to the extent that would be permitted by state law, these Federal criminal judgments are, in some cases, not accorded the effect they are due. For the sake of judicial economy alone, this should be corrected. If we are willing to take the step of making some crimes subject to mandatory restitution, as we do in the victim restitution bill today, I believe we should take the additional step of making those mandatorily- issued orders easily enforceable. This is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these further steps to make victim restitution work that are contained in my victim restitution bill.