Spencer Abraham

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.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support this bill because it will require the perpetrators of many Federal crimes to make restitution to their victims in all cases, without exception. I also believe its enforcement mechanisms make significant improvements over those in existing law. I believe, however, that these procedures can be improved upon still further. In discussions with restitution experts about what we can do to improve the procedures in current law, the one suggestion I have heard uniformly is that restitution orders should be made civil debts, payable immediately. Instead of having the sentencing judge essentially attempt to rewrite civil debt collection procedures and require the Government to enforce them principally through its criminal attorneys, it would make more sense to make available the civil debt collection procedures, which are established collection methods fully consistent with due process, and make it easy for the Government to have its civil attorneys, who are well versed in collection actions and procedures, take on a significant portion of the enforcement responsibilities. These are, after all, the same procedures that we already apply to students who default on student loan payments and others who owe debts to the Government. Accordingly, I am today introducing a bill that will pick up where I believe this bill leaves off. My bill will improve on collection of victim restitution in four main areas. First, it would make restitution orders civil debts. Second, to enforce these orders it would make available to the U.S. Government the Federal Debt Collection Act and all other civil and administrative tools ordinarily used to collect debts owed the United States. The United States could use these tools to enforce restitution orders on its own behalf or on behalf of other victims. The bill also would allow victims to use State civil enforcement mechanisms on their own behalf. Third, the bill would allow victims to obtain the full benefit of collateral estoppel from judgments in Federal criminal cases giving rise to restitution orders in subsequent civil proceedings, regardless of state law limitations. And finally, it would allow the courts in appropriate cases to prevent defendants from dissipating the assets that would otherwise be able to be used to pay victim restitution orders. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership of the distinguished chairman and ranking member in formulating the current bill. I have worked with both of them in developing these additional proposals. Because of the timetable on which my friend from Utah is operating, it did not seem practical to include them in the legislation we are debating here today. But both he and my friend from Delaware have assured me that they are planning on making additional improvements in our enforcement procedures in an upcoming bill dealing with criminal fines, and it is the hope of all of us that we will be able to include some or all of these proposals, either in their current form or with modifications, in the fines legislation next year.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation regarding the ban on the use of United states passports for travel to Lebanon. I, along with my colleagues, Mr. Simon, Mr. Graham of Florida, and Mr. Kennedy, cosponsored this resolution with the hope that the passport restriction will eventually be lifted. The current policy--in effect, a travel ban to Lebanon--has had a negative impact on United States businesses and individuals. Since the restriction on the use of United States passports for travel to Lebanon inordinately affects Americans of Lebanese descent, we are proposing expanding the humanitarian considerations provision to permit those Americans of Lebanese descent to travel to Lebanon. This would ease the concerns of many Lebanese Americans who may want to travel to Lebanon for family reunification purposes, but who presently are unable to do so. We also advocate creating a new waiver category which would permit travel by United States business personnel who wish to do business in Labanon. While the reconstruction effort in Lebanon is progressing at a fast pace, United States businesses are hindered from participating in this rebuilding effort due to the travel restrictions. United States businesses cannot compete with foreign companies with representation in and free access to Lebanon. While we understand and agree that the safety and security of United States citizens is of paramount concern when reviewing the travel policy, it is also our understanding that more than 45,000 Americans are estimated to have traveled without incident to Lebanon during the past 4 years. That being the case, the current restrictions appear to be inconsistent with the situation on the ground. In addition, we note that other countries equally and, in some cases, more unstable than Lebanon are not subject to similar travel constraints. In view of these considerations, and taking into account the overall improvement in circumstances inside Lebanon, we urge the Secretary of State to lift the passport restriction for Lebanon and issue in its place a travel advisory. Such a step would make clear any risks and dangers associated with travel to Lebanon, and at the same time enable United States citizens to make their own informed decisions. Mr. President, I hope that this resolution will be incorporated into the next review process of the travel restrictions to Lebanon, and that in February 1996, the Department of State will implement the suggestions encompassed in this resolution.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank you very much, Mr. President. Tonight I wish to talk about this bill from what I can see as a very different perspective. It is a perspective shared by a lot of people in my State and I think by people more broadly across America. It may be that there are some in this Chamber who bought into the stereotype of people who are in the needy category in our country and view them only as freeloaders. I do not come from that perspective. We have people in my State--I know them well--who would like very much to not be dependent on the Government, people who would like to be earning their own income and people who would like to be on the first rung of the economic ladder. I know it from my own family's experience. My own father was at one time in a CCC camp, so I know a little bit about the experiences of people in hard times and the desire that I think exists within all of us to not be dependent on Government but, rather, dependent on ourselves. What I think most people are saying in this country today is very simply this, that we have, over 20-plus years at a national level, attempted to fight a war on poverty with very little tangible success. Those who are below the poverty line today are approximately the same percentage of our country as the case when this program began. But in the meantime, and contrary I think to some of the things suggested here during the earlier debates and these, I think our States have changed their philosophy. I know certainly that in Michigan the desire is not to have flexibility and liberation from Washington to put more people in poverty but, rather, to help the people who are below the poverty line to be able to take better care of themselves. Indeed, that is why I support this legislation, because I wish to really win the war on poverty, not just fight a battle that 20 years from now is at the same pace and point that we are today. We have a broken system, and it should be fixed. I think the legislation before us moves us in the direction of fixing it. It establishes goals that are long overdue--foremost among them, the notion that intact families are a critical ingredient in addressing the poverty problem in America today; that the problem of illegitimacy, which many of our colleagues have spoken of and spoken more eloquently than I and understand in more detail than I can understand, the problem of illegitimacy I think has been lost over the years during this poverty debate where a check became a substitute often for a parent, a check from Washington. So I think it is time, as this bill does, to change the goals and to put intact families and reducing the illegitimacy at the top of our national agenda, and also to put the goal of putting people to work rather than being part of a permanent welfare condition at the top of the agenda. And most importantly, to put hope and the inspiration needed to put people on the economic ladder at the top of the agenda. The current system has I think failed us in achieving those objectives. What the bill does strategically is this. It gives States, the people on the front lines, the kind of flexibility they need to help people who are on welfare. It says, let us have less bureaucracy in Washington and let us give the people on the front line, the front-line caseworkers the chance to really work with people in our country who need help to get them on the economic ladder. That is what we need. In my State of Michigan, approximately two-thirds of the time of our front-line welfare caseworkers is spent basically filling out paperwork, most of it for the Federal Government, instead of helping the people these programs are intended to help. A second objective is to give the States the flexibility to give better solutions to the problems, rather than the Washington-knows-best solutions that they have labored under for far too long. The States in fact, Mr. President, care a lot more about the people who live in them than anybody here inside the beltway. And Governors and legislators are just as concerned and compassionate as we are, and I happen to think are a lot more likely to be creative and inventive in dealing with the problems in their own States than we possibly can be trying to administer a 50-State program with one set of solutions. So State flexibility is a cornerstone of the program. So, too, is the consolidation of the programs. Instead of having the massive numbers of programs that have grown up during the last 25 years, this program, this welfare bill, reduces, consolidates programs. It saves us money in terms of bureaucracy but it makes the programs comprehensible and workable, instead of far too complicated, and oftentimes in conflict with one another. Third, it addresses, as I suggested earlier, the illegitimacy problem facing our Nation today in a variety of, I think, very effective ways. During the original debate on this bill I was on the floor promoting part of this legislation which I helped draft, the so-called bonus to States who reduce the rate of illegitimacy without simultaneously increasing the number of abortions.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair and I thank the manager. This approach addressing the illegitimacy problems will start finally to focus priorities at the State level where they ought to be, on keeping families intact, on reducing the number of out-of-wedlock births, and as a consequence addressing the problem at its core, the child poverty statistics we hear so often about. The concern I think we all have for children born in poverty is in no small sense a result of the fact that too many children are born out of wedlock into families that are not economically strong enough to protect them. Finally, the strategy in this legislation is to put strong, tough work requirements into place and to give States the incentives they need to try to get people to work rather than simply administering the massive transfer of payment program that does very little to give people the kind of dignity, incentive, and encouragement and help they need to get onto the economic ladder. For those reasons, Mr. President, I think this bill is on target. I will support the conference report when we vote tomorrow. I hope that the President will reconsider his comments with respect to vetoing the legislation because I believe this truly will accomplish something that he and many of us have spoken about in the context of our campaigns, the notion that we truly would reform welfare and change welfare as we know it. This legislation ends business as usual. This legislation will address the welfare problems effectively. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will support it. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask the manager if I might have an additional 2 minutes?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments today in response to some issues that have been raised and then focus on what I think we are about here. Earlier, concerns were raised with respect to the manner in which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scores the various polices and economic projections that make up the budget. In response to these remarks, I would like to say this: In my State of Michigan, people are concerned with the way Washington does its bookkeeping. For them, the principal criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, leaving aside the issue of whether it is partisan or not, is that it is too optimistic. In Michigan, and other States as well, average working men and women think Washington has been way too liberal in our bookkeeping for way too long. Too often in the past, we relied on rosy economic projections to make it appear as if we were taking action, whether it was in deficit reduction or in any other area of Federal Government activity, only to see those rosy scenarios unrealized. For that reason, it is in our interest to have a budget office that scores our legislation on a conservative basis. Mr. President, I have very little fear that Congress will have difficulty figuring how to spend the surplus, should the Congressional Budget Office's numbers prove to be too conservative. On the other hand, I am confident, based upon the last 25 years of behavior, that Congress will have a very difficult time making additional spending cuts, if we use too optimistic projections that result in future deficits. I should point out that the Congressional Budget Office is taking the same kind of conservative approach that the average American family takes when it projects how it is going to handle its finances. I know in my family, and in families across the country, nobody sits down and says, ``I think there is a good chance I am going to get a big raise in 2 years or 4 years,'' and base all of their spending decisions on that assumption. Instead, they try to be, if anything, conservative in their expectations so that they do not end up in debt. So I applaud the Congressional Budget Office for its efforts to finally bring a conservative, practical approach to the way it does its business. Second, Mr. President, I think it is important that this resolution brings us back to what we are about. What we are about is balancing the budget and reducing the growth of Government. We are about trying to make sure that Government does not consume so much of our wealth so that the people in America, the families in this country, find themselves spending too much of their time working for us in Washington instead of the other way around. In addition, Mr. President, what we are about is allowing those families to keep more of what they earn. This resolution--and I think we should not lose sight of it--includes provisions for reducing the tax burden on families and stimulating economic growth. That is important. We learned in previous budget deals that increasing taxes on this country's job creators hurts families. I believe there was a significant luxury tax on boats that was imposed 5 years ago. What happened? To no one's surprise, at least to people who look at these things in the economic sense, the number of boats being produced in this country quickly and dramatically dropped. Numerous boat builders went out of business, and thousands of jobs were destroyed. So that luxury tax was repealed. A whole industry of working people with families found themselves suffering because we thought you can tax and tax and not have repercussions that affect average people. Instead, as this resolution makes clear, we should reduce the tax burden on families and businesses alike. In conclusion, Mr. President, what we are about is balancing the budget, letting people keep more of what they earn, and putting our priorities in the right order. That is why this resolution should pass. I urge its adoption.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Resolution 199. I would like to focus on this from a slightly different perspective from those that have been suggested so far. In particular, I would like this body to consider the following question: Has President Clinton, in withholding material Congress is seeking for an obviously legitimate purpose, acted consistently with the standard of conduct set by every President who has served since President Nixon? Regrettably, Mr. President, I conclude that he has not. Accordingly, I believe it is incumbent on the Senate to adopt the pending resolution. President Nixon's assertion of executive privilege precipitated a constitutional crisis that ultimately played a major role in forcing his resignation. Since that time, Presidents have been extremely cautious in using privilege as a basis for withholding materials from legitimate Congressional inquiries. They have been especially cautious when this withholding of information might suggest to a reasonable person that privilege might be being asserted to cloak Presidential or other high level wrongdoing. The reason for this caution is clear: relations between the branches and the people's confidence in their Government suffer greatly when the President gives the appearance of withholding information in order to protect himself or others close to him from public scrutiny of potential wrongdoing. This practice was codified in a directive from President Reagan issued on November 4, 1982. Addressed to all general counsels, the directive describes how President Reagan wanted the assertion of executive privilege handled. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the memorandum be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me quote from the memorandum: The policy of this Administration is to comply with Congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch. While this Administration, like its predecessors, has an obligation to protect the confidentiality of some communications, executive privilege will be asserted only in the most compelling circumstances, and only after careful review demonstrates that assertion of the privilege is necessary. Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the Executive Branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.* * * To this end President Reagan set up prudential limitations regarding the assertion of privilege even where a claim might be legitimate: Congressional requests for information shall be complied with as promptly and as fully as possible, unless it is determined that compliance raises a substantial question of executive privilege. A substantial question of executive privilege exists if disclosure of the information requested might significantly impair the national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch or other aspects of the performance of the Executive Branch's constitutional duties. Every effort shall be made to comply with the Congressional request in a manner consistent with the legitimate needs of the Executive Branch. The Department Head, the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President may, in the exercise of their discretion in the circumstances, determine that executive privilege shall not be invoked and release the requested information. Similarly, those advising Presidents since President Nixon have universally recommended great caution before assertions of privilege are made. One particular aspect of this advice is well worth quoting: An additional limitation on the assertion of executive privilege is that privilege should not be invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or criminality on the part of executive officers. The documents must therefore be reviewed for any evidence of misconduct which would render the assertion of privilege inappropriate. It should always be remembered that even the most carefully administered department or agency may have made a mistake or failed to discover a wrongdoing committed inside or outside the Government. Study, Congressional Inquiries Concerning the Decisionmaking Process and Documents of the Executive Branch: 1953-1960. The greatest danger attending any assertion of Executive Privilege has always arisen from the difficulty, perhaps impossibility, of establishing with absolute certainty that no mistake or wrongdoing will subsequently come to light which lends credence to congressional assertions that the privilege has been improperly invoked.'' This passage comes from a 1984 opinion written by Robert B. Shanks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Shanks was responding to the Deputy Attorney General's request for an opinion regarding Congressional subpoenas of Department of Justice Investigate Files. His opinion can be found at 8 Op. OLC 252. It well summarizes, I think, the dangers that any assertion of privilege may present even where the assertion is undertaken for legitimate reasons, but where its bona fide is bound to be suspect. Now I recognize, Mr. President, that the principal label President Clinton is placing on this privilege claim is attorney-client--although he has not disavowed a claim of executive privilege. But even apart from the fact that it is unclear whether the President has a separate attorney-client privilege in communications with government lawyers apart from his executive privilege, it does not seem to me that the label should matter. In either case the need to protect the President's authority to assert privilege where he really needs to, and to prevent gratuitous undermining of the public's faith in its government present the same overwhelming arguments for caution. Now it is clear to me that no matter what the basis of the President's assertion of privilege here, it does not meet the standards that previous Presidents have followed in these matters. The meeting at issue was apparently about a matter so far from the core interests of the Presidency that it required the involvement of private lawyers to defend the President's interests. It has nothing to do with national security. And it is impossible to believe that furnishing these notes will in any way impair the President in the performance of his constitutional functions. Moreover, given that the President's associates have managed to force the appointment of an independent counsel by withholding and removing files relevant to the Department of Justice's investigation into Vincent Foster's death, it seems to me that the President should take his obligation of candor even more seriously than is ordinarily the case. Thus, even if President Clinton has a valid claim of privilege--a point on which I am profoundly skeptical--I believe he ought not assert it here. He has given no reasons weighty enough to justify its assertion. And indeed, what he has said about this matter shows a surprising lack of perspective regarding the circumstances in which such assertions should be made. President Clinton is quoted in the press as saying that he ``doesn't think he should be the first President in history'' not to protect communications arguably protected by the attorney-client privilege. I don't know if this statement was accurately reported, but if it was, frankly it is as peculiar as some of the other claims that the President has been making in the last few weeks. Without going back very far in history at all, we can all come up with examples where Presidents have waived possible attorney-client privilege claims in the face of congressional requests for information. Indeed, if Congress is really and legitimately interested in something, such waivers are the norm, not the exception. Let us look at the select committee's 1987 investigation of the Iran- Contra matter. The hearings, reports, and depositions are replete with references to notes, interviews, and testimony from government lawyers obviously covering potentially privileged materials. These include notes of then White House Counsel Peter Wallison, testimony from Attorney General Meese and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Charles Cooper, and National Security Council counsel Paul Thompson. Similarly, when Congress became concerned about issues arising out of the United States relations with Iraq, President Bush provided numerous materials to various committees investigating these matters. And these materials could have been the subject of claims of attorney-client privilege at least as strong as the one President Clinton is making here. Indeed, President Bush even provided notes and other materials relating to meetings among lawyers including the White House counsel and the counsel to the National Security Council regarding how to respond to congressional document requests. President Bush also interposed no bar to these lawyers' testifying before Congress and responding to questions. Indeed, Mr. President, as recently as 2 days ago President Clinton's own White House counsel voluntarily provided to members of the Judiciary Committee an opinion of the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel regarding his interpretation of an antinepotism statute as not limiting the President's appointment power. This opinion undoubtedly would be subject to as strong an attorney- client privilege claim as one can imagine the President making. But the White House counsel provided it, knowing that it would waive any privilege claim, because he believed it was in the interest of the President for the Judiciary Committee to have it. I ask unanimous consent that the letter transmitting this opinion be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In short, there is nothing extraordinary or unprecedented in the Select Committee's interest in these notes and the committee's desire to get them is far from extraordinary or unprecedented in the history of Congressional-Presidential relations. Rather, what is extraordinary and inconsistent with the way Presidents since President Nixon have handled such questions is President Clinton's assertion of privilege. This is particularly striking given the circumstances surrounding these materials; circumstances suggesting to many reasonable observers, including the editorialists quoted on the floor today, that there is a issue of potential high level wrongdoing at issue here. Mr. President, I would like to make one final point. Some have said that if we vote to enforce the subpoena, all efforts to reach a negotiated settlement of this matter will cease. Mr. President, that would greatly surprise me. The courts have stated time and time again that both branches have an obligation to accommodate each other's interests in these matters. Thus, if either branch were to cease all efforts at accommodation, it would do great damage to its legal case. Moreover, it is in both branches' interest, and indeed it is both branches' constitutional duty, to try to resolve this matter without going to court. Therefore I do not think any Member of this body should view a vote to enforce this resolution as a vote to end our efforts at resolving this matter without going to court. Rather, even if we adopt this resolution and Senate Legal Counsel begins work on legal papers, I am sure the committee will at the same time continue its efforts to obtain these notes with the President's consent. And it is my hope that, resolution or no resolution, the President will provide them promptly. That is his duty, as it is our duty to defend the committee's ability to investigate potential wrongdoing. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 The White House Washington, November 4, 1982. memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies Subject: Procedures Governing Responses to Congressional Requests for Information The policy of this Administration is to comply with Congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch. While this Administration, like its predecessors, has an obligation to protect the confidentiality of some communications, executive privilege will be asserted only in the most compelling circumstances, and only after careful review demonstrates that assertion of the privilege is necessary. Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the Executive Branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches. To ensure that every reasonable accommodation is made to the needs of Congress, executive privilege shall not be invoked without specific Presidential authorization. The Supreme Court has held that the Executive Branch may occasionally find it necessary and proper to preserve the confidentiality of national security secrets, deliberative communications that form a part of the decision-making process, or other information important to the discharge of the Executive Branch's constitutional responsibilities. Legitimate and appropriate claims of privilege should not thoughtlessly be waived. However, to ensure that this Administration acts responsibly and consistently in the exercise of its duties, with due regard for the responsibilities and prerogatives of Congress, the following procedures shall be followed whenever Congressional requests for information raise concerns regarding the confidentiality of the information sought: 1. Congressional requests for information shall be complied with as promptly and as fully as possible, unless it is determined that compliance raises a substantial question of executive privilege. A ``substantial question of executive privilege'' exists if disclosure of the information requested might significantly impair the national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch or other aspects of the performance of the Executive Branch's constitutional duties. 2. If the head of an executive department or agency (``Department Head'') believes, after consultation with department counsel, that compliance with a Congressional request for information raises a substantial question of executive privilege, he shall promptly notify and consult with the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, and shall also promptly notify and consult with the Counsel to the President. If the information requested of a department or agency derives in whole or in part from information received from another department or agency, the latter entity shall also be consulted as to whether disclosure of the information raises a substantial question of executive privilege. 3. Every effort shall be made to comply with the Congressional request in a manner consistent with the legitimate needs of the Executive Branch. The Department Head, the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President may, in the exercise of their discretion in the circumstances, determine that executive privilege shall not be invoked and release the requested information. 4. If the Department Head, the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes, after consultation, that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President, who will advise the Department Head and the Attorney General of the President's decision. 5. Pending a final Presidential decision on the matter, the Department Head shall request the Congressional body to hold its request for the information in abeyance. The Department Head shall expressly indicate that the purpose of this request is to protect the privilege pending a Presidential decision, and that the request itself does not constitute a claim of privilege. 6. If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Department Head shall advise the requesting Congressional body that the claim of executive privilege is being made with the specific approval of the President. Any questions concerning these procedures or related matters should be addressed to the Attorney General, through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, and to the Counsel to the President. Ronald Reagan.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if the Senator would be so kind, I would just like to wrap up with one more question. Section 276 of the bill provides a waiver authority for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to obligate any remaining funds that could not be obligated under the cost-sharing requirements by July 15 of a fiscal year. In my opinion, to waive this requirement without making every effort to find suitable projects that meet the cost-sharing requirement would be contrary to the intent of this legislation. If he would like to comment, what safeguards did the chairman envision in drafting this waiver authority against this waiver being the rule instead of the exception?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the committee for that explanation and for the kind assistance he has provided me and my staff in resolving this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator for that clarification, and wish to follow-up as to what constitutes a non-Federal funding source. Given that non-Federal expenses are often reimbursed by the Federal Government through other programs or accounts, would the chairman wish to comment on what exactly constitutes the cost-sharing funds?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a brief discussion regarding the impact of the Conference Report to H.R. 1530 regarding the Manufacturing Technology Program. The bill requires a two-to-one cost share from private sources for at least 25 percent of the MANTECH Program expenditures. Specifically, I am concerned that the statement that awards be made on a case-by-case basis may result in overall inefficiencies. Would the chairman wish to comment on that concern and offer an interpretation that would not preclude the incorporation of a range of projects in a given program area that may involve a number of participants, but still gains at least a two-for-one total cost sharing from non-Federal sources?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, lowering the legal immigrant quota will lower the benefit we can gain from hard-working and highly-skilled immigrants. Tightening restrictions on family unification also will cost us a great deal. It will cost us our principles because we know well that U.S. citizens should be able to bring their elderly parents to this country after he has established himself here. And we know well that others, adult sisters and brothers and other relatives, particularly those living under the many repressive regimes in this world, should be allowed to join their relatives in the land of freedom. And keeping families separated also will be bad for our economy. Skilled workers will be less likely to come to America if they know that they will not be allowed to reunite their families. Most people are reluctant to move out of town if they cannot see their families. In my view, America will not be able to attract the ``best and the brightest'' from around the world if we impose barriers that prevent people from re-uniting with their parents and siblings. Mr. President, in my view S. 1394's provisions restricting legal immigration are misconceived; they are misconceived because they are based on misconceptions: first, that immigrants take jobs away from Americans who need them, second, that immigrants are a drain on our governments and third, that immigrants are a danger to our culture. Contrary to popular myth, immigrants do not increase the rate of unemployment among American workers. There is a great deal of empirical evidence to support this position. First, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution studied immigration patterns over the long term in America. They found that, historically, periods of heavy immigration have not been associated with subsequent higher than normal unemployment. Second, the Manhattan Institute compared the ten states with the highest immigrant presence with the ten states with the lowest immigrant presence and found that the high-immigrant states actually had lower unemployment rates, in the aggregate, than did the low- immigrant states. The median unemployment rate in States with large immigrant populations was 5.1 percent while that for the 10 States with low immigrant populations was 6.6 percent--a full 1.5 percent difference. I could go on, Mr. President, but there is no need. Let me instead quote Julian Simon. This University of Maryland professor and author of the seminal work on ``The Economic Consequences of Immigration'' recently finished an immigration report for the Cato Institute. In that report he states unequivocally: ``The studies uniformly show that immigrants do not increase the rate of native unemployment.'' It's as simple as that. Immigrants do not increase unemployment. In fact, Mr. President, immigrants do not take jobs, they crate jobs. By advancing our technology, by developing better products, by starting new businesses and by themselves consuming goods, immigrants expand and create whole new areas of production employing thousands of native-born Americans. This brings us to the second mistaken assumption underlying attempts to restrict immigration: that legal immigrants are a drain on the public coffers. Mr. President, when total government expenditures per capita are considered, the government spends about one third less per immigrant than it does per native. This is because immigrants are more likely than natives to be of working age. They pay into the tax system without taking out, for example, Social Security payments. Further, refugees fleeing persecution automatically qualify for government benefits when they are admitted into the United States. If we factor out the use of welfare among refugees, immigrants or working age are less likely to use welfare than are the native born. As Julian Simon of the University of Maryland reported recently in the Wall Street Journal, ``the immigrant family contributes yearly about $2,500 more in taxes to public coffers than it obtains in services.'' And those who still fear the costs of immigration should remember a policy option which we already have substantially put in place: ``immigration yes, welfare no.'' Current law already forbids almost all immigrants from receiving welfare for their first three years in this country. We can legitimately toughen these standards. And our welfare reform bill does so by denying noncash benefits such as supplemental security income and food stamps to immigrants. But we should recognize that the vast majority of immigrants are working hard, in real jobs that add to the well-being of our people and our country. There is one final misconception underlying S. 1394's provisions restricting immigration. It has been said that America needs a reduction in immigration for the sake of our culture. Some Americans have expressed concern about a new wave of immigrants, bringing new customs and ways of life to our shores. Despite the scare tactics we sometimes hear, however, immigrants are not breaking down our culture. First, Mr. President, immigrants are not coming to America in unprecedented numbers. Professor Simon's cautious estimate, based on census data, is that as of 1990, immigrants made up only 8.5 percent of our population. That compares with averages over 13 percent between 1860 and 1920. As a proportion of the total population, then, immigrant numbers have dropped by more than a third. What is more, the Manhattan Institute's ``Index of Leading Immigration Indicators'' shows that, compared with the native born, immigrants are more likely to have intact families, more likely to have college degrees, more likely to be working, and no more likely to commit crimes than native born Americans. We are not being swamped by unmanageable numbers of immigrants. Further, Mr. President, immigrants are like the rest of us in all the ways that matter. They are hard-working, family-oriented people who come here to make a better life for themselves and their children. They are, in fact, the kind of people each and every one of us would and should be happy and proud to have as neighbors. It seems clear to me, Mr. President, that legal immigration is a boon to our Nation's economy and society. Unfortunately, S. 1394 tends to obscure the benefits of legal immigration because it contains provisions addressing illegal immigration as well. Indeed, much of the driving force behind S. 1394 is directed, not at those who legally come to this country, but at those who come here illegally. We can address the illegal immigration problem through better border policing and better and swifter methods of deportation, particularly in regard to criminal illegal aliens. And as I mentioned earlier, we have addressed the welfare magnet problem in our welfare reform bill. That's why I think we should split S. 1394 and move on illegal immigration reform separately from legal immigration reform. But even some of the illegal immigration components of S. 1394 go much farther than is necessary. Illegal immigrants now constitute 1.5 percent of our population. That is too high a percentage, but we need to examine more effective--and less intrusive ways--to control illegal immigration. This legislation proposes to end illegal immigration by requiring a national Identification system for all employees. In order to get a new job, every American will have to prove his or her citizenship by showing that he or she is listed on a specific, national computer registry. Before an employer can hire a new worker that employer will have to contact the Federal Government for verification of the would-be employee's citizenship. Thus we will construct a vast new Government bureaucracy, with vast new powers and, Mr. President, with cast new costs. Current estimates suggest that, with a national I.D. system, each work place would have to spend nearly $800 for equipment alone. And the Immigration and Naturalization Service Telephone Verification Pilot System, often seen as a prototype for the new I.D. System, shows that operating costs could put many companies out of business. It is for this reason that the Nation Federation of Independent Businesses-- America's leading small business organization--strongly opposes the I.D. system in S. 1394. It is clear that the system itself will not work. It will be riddled with errors. Indeed, current Social Security Administration files and error rates show a probable error rate of between 25 and 28 percent for the new system, making it far from effective. Even assuming an error rate of only 3 percent, the system would put in bureaucratic limbo or even deny jobs to 2 million Americans, most of them native-born U.S. citizens. Advocates of the proposed I.D. system in S. 1394 claim that it is only a ``pilot project'' that would cover workers in just five States. However, these States--Texas, Florida, Illinois, New York and California--have a population greater than that of Mexico, indeed of all but the 10 largest countries in the world. According to Stuart Anderson of the Cato Institute, employers in these States would have to check the legal status of each new hire--an estimated 22 million annually in these five States--through this government I.D. system. In my judgment, we should reject the national I.D. Cards and other similar schemes designed to control illegal immigration because they will result in more government intrusion in the affairs of U.S. citizens and businesses. I am also troubled by other aspects of this bill that I will comment upon in more detail in the near future. For example, I am very concerned about the proposed border tax, which would in effect discourage foreign tourists from spending their money in this country. The debate over immigration reform will be a major issue in this chamber over the next year. I hope that we in this body will, first, reject some of the severe provisions of S. 1394 and second, move separately on bills dealing with legal and illegal immigration. This would constitute a statement of confidence in ourselves, in our nation and in the ability of immigrants, when extended the opportunities of our land to become productive members of our communities. In closing Mr. President, I believe that our immigration policy both reflects and projects our Nation's character and level of decency. One man above all said it best. In his farewell address to the Nation, President Ronald Reagan declared: I've spoken of the shinning city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still. The question for America is this: Shall we have a shining city on a hill or will we construct a fortress America? It is my hope that we will choose the shining city. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 18, 1995] Geniuses From Abroad (By George Gilder) The current immigration debate founders on ignorance of one huge fact: Without immigration, the U.S. would not exist as a world power. Without immigration, the U.S. could not have produced the computerized weapons that induced the Soviet Union to surrender in the arms race. Without immigration, the U.S. could not have built the atomic bomb during World War II, or the hydrogen bomb in the early 1950s, or intercontinental missiles in the 1960s, or MIRVs in the 1970s, or cruise missiles for the Gulf War in the 1990s. Today, immigrants are vital not only for targeted military projects but also for the wide range of leading-edge ventures in an information age economy. No less than military superiority in previous eras, U.S. industrial dominance and high standards of living today depend on outsiders. Every high-technology company, big or small, is like a Manhattan Project. All must mobilize the personnel best trained and most able to perform a specific function, and deliver a product within a window of opportunity as fateful and remorseless as a war deadline. This requires access to the small elite of human beings in the world capable of pioneering these new scientific and engineering frontiers. For many specialized high-technology tasks, the pool of potential talent around the world numbers around 10 people, or even fewer. The Right people If you are running such a technology company, you will quickly discover that the majority of this cognitive elite are not citizens of your country. Unless you can find the right people wherever they may be, you will not be able to launch the exotic innovation that changes the world. Unless you can fill the key technology jobs, you will not create any other jobs at all, and your country will forgo the cycle of new products, skills, and businesses that sustain a world- leading standard of living. Discussing the impact of immigration, economists and their followers are beady-eyed gnatcatchers, expert on the movements of cabbage pickers and au pair girls and the possible impact of Cubans on Miami wage levels. But like hunters in a cartoon, they ignore the tyrannosaurus rex crouching behind them. Thus sophisticated analysts, such as George Borjas of the University of California, San Diego, and artful writers, such as Peter Brimelow, conclude that the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy is slight or negligible. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable; it is all around us, in a spate of inventions and technical advances, from microwaves and air bags to digital cable and satellite television, from home computers and air conditioners to cellular phones and lifesaving pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Without immigration over the last 50 years, I would estimate that U.S. real living standards would be at least 40% lower. The underplaying of immigration as an economic force stems from a basic flaw in macroeconomic analysis. Economists fail to account for the indispensable qualitative effects of genius. Almost by definition, genius is the ability to generate unique products and concepts and bring them to fruition. Geniuses are literally thousands of times more productive than the rest of us. We all depend on them for our livelihoods and opportunities. The feats of genius are necessarily difficult to identify or predict, except in retrospect. But judging from the very rough metric of awards of mathematical doctorates and other rigorous scientific and engineering degrees, prizes, patents, and publications, about a third of the geniuses in the U.S. are foreign born, and another 20% are the offspring of immigrants. A third of all American Nobel Prize winners, for example, were born overseas. A stellar example of these elites in action is Silicon Valley in California. Silicon Valley companies have reduce the price of computer MIPs and memory bits by a factor of some 10,000 in 2\1/2\ decades. Although mainstream economists neglect to measure the qualitative impact of these innovations, most of the new value in the world economy over the last decade has stemmed, directly or indirectly, from the semiconductor and computer industries, both hardware and software. Consider Intel Corp. Together with its parent, Fairchild Semiconductor, Intel developed the basic processes of microchip manufacture and created dynamic and static random access memory, the microprocessor, and the electrically programmable read-only memory. In other words, Intel laid the foundations for the personal computer revolution and scores of other chip-based industries that employ the vast bulk of U.S. engineers today. Two American-born geniuses, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, were key founders of Fairchild and Intel. But their achievements would have been impossible without the help of Jean Hourni, inventor of planar processing; Dov Frohmann- Benchkowski, inventor of electrically erasable programmable ROMs; Federico Faggin, inventor of silicon gate technology and builder of the first microprocessor; Mayatoshi Shima, layout designer of key 8086 family devices; and of course Andrew Grove, the company's now revered CEO who solved several intractable problems of the metal oxide silicon technology at the heart of Intel's growth. All these Intel engineers--and hundreds of other key contributors--were immigrants. The pattern at Intel was repeated throughout Silicon Valley, from National Semiconductor and Advanced Micro Devices to Applied Materials, LSI Logic, Actel, Atmel, Integrated Device Technologies, Xicor, Cypress, Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard, all of which from the outset heavily depended on immigrants in the laboratories and on engineering workbenches. LSI, IDT, Actel, Atmel, Xicor, and Sun were all founded or led by immigrants. Today, fully one-third of all the engineers in Silicon Valley are foreign born. Now, with Silicon Valleys proliferating throughout the U.S. economy, with Silicon Deserts, Prairies, Mountains, and even Alleys being hopefully launched from Manhattan to Oregon, immigration becomes ever more vital to the future of the U.S. economy. And microchips are just the beginning. On the foundation of silicon have arisen world-leading software and medical equipment industries almost equally dependent on immigrants. As spearhead of the fastest growing U.S. industry, software, Microsoft offers some of the most coveted jobs in the U.S. economy. But for vital functions, it still must turn to immigrants for 5% of its domestic work force, despite the difficult and expensive legal procedures required to import an alien. freedom of enterprise In recent congressional testimony, Ira Rubenstein, a Microsoft attorney, declared that immigration bars could jeopardize the 58 percent of its revenue generated overseas, threaten American dominance of advanced ``client-server'' business applications, and render ``stillborn'' the information superhighway. In particular, Corning and other producers of fiber-optic technology have faced a severe shortage of native engineers equipped to pursue this specialty crucial to both telecommunications and medical instruments. With U.S. high school students increasingly shunning mathematics and the hard sciences, America is the global technology and economic leader in spite of, not because of, any properties of the American gene pool or dominant culture. America prevails only because it offers the freedom of enterprise and innovation to people from around the world. A decision to cut back legal immigration today, as Congress is contemplating, is a decision to wreck the key element of the American technological miracle. After botching the issues of telecom deregulation and tax rate reduction, and wasting a year on Hooverian myths about the magic of a balanced budget, the Republican Congress now proposes to issue a deadly body blow to the intellectual heart of U.S. growth. Congress must not cripple the new Manhattan Projects of the U.S. economy in order to pursue some xenophobic and archaic dream of ethnic purity and autarky.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to set forth my general concerns about S. 1394, a bill passed out of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration a few weeks ago. In general, this bill would combine measures aimed at reducing illegal immigration with dramatic reductions in legal immigration. In my view, illegal and legal immigration are very different issues. Illegal immigration is a significant national problem, one that we should address by discussing ways to deal with people who cross our borders unlawfully. In contrast, legal immigrants are overwhelmingly law-abiding and hardworking people who contribute to our economy and our society. We should deal with the real problem of illegal immigration without retreating from America's historic commitment to legal immigration. Mr. President, I would like to make an obvious point: America is a land of immigrants. For most of our history we have welcomed anyone with the desire and fortitude necessary to come here in search of a better life. Lady Liberty has held our door open to the teeming masses of the world, not out of pity, but out of respect for our Nation's immigrant roots, and in the knowledge that immigrants made this country strong and prosperous, and will continue to do so, so long as we let them. We as a people will remain a vibrant, shining example to the world, so long as we continue to look out to that world, welcoming those who would join us in building a free and open society. We have every right and even responsibility to expect those who come to our land to live up to our standards of decency and responsibility. We can and should expect able-bodied immigrants to work. We can and should expect them to forego the often debilitating effects of welfare. But we should not slam the door shut to people yearning to be free, and to build a better life for themselves and their families. My grandparents were all immigrants. They came to this country from Lebanon about a century ago in search of freedom. None of the four could speak English. And they had few material resources to speak of. But they came to America because they wanted to live in a country that was free and they wanted their children and their grandchildren to live in a nation that was free. My grandparents did not come here pursuing government benefits. They believed in their own capacity to do things, and they wanted a place where they would have a chance to enjoy the freedom to do the things they wanted. My parents did better in America than their parents. My parents were very hard-working folks. Neither of them had a college education. My dad worked almost 20 years as a UAW member on an assembly line in an Oldsmobile factory in Lansing, MI. After that, he and my mom started a small business. They worked hard; 6 sometimes 7 days a week in order to give me and my sisters a chance to share in the American Dream--to have more freedom and opportunity than they did. Their hard work has allowed me to succeed in turn; I was the first child in our family to go to college. Unfortunately, I believe that this bill will make it more difficult for people like my grandparents to come to America. Specifically, S. 1394 would significantly reduce the quotas for legal immigration, restrict immigration as a means to re-unite separated families, and eliminate whole categories of legal immigration. I believe these measures will cause real harm to our economy and to our Nation as a whole. Most damaging, they will keep us from benefiting from the hard work, experience and expertise of legal immigrants. Immigrants are the ultimate entrepreneurs. They are people willing to risk it all in a new and different land. They are self-selected and seek to make a better life for themselves and their families. As economist Thomas Sowell writes in his Ethnic America: A History: The fact that immigrants not only equal, but eventually surpass, their native-born counterparts suggests that they brought some advantage in terms of human capital, that migration is a selective process, bringing the more ambitious or venturesome or able elements of a population. Mr. President, these are the kind of people we want to become Americans. These are the kind of people who sacrifice so their children can rise to the top of their class. Immigrants also create a brain gain for the United States. One in three people who have graduated from college in engineering in this country is an immigrant, according to the National Research Center. Immigrant expertise is widespread and impressive. In the 20th century between 20 and 50 percent of all Nobel Prize winners, depending on the discipline involved, have been immigrants to the United States. As of 1988 there were more Russian Nobel Prize winners living in the United States than living in Russia. These highly educated, highly skilled immigrants are essential to the competitiveness of America's high-technology industries. Consider Intel, one of the most prolific and expanding companies in the United States, employing tens of thousands of American workers. Intel constantly develops cutting edge technologies that will define the computer industry in the 21st century. And it is doing all of this with a great deal of help from America's newest immigrants. At one point not long ago three members of Intel's top management, including chief executive officer Andrew S. Grove, from Hungary, were immigrants. Intel and other high-technology firms must seek out and hire immigrants because the demand for highly skilled workers exceeds the supply. After recruiting on American campuses, these companies still do not have enough highly skilled engineers, scientists, and computer specialists they need to remain competitive. Only because their need is real do companies go through the trouble, expense and government paperwork necessary to hire foreign workers. But productive immigrants are not just computer programmers in Silicon Valley. Arab-Americans in Dearborn and Detroit, Vietnamese in Arlington, Cubans in Miami, and a number of other immigrant groups in a number of cities have revitalized America's urban areas. Whether it is the Korean grocer or the Chinese restaurateur, our urban areas in particular owe a great deal to entrepreneurial, hard- working immigrants willing to take chances, to start small businesses in areas others have ignored. Mr. President, immigration is not a zero-sum game in which every job that goes to a foreign-born worker means one less job for an American worker. Immigration is a positive-sum gain for Americans in terms of jobs, living standards, and economic growth. When a business adds a new resource--whether it is a labor or capital resource--it generates more jobs, more income, and more opportunities for Americans, not less. This is especially true when the resource is a talented, creative, and inventive worker. As George Gilder points out, the beneficial impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy ``is overwhelming and undeniable: it is all around us, in a spate of inventions and technical advances, from microwaves and air bags to digital cable and satellite television, from home computers and air conditioners to cellular phones and lifesaving pharmaceutical and medical devices.'' Mr. Gilder estimates that without immigration over the last 50 years, U.S. real living standards would be at least 40 percent lower. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by George Gilder on the economic benefits of immigration in yesterday's Wall Street Journal be placed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I echo the statements made by the floor leader on our side who has very concisely outlined the importance of the issues before us. I agree with him that we should not only pass this resolution but we should stay here as long as we have to to get the bigger job of passing a balanced budget done. Today I was struck by comments made in the Washington Post business section from various financial market experts who said that people are waking up to the stalemate here in Washington. Yesterday was the wake- up call that we might not get real entitlement reform and bring the deficit under control. We saw the result with the stock market dropping dramatically. There is a real fear on Wall Street, as was indicated in that article, that Washington might be contemplating a plan that fails to reform our entitlement programs. Mr. President, that is a prescription for disaster, not just in the short term but for the long term, as well. What we have tried to offer with the Balanced Budget Act adopted earlier was a solution to the entitlement problems that have confronted Congress for a long time. We have understood that while there is a need to act quickly to address the solvency of Medicare part A, this is just the first step in a long series of reforms needed to accommodate the changing population that we will confront as the baby boom generation ages. Mr. President, I hope that the resolution which the majority leader offered earlier will be available for us to vote on very soon. I strongly support the principles that are enunciated in it. I think the American people and certainly the people in my State support it as well. They are impatient with Congress. They cannot understand why it is taking us so long to get to the finish line. By combining reductions in the growth of Government with an opportunity to allow hard-working Americans to keep more of what they earn, we can dramatically shift the whole equation of government in this country. For too long we have watched as dollars flow from hard-working Americans to fund Washington-knows-best rules dictating how our Nation's welfare, health, and other domestic programs will be run. We need to change from that approach to one where we let people keep more of what they earn, in which we let the States and the people on the front lines address the problems of our needy citizens more effectively than the Federal bureaucracy could hope, and ultimately in which we reshift the balance in this country from Washington-knows-best to a reliance on initiatives that take place at the States, and the initiatives that come from the people themselves. Mr. President, that is the solution I think would work best and why I support this resolution as it was pronounced by the majority leader earlier. It is why I hope we will soon enact a balanced budget plan that yields, at least for the people in my State, lower interest rates, a chance to keep more of what they earn, and most importantly for the children in my State, a chance to grow up without spending most of their working lives paying off the bills that their parents left them. Instead, they should be free to spending their incomes on their own priorities. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on an issue which has important policy implications for the United States as a world leader in promoting education. With the end of the cold war, we, as a nation, must reexamine how the United States can most appropriately provide world leadership in the future. The need for the United States to continue to provide such leadership is not a serious contention. However, as we debate a foreign policy direction that will advance American interests in a more interdependent world, we should bear two important considerations in mind: We must act with budgetary responsibility and we must not assume that government itself is always the best agent to implement our international goals. I believe that private entities, such as educational institutions, have an important role to play in advancing our foreign policy goals. American education is recognized throughout the world as one of our greatest national assets, and it can be invaluable in shaping America's image abroad, promoting political and social pluralism, instilling the American ideals of tolerance and freedom of expression, expanding markets for U.S. commodities and products, and encouraging private initiative and economic growth. An American education is prestigious and in high demand in virtually every country. Those receiving such an education frequently rise to their country's most senior leadership positions in government and in the private sector. As effective instruments to spread American influence, privately sponsored American educational institutions undoubtedly surpass direct U.S. Government programs. Quite modest levels of government assistance can be leveraged by these private institutions to achieve fundamentally important American goals, and do so without costly government bureaucracy. In no part of the world can the contribution of American education to United States foreign policy be of greater significance than in the Middle East. Fortunately, we are in a strong position to use education as a cornerstone of our policy there because of the presence of two American educational institutions with which I happen to be personally acquainted: The American University of Beirut [AUB] and the Lebanese American University [LAU]. The excellent work of these two institutions deserve special attention. Both schools have long proved themselves as beacons of tolerance and rationality in that part of the world. Furthermore, in the future, these schools will have an increased importance as the Middle East looks for the institutional structures which will help the region move from the currently emerging formal peace to a more lasting warm peace. Mr. President, as we know, the future of Lebanon, in no small measure, rests with the talent, intellect, and ingenuity of its people, especially the youth. Educating young Lebanese is essential, therefore, to rebuilding the country. LAU and AUB are instrumental in this rebuilding. These universities, moreover, promote the use of American- made goods, enhancing international reliance on American goods and services. Students who are educated by using American computers, for example, will rely on American computers when they pursue their careers. Furthermore, these institutions nurture democracy by educating successive generations of leaders who are committed to American democratic values and who understand the tangible economic, political, and social benefits that a commitment to democracy producers. These New York State chartered institutions continue to have strong American ties and a long tradition of teaching students the value of an American education. As a result, their students learn to appreciate such fundamental American values as tolerance, freedom of thought and expression, and private initiative. Maintaining these attributes is extremely important to the people of Lebanon as well as to those in the region of the Middle East. The American University of Beirut and the Lebanese American University have nurtured the best American tradition of voluntarism. Having been established by individual citizens motivated by a strong conviction, these institutions have had a responsibility to better society. Such a tradition continues today. I believe it is good policy for us to encourage this spirit of voluntarism and, in the process, achieve important United States goals such as helping to rebuild Lebanon's democracy and promoting regional sustainable development. These educational institutions also help promote American culture and values amongst the influential decision makers in the Middle East. These universities train students who are then able to communicate, share values, and work with Americans in business, government the sciences, and other mutually beneficial endeavors. This has a direct impact on promoting free-market reforms in the countries of the Middle East. Graduates of AUB and LAU appreciate American entrepreneurship and market-based economies, and from their positions as leaders in both private firms and public agencies, they guide their countries in this direction. Their familiarity with American culture and products also opens opportunities for the United States to develop export markets and investments in the region. AUB and LAU also are addressing other problems of concern to Americans such as health and environmental issues. They engage in innovative programs of study and research on issues of water quality, migration patterns, desertification and pollution abatement. Both institutions are leaders in high quality health care in the Middle East, which advances America's concern with global public health. But perhaps the single most important contribution these institutions are making to American interests in the region comes in connection with the Middle East Peace process. They have given vital assistance to that process by creating an intellectual climate that encourages rational dialogue, and by educating men and women with the vision and skills to achieve conciliation and cooperation. And once a formal peace is finally achieved, AUB and LAU will be in the forefront to encourage a warm peace of meaningful interaction among all parties in the region. The Administration, Mr. President, will soon deal with the difficult funding choices as the budget necessarily begins to decrease. And I understand that budget realities may dictate assistance to a smaller number of universities abroad than in the past. However, as decisions are being made to allocate funding levels, I strongly urge the Administration to maintain as a high priority continued funding for the American University of Beirut and the Lebanese American University. I am not alone in this conclusion, as clearly reflected by the language contained in both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports. The Senate report states: The Committee continues to strongly support the important work carried out by institutions funded under the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) Program. The Committee support is based in part on the effective use of public resources to leverage private sector funds. The Committee believes that several institutions which have received funding under ASHA have distinguished records and deserve further support including: The American University of Beirut which has trained Middle Eastern leaders for 130 years in a strong liberal arts tradition encouraging freedom of expression, private initiative, and tolerance. Its academic quality, longstanding relationship with regional governments, network of prominent alumni and distinction as a hub of high level global expertise make the university a primary resource for regional development. The Lebanese American University (formerly Beirut College) is the most rapidly growing institution of higher learning in Lebanon and is an increasingly important resource for talent in this expanding region. The House report contains similar language. The Committee notes that over the years a number of quality educational institutions have received both development and Economic Support Fund assistance, including the American University of Beirut, . . . and the Lebanese American University. The Committee recommends that best efforts be made to continue assistance for institutions of this nature, with the highest priority assigned to those lacking alternative sources of funding. Mr. President, I believe that continued support of these two institutions is in the national interest of the United States. As I have stated, continued funding of these institution is a congressional priority and I hope that the administration will agree.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in some parts of Michigan over 5 feet of snow have already fallen and the wind chill has brought the temperature to 50 below zero. Understanding the importance of helping the poor and elderly pay their heating bills during these cold months, I rise to support the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] and urge members of the Appropriations Committee to continue to support funding for this program. Under the current continuing resolution, funding for LIHEAP is limited to the proportional annual rate of the duration of the Continuing Resolution. That is, if the Continuing Resolution lasts 32 days, only thirty-two three hundred and sixty sixths of LIHEAP funds can be spent. While this formula may work well for most other programs, for obvious reasons the vast majority of funding for LIHEAP is spent during the winter months. Therefore, the current Continuing Resolution formula leaves States with an extreme shortfall in their efforts to help the poor and elderly through the coldest months of the year. Since LIHEAP is funded through the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill which has not yet been debated on the Senate floor, the funding for this program necessarily must come through Continuing Resolutions. Should this continue to be the case, I urge those negotiating the Continuing Resolution to abandon the daily average formula they have been using and allow the bulk of LIHEAP funds to be spent during the cold, winter months.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the resolutions related to Bosnia, I would like to express my unequivocal support for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. I can think of no greater act of patriotism and devotion to this country than to enlist in the military and devote one's professional life to the defense of our Constitution. It is made even more profound by the realization that these brave men and women do not have a say in how, or where, they will be employed. They go where they are told to go, fight where they are told to fight, and do so better than any other military force in the world. Throughout their service they must spend months, sometimes even years, away from their home and family. Children are born and start growing up while their parent is away in the service of their country. Few of us in America today realize the tremendous sacrifice these men and women make so that we may enjoy the fruits of liberty. It is time we honor their sacrifice. But such sacrifice is not limited to our active duty forces. I have been informed that four Michigan National Guard and Army Reserve units will be deployed in support of Operation Joint Endeavor. To the officers, men and women of the 1776th Military Police Company, the 210th Military Police Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, both from Taylor, MI, the 415th Civil Affairs Battalion in Kalamazoo, MI, and the 415th Military Intelligence Detachment in Ann Arbor, MI, I wish you God speed and a safe deployment. I have also been informed that one of my own staff, a Naval Reservist, may be recalled to active duty to support these military operations. May you all return quickly and safely. I commend your patriotism, your bravery, and your devotion to duty. You exemplify all that is worthy and noble in Michigan, in our military, and in the United States. I'm sure all my colleagues here in the Senate join me in saluting your valor. Now Mr. President, I would like to specifically address the issue of America's interest and involvement in Bosnia. This issue has implications for our foreign and defense policy that will reverberate long after this operation is completed. America has always been viewed as a light to all nations, guiding them to peace, freedom, and self-determination. We are a nation dedicated to certain principles and ideals, and we take those principles and ideals seriously enough that we include their very preservation and advancement as part of our national interest. But we must never lose sight of the fact that a nation's first responsibility is to its own people. We, in this body, must never develop a foreign policy that loses sight of that primary responsibility, and that the lives and safety of our troops, whether they be volunteers or conscripts, are just as much a vital national security interest as are the lives of our civilian citizens. In practice then, we should commit our forces only when, where, and to the extent appropriate, to meet our stated national goals and to protect our national interests. Therefore, Mr. President, the level of our commitment to a particular undertaking should be concomitant with the level of the threat to our national interests. Some situations threaten our very existence, while others only marginally affect us. Many will lie somewhere in the middle. Where such threats to our national security are significant and definite, like those we faced in World War II, we must respond decisively and with all available military force. But in those cases where our national interests lie somewhere between the extremes, as I believe is the case in the Balkans, it is not necessary to respond with the same level of absolute commitment and force that we would use against those definite threats to our vital national security interests. Mr. President, we must also examine not only what our chances of success will be in a particular undertaking, but also what will be the potential costs--in the lives of America's soldiers and in our national prestige. Just as the level of our interests will lie somewhere along a broad scale, so too will the potential benefits and costs. Every effort must be made to assess and decide whether the potential benefits in advancing our national interests justify the costs. Mr. President, in my view, the United States has an interest in long- term stability and peace in the Balkans. The war has consumed the interests of Europe for the past 4 years and has increasingly become an item of disagreement and discord between the United States and our NATO allies, an alliance where continued U.S. leadership is vital to our interests. Former adversaries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, with whom we previously thought we were developing new and friendlier relations, are using this war as an opportunity to expand their influence and control. Our leadership in NATO, and with the emerging European democratic states, will be pivotal to what Europe will look like for generations to come. We must remain engaged with these states, and must accept that their problems, more or less are our problems too. Further, old divisions between East and West are exacerbated by this conflict because of the critical role the mixing of Eastern and Western religions play in the continued hatred and strife of the region. These conflicts undermine stability and therefore directly impact upon U.S. national interests. Finally, and certainly not least, the United States has a very real interest in putting an end to the atrocities and carnage that has shattered this region. At the end of World War II, we said we would never again allow another Holocaust. Where we have an opportunity to end mass and indiscriminate killing, which will live in our memories for generations to come, we must seize such opportunities where we legitimately believe we can succeed. Mr. President, while there is a definite U.S. interest to be advanced in this situation, it is only worth acting if we employ a strategy that both ensures the conditions for a genuine peace and which establishes a rational strategy for the eventual withdrawal of our troops. Therefore, I believe any strategy for peace and stability in the Balkans must, in part, be based upon addressing the fundamental military imbalance between the Serbs and the Muslim- Croatian Federation. If we had previously lifted the arms embargo, we would not be debating this deployment today. Yes, the conflict would have probably intensified at first, but I believe the Muslim-Croatian Federation would have then been able to develop a credible military deterrent, and there would be no need for 60,000 troops to implement the peace. Now, again, a balance must exist or peace will evaporate as soon as the Implementation Force withdraws. The current administration policy fails to set in motion a plan to achieve this balance. It is also clear to me that any strategy based upon the deployment of United States ground troops to Bosnia must include a definition of what will be the conditions for declaring final success in this venture. A pitfall we must avoid in achieving that success is to utilize our troops in the inappropriate mission of nation-building. I understand suitable political structures must be in place to allow the ballot to replace the bullet as the agent of change, but the role of our troops must be strictly limited to establishing the necessary military stability so as to allow the civilians the opportunity to develop the necessary political institutions. When we have defined our criteria for success, we must also have in place a definite withdrawal plan that clearly establishes the conditions and terms for the termination of this mission. In my view, the current administration plan is based upon the faulty assumptions that our mere presence in Bosnia is the goal, and that peace under any terms is preferable to battling for a just victory. Mr. President, short of committing ground troops to Bosnia, I believe there are several roles which the United States can and should fill to advance the cause of a just and stable peace in the Balkans. Among those roles which I feel are appropriate for the United States include contributing significant air and naval forces to the NATO operation in the Balkans, providing a large part of the logistical and financial resources for this operation, and participating in efforts to provide military assistance and training to the Muslim-Croatian Federation. However, the President's decision to deploy United States ground troops directly into Bosnia and Herzegovina is, in my view, a grievous mistake. As I stated earlier, I believe it is in America's interests to advance the cause of peace, justice, and stability in the Balkans. But it is not such an absolute or vital national interest that it justifies the extremely high risk of deploying ground troops to the region. Mr. President, I believe U.S. troops are particularly ill-suited for peacekeeping missions of this type because they present such a ripe political target. Whether rightly or wrongly, a dead American soldier captured on TV cameras will be broadcast around the world. I doubt the same can be said for the soldiers from traditional peacekeeping contributors. And that is exactly what a belligerent wants; that intense media coverage and scrutiny that covers American troops. That is why our troops have rarely been used as peacekeepers. Look at what happened in Somalia. U.S. forces were specifically targeted, and subsequently drawn much further into the conflict than originally planned, because of the significant political position they occupy for no other reason than that they were American soldiers. Therefore, I believe peacekeeping is best conducted by smaller countries not perceived as having any vested interest in the outcome of a conflict, and therefore can undeniably claim to be neutral. The question of U.S. leadership does not rest on the end of an infantryman's rifle barrel. The United States can maintain, even advance, its international credibility, its preeminence in the NATO alliance, and its role as the world's sole superpower, without having to contribute a disproportionate share of the troops on the ground. Indeed, I believe it is imprudent to claim that the sole measure of United States leadership and commitment to peace in the Balkans can only be measured by the number of troops we commit to the Implementation Force. Were a more vital United States interest at stake in the Balkans, and were not it clear that the United States can still participate significantly in implementing this peace accord without using its ground troops, my views may be different. But given the extreme risk to which I believe they will be subjected, and the clear availability of for other countries to provide these peacekeeping troops, I believe placing our forces on the ground in Bosnia and Herzegovina is unjustified. In light of the foregoing analysis, I concluded that I could not support H.R. 2606, which would prohibit the expenditure of funds for the deployment of United States troops to Bosnia absent a specific Congressional appropriation. Limiting the expenditure of funds at this stage of the operation will unduly jeopardize our troops in the field just at the exact time that they most need Congressional support. I would also refer to the arguments made by the Majority Leader, himself a distinguished veteran, who related the incredible damage done to the morale of our troops serving in Vietnam when this Congress debated cutting off the funds for our troops involved in that war. We should not, in my judgment, place our troops in that position. Mr. President, as I stated earlier, our interests in the region are not so great that they warrant placing United States ground troops under the extraordinary risk they would face in Bosnia. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the Hutchison-Inhofe-Craig-Nickles resolution opposing the deployment of U.S. ground troops. This Sense of the Senate Resolution expresses, on the record, our disagreement with the President's decision to deploy ground troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Unfortunately the President is, in fact, deploying U.S. ground troops. Mr. President, this deployment is a fait accompli, initiated unilaterally by the President over the strongest and repeated objections of both Houses of Congress, and one which the President will continue no matter how strongly we protest. Thus, even though many of us oppose this deployment, I believe we have an opportunity, and an obligation, to clearly define the limits under which the President can carry out this imprudent deployment. It is in this light that I have decided to support the Dole-McCain resolution. I want to thank the sponsors for incorporating language that I had recommended making clear that the Congress is simply acquiescing to the fact that this deployment is a fait accompli. With this language, the resolution clearly states our misgivings, and I quote: ``Notwithstanding reservations expressed about President Clinton's decision to deploy United States Armed Forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina. . . The President may only fulfill his commitment [and I stress this is the President's commitment] to deploy United States Armed Forces. . . subject to the conditions'' of this resolution. Mr. President, I can't speak for others, but my vote for this resolution in no way constitutes an endorsement, authorization, or approval of the President's decision to send United States ground troops into Bosnia. In fact, the language I submitted distinctly helps separate this resolution from any endorsement of the President's actions by citing our reservations and placing the origin of this deployment clearly with the President. As I just quoted, this resolution further states that, in light of the President's decision to deploy U.S. troops, he may quote, ``only fulfill his commitment,'' unquote if he meets the conditions established to safeguard our troops and further the success of the mission. Mr. President, I believe that point needs to be repeated. This is the President's decision, a commitment the President made over our repeated objections. Therefore, under the Dole-McCain resolution, he may only, and I stress only, fulfill quote ``his'' unquote commitment, if meets the following conditions. First, the resolution recognizes the extreme danger in which U.S. troops will be placed, and establishes rational conditions for their safe withdrawal and limited military employment. The Dole-McCain resolution establishes clear and unequivocal language that requires the President to take all possible measures to protect our forces, and to periodically report to Congress the success of those specific measures. It also builds upon the recognition that the Muslim-Croatian Federation must be further armed, trained and strengthened if a credible and stable military balance is to be established in the region. We cannot simply accept the President's assurances that he will find some way to make this happen. If the United States forces withdraw only to see an out gunned Bosnian-Croatian Federation quickly overrun by a patient aggressor, our troops' sacrifice will be for naught. We have the power to give meaning to their sacrifice, and this resolution does just that. Last, the Dole-McCain resolution will strictly limit the operations of our forces to legitimately military tasks. We have repeatedly seen the inefficacy of using U.S. military forces for nation-building exercises. The General Framework Agreement is, in my opinion, fraught with pitfalls that will draw the Implementation Force fully into the tasks more clearly the purview of the civilian High Representative's authority. This body has the opportunity to protect our troops from being needlessly employed in such dangerous non-military tasks, and this resolution does so. This is, in my opinion, far from a perfect response to the situation the President has presented this Congress. I believe the President has acted hastily, and that his policy places our troops in the unnecessarily dangerous role of vulnerable peace implementors. However, when presented with the reality that our troops will go to Bosnia, regardless of our actions, I believe we must act where we can to constrain the imprudent strategy of the administration. The Dole-McCain resolution does not approve, endorse or authorize the President's policy. However, it clearly constrains the conduct of this operation so as to better protect our troops in Bosnia, and to better ensure mission's ultimate success. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great, personal sadness that I note the passing this Tuesday, December 5 of Thomas L. Washington. Tom was a personal friend, a valued supporter, a concerned husband and father, and a dedicated leader in his community. Tom was an avid and renowned sportsman. He exemplified all that is good about the sportsman: he was hardy and self-reliant; he also was frugal with and respectful of our great outdoors. Tom loved Michigan's wetlands and forests. He spent time in them, enjoying them and working to preserve them. Because he loved the outdoors, Tom founded and led the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Indeed, he built that organization into the largest single State conservancy in the Nation. Tom was a strong, committed advocate for preserving Michigan's outdoors, and also the great outdoors of America and beyond, for all to enjoy. He served on the board of directors of Safari Club International and the National Wildlife Federation. True sportsman that he was, he was as concerned to preserve the environment for future generations as to enjoy it for himself. Thus he helped draft legislation creating the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. This fund purchases prime recreational lands for public use with royalties from oil, gas, and mineral production on State lands. In 1976 Tom was appointed a charter member of the board that administers the fund. He served on the board until his death, including several terms as chairman. He served on a number of Michigan State committees, including the committee that wrote administrative rules for the Michigan Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act, which is central to the State's land-use program. Tom also served on the Governor's Interim Committee on Environmental Education, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Endangered Species Committee, and the Governor's Interim Committee on Environmental Education. And he served as vice chairman of the Governor's Michigan Land Inventory Committee. He was a recipient of the American Motors Conservation Award, Safari Club International's Chairman's Award, and the Miles D. Pirnie Award for his leadership in preserving wetlands and wetlands wildlife. Part of the reason for Tom's care for the environment no doubt stemmed from the fact that he was a family man. He cared about his wife and children and wanted to pass on to them the same rights and the same opportunities that he enjoyed. A hunter concerned to protect all our rights, he also fought for the second amendment. Tom was elected president of NRA's board of directors in 1994 and reelected in 1995. First elected to the board of directors in 1985, Tom served as second and then first vice president prior to being elected president. Tom worked for responsible use of our rights, working with training and informational programs along with second amendment defense. He was a fine man, whom I personally shall miss. I extend my condolences to the Washington family.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I reluctantly voted for the conference report for the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill, knowing that it will be vetoed, because it does contain many provisions that will do significant good for the country and because much of the funding it provides is very important to our efforts to fight violent crime. I look forward to working with the managers of the bill to resolve the problem areas of this bill when it comes up for consideration again. Let me begin by outlining what is good in this bill. First, the prison litigation reform title of the bill makes important and needed changes to the Federal laws governing lawsuits brought against prison administrators across the country. Right now, in many jurisdictions, judicial orders entered under Federal law are having an enormously destructive effect on public [[Page S 18296]] safety and the administration of prisons. They are also raising the costs of running prisons far beyond what is necessary. And they are undermining the legitimacy and punitive and deterrent effect of prison sentences. These orders are complemented by a torrent of prisoner lawsuits. Although these suits are found nonmeritorious 95 percent of the time, they occupy an enormous amount of State and local time and resources; time and resources that would be better spent incarcerating more dangerous offenders. In my own State of Michigan, the Federal courts are now monitoring our State prisons to determine: First, how warm the food is. Second, how bright the lights are. Third, whether there are electrical outlets in each cell. Fourth, whether windows are inspected and up to code. Fifth, whether prisoners' hair is cut only by licensed barbers. Sixth, whether air and water temperatures are comfortable. Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, American citizens are put at risk every day by court decrees that curb prison crowding by declaring that we must free dangerous criminals before they have served their time, or not incarcerating other criminals at all. As a result, thousands of defendants who were out on the streets because of these decrees have been rearrested for new crimes, including 79 murders, 959 robberies, 2,215 drug dealing charges, 701 burglaries, 2,748 thefts, 90 rapes, and 1,113 assaults in just 1 year. Obviously, these judicial decrees pose an enormous threat to public safety. Finally, in addition to massive judicial interventions in State prison systems, we also have frivolous inmate litigation brought under Federal law. Thirty three States have estimated that this litigation cost them at least $54.5 million annually. The National Association of Attorneys General have concluded that this means that nationwide the costs are at least $81.3 million. Since, according to their information, more than 95 percent of these suits are dismissed without the inmate receiving anything, the vast majority of this money is being entirely wasted. Title VIII of this conference report contains important measures that will help stop the destructive effect on public safety, the unnecessary micromanagement, and the waste of resources that this litigation is causing. It limits intervention into the affairs of State prisons by any court, State or Federal, undertaken under Federal law, to narrowly tailored orders necessary to protect the inmates' constitutional rights. It also makes it very difficult for any court to enter an order directing the release of prisoners. Finally, it contains a number of very important limitations on prisoner lawsuits. These provisions are based on legislation that I have worked on assiduously along with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, the majority leader, and Senators Hutchison and Kyl. They have the strong support of the National Association of Attorneys General and the National District Attorneys Association. They will make an important contribution to public safety and the orderly running of prisons by the State officials charged with running them without unnecessary Federal interference. And they will help limit the waste of taxpayer money now spent defending frivolous lawsuits and feeding prisoners' sense that as a result of committing a crime, they have a grievance with the world, rather than the other way around. I thank the appropriators in both Houses, as well as the efforts of the majority leader and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for seeing to it that these provisions were included in this legislation. The second reason I support this bill is that it makes significant improvements in the law governing the funding of prison grants to the States. Although styled truth-in-sentencing grants, the language in present law is so full of loopholes that it does little to advance the cause of incarcerating the most violent offenders or assuring that they would actually serve the time they were sentenced to serve. The new version does a much better job of targeting this money in a manner that creates the proper incentives. Now let me outline the areas of this bill with which I have serious reservations. First, I believe the bill goes too far in diffusing money that the version of this legislation that passed the Senate had dedicated to the hiring of police officers in the COPS Program. I sympathize with the desire of my colleagues in the House to give the States more flexibility in spending this money, but this could mean that our goal to put more police on the street may not be achieved. I would much prefer to see a system where the States do have additional flexibility, but are given some real incentives to spend the money hiring additional law enforcement officers. Second, Mr. President, I believe the provisions related to the Commerce Department fall short of what we should be doing--namely eliminating the Commerce Department altogether. I am the lead Senate sponsor of legislation to abolish the Department of Commerce, S. 929. I think the record is clear--the Department of Commerce is the least essential of all 14 Cabinet-level agencies. Any effort to reorganize and reform Government should begin there. Although this bill does not eliminate the umbrella organization of the Commerce Department, it does reduce and eliminate some of the Department's more indefensible programs and agencies. It terminates corporate welfare programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, and it establishes procedures by which the Administration can act. On the other hand, the conference report fails to take a strong position toward indefensible programs like the Economic Development Administration. Whereas the Senate had funded this program at only $89 billion, the report before us would provide the EDA with over $300 billion for next year. Given the EDA's record of waste and abuse, I believe this funding is excessive and I look forward to an opportunity to debate the merits of the EDA, and other programs like it, when my bill to terminate the Commerce Department is debated on the Senate floor. In addition, this report deletes the fund to cover the costs of terminating the Department and transferring necessary functions to other areas of the Government. Various concerns have been raised regarding the cost of terminating the Department of Commerce, and this provision would have helped address those concerns. I think some of the money being spent on these unnecessary programs in the Commerce Department would have been better spent funding Federal law enforcement at the levels the Senate proposed in the pre-conference version of this legislation. Finally, this conference report accepted the House funding level for legal services for the poor and maintains the existing structure for the provision of these services, the Legal Services Corporation, albeit with provisions seeking to ensure that some of the worst misallocations of funds that the Corporation has permitted do not recur. As I explained when the issue came before the Senate originally in connection with this bill, I believe the approach the Senate subcommittee took to this issue originally, which would have eliminated the Federal Corporation and block-granted to the States Federal funds for the provision of legal services to the poor, was far superior. The Corporation itself provides no legal services to the poor, but rather grants Federal money to local organizations that give legal assistance to the poor. This is a function the States can perform at least as effectively as the Corporation has. While I voted for this conference report, I will reserve judgment on the next Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to echo the comments made by my friend from Idaho and my friend from Alaska with respect to the President's decision to veto our Balanced Budget Act. Mr. President, I am new to the Senate. I was elected last year, but for years I have followed the actions in Congress. I have observed the various people who came to Washington, including Presidents, and talked about how important it was to balance the budget. In fact, the President himself promised to balance the budget when he was a candidate in 1992. He promised to balance the budget in 5 years. We have now gone 25 years without a balanced budget, 25 years of red ink, 25 years in which the people who ran for office promising to get the job done failed their fellow countrymen and constituents. Over that period of time, a lot of finger pointing has gone on. Each side of the political arena has said, ``Well, it's the other side's fault.'' Yet during that time, no balanced budget was ever presented to a President by a Congress, and, as I recall, no President has come to Congress with a balanced budget. Instead, all we've had is partisan rhetoric. [[Page S 18121]] This Congress has been different, Mr. President. This Congress has, for the first time during this period of red ink, actually acted on its campaign commitments, actually had come to Washington mindful of the needs of this country, and actually produced a balanced budget, not just a balanced budget resolution, not just a balanced budget conference report back in the spring and the summer, but a real balanced budget act which was passed in the House, passed in the Senate, and then adopted as a conference report just a few days ago. So this President became the first President, as my colleague from Alaska said, in years to actually have on his desk a balanced budget bill. It was an opportunity to do what he said he would do in his campaign and what Presidents and Congresses have said they would do for decades, to fulfill their commitment to put the Federal Government's fiscal house in order. Unfortunately, the President chose to veto this legislation. He chose to veto the balanced budget. I hope that by his actions, the American public now understands exactly why it has been so long since we have had a balanced budget. I would like to speak just for a minute about what the implications are of this veto for a balanced budget for my State of Michigan, because we have been studying the statistics, and it is a very unhappy picture. Had the President signed the Balanced Budget Act, we would see in our State a dramatic change in the well-being of our families. Two things would have happened that would be very good for the hard-working middle-class families of my State. First, interest rates would begin to go down and go down substantially. And second, those families would be able to keep more of what they earned instead of sending tax dollars to Washington. In terms of interest rates, Mr. President, we would be talking about an estimated $4,000 of savings annually on the mortgages paid by the families in my State. I do not know one family in my State that would not be able to put that $4,000 to good use for themselves and their children. We would be talking about something like $500 per year in savings for people who are paying student loans, and we would be talking about hundreds of dollars of savings for people who pay interest on their auto loans, not just in my State, I might add, but across the country. For a State like Michigan which is so dependent on the sale of automobiles, that is especially good news. So in that sense, the impact on interest rates will have a rippling effect in my State which will undoubtedly mean fewer car sales and fewer jobs in the auto industry. So for all of those reasons the people of Michigan are going to be disappointed by the President's action. But they are also going to be disappointed when they realize the President's veto also denied the families in my State substantial tax reduction, tax reduction that would have affected something in the vicinity of 1 million Michigan taxpayers. In particular, they are going to be disappointed because the provisions we included in this legislation to provide a family tax credit are not going to be forthcoming as so many families in our State had hoped. That $500 per child would mean that families in Michigan will spend more on the necessities of their life for their kids. We talk here in the Senate all the time about children and the need to help children. I cannot think of anything that would be more beneficial for the kids of our country than to provide $500 per child in the form of a tax credit so that their moms and dads can provide them with extra things they might need in the year ahead. So for that reason, families in our State, I think, are going to be extraordinarily disappointed. Mr. President, I close by saying the President says he will finally come forward with a new budget plan. I hope this plan is different than the previous ones. From what I gather this morning in the media, that is unlikely to be the case. He says he has a balanced budget, but if you look at the portions already reported in the press, it is apparent his new plan will not get us to a balanced budget. Indeed, it is implausible it is a balanced budget plan, since it appears it will only reduce spending over the 7-year-period of time we are discussing by approximately 2 percent. I do not think there is anybody in this country who thinks the $5 trillion of debt we have run up and the hundreds of billions of dollars of annual deficits we have can be brought into balance simply by reducing total spending by 2 percent over 7 years. It simply does not add up, Mr. President. These are funny numbers, and if the numbers presented by the President today correspond to the ones he offered in the previous budget, which received zero votes in the U.S. Senate, I think we all have to say, Mr. President, it is once again time to go back to the drawing board, time to go back and use real numbers, honest evaluations, and, hopefully, move in support of the Republican goal of a balanced budget that is going to help American families. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in June 1995, I addressed the Senate to offer my support for securities-litigation reform as embodied in H.R. 1058. Today, I am pleased to support the bill that the House-Senate conference committee has produced. Today's bill draws on the key provisions of S. 240 to make many important reforms to prevent abusive litigation connected with the issuance of securities. These changes will be made without in any way undermining protection for investors against genuine fraud or other misconduct by issuers. To the contrary, they will improve the investment climate in this country, which will make it easier to start businesses which create jobs. Today I would like to focus on one set of reforms the bill will make. The bill will require courts to sanction attorneys who file frivolous pleadings. This reform will apply both to lawyers who file frivolous pleadings on behalf of plaintiffs and those who file frivolous pleadings on behalf of defendants. This is a sound proposal which should command strong support from both sides of the aisle. Under current law, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires all attorneys to have some factual and legal basis for filing any claim or defense. If attorneys violate this requirement, courts may impose sanctions against the violator. Right now, however, the courts do not have to consider sanctions. Today's bill makes three changes. First, it requires courts to find at the end of all securities actions whether any attorney violated rule 11 in filing any complaint, responsive pleading, or dispositive motion. Second, the court would have to impose sanctions if it found such a violation. Third, the presumption is that the district court will sanction attorneys violating rule 11 by requiring them to pay the other side's attorneys' fees. Under the bill, it will be a little harder for a district court to impose this sanction on those who file complaints than on those who file responsive pleadings or dispositive motions. Those who file responsive pleadings or dispositive motions will be subject to this sanction if the responsive pleading or dispositive motion fails to comply with rule 11(b). By contrast, those who file complaints will be subject to this sanction only for substantial failure to comply with rule 11(b). Regardless of the party affected, the court may select another sanction if First, the presumptive sanction imposes an unreasonable burden on the sanctioned party, second, that sanction is unjust; and third, declining to impose such a sanction would not impose a greater burden on the party in whose favor sanctions would be imposed. In the alternative, the party against whom sanctions would be imposed may [[Page S 17987]] rebut the presumption of sanctions by demonstrating that the rule 11 violation was de minimis. We should particularly note two important features of this reform. First, the district court will have to impose a sanction only on someone who filed a frivolous pleading--that is, a pleading wholly lacking a legal or factual basis. Thus, this reform will not deter legitimate litigation. Second, the sanction is paid by the person signing the frivolous pleading--that is to say, as a general matter, by the attorney responsible for it--not by the party the attorney is representing. It was suggested, Mr. President, that S. 240's changes to rule 11 were really a back-door means of shifting fees. That was incorrect. It is equally incorrect as to the rule 11 provisions in the conference report. These are not loser-pays provisions. They will not sanction all those who come up short in court. They will sanction only those who violate the minimal requirement of having some factual and legal basis for arguments in complaints, responsive pleadings, and dispositive motions. Such frivolous behavior clogs our courts, drains economic resources from parties, kills current jobs, and hinders the creation of new ones. Moreover, the substantive rule of attorney conduct in this provision is the one which exists under rule 11 now. The change from the current rule 11 is procedural, not substantive. Today's bill simply requires the district court to determine whether that rule, which already applies, has been violated, and to impose sanctions if it has. The Supreme Court itself has observed that securities litigation has been especially prone to misuse as a tool to extort settlements. It is Congress's responsibility to do something to put an end to this abuse. The rule 11 provisions are one mechanism this legislation puts in place to do just that. Some on the floor have expressed concern that the Federal judiciary may abuse its power to impose sanctions pursant to this provision. I simply do not believe that is going to happen. From my position on the Judiciary Committee, I have the occasion to talk to many judges and judicial nominees. I have questioned judicial nominees on many topics, including their ability to exercise their powers impartially toward both plaintiffs and defendants. I firmly believe that the individuals this Senate is confirming, and those that have been confirmed in the past, will exercise this power wisely and prudently for the betterment of our legal system. Mr. President, the bill we are voting on today is an outstanding piece of legislation. Its sponsors, proponents, and the conferees deserve all of our thanks for producing something that will strengthen our economy and it will benefit all Americans. I offer my wholehearted support to the bill before this Senate and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this month, the whole world stopped to pay respects to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a soldiers, a statesman, and a visionary committed to security and peace for the people of Israel and of the entire Middle East. Yitzhak Rabin dedicated his life to the survival of the State of Israel and to the crusade for peace, a crusade that ultimately took his life. His death is not only a loss for his family, the people of Israel and Jews across the world, but also to all those dedicated to the search for a true and lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a military leader, a diplomat, and a Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin was at the center of major events through his nation's five decade history. It was, after all, General Rabin who led Israel's armed forces to victory during the 1967 Six Day War. And it was Prime Minister Rabin who, 23 years later, on September 13, 1993, signed an historic accord that put Israel on a glidepath toward peaceful and normal relations with the Palestinian people. During his professional life, Yitzhak Rabin did much to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel. As Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Rabin repeatedly communicated and demonstrated to officials of the United States Government Israel's unyielding commitment to United States interests in the Middle East and around the world. And in every other post in which he served--Army Chief of Staff, Defense Minister, and Prime Minister--Yitzhak Rabin always earned the respect, admiration, and friendship of American leaders from both parties. While I did not know Yitzhak Rabin personally, I had the honor of joining him at the White House some weeks ago for the signing of the Oslo II Agreement, one of the many historic developments of which Mr. Rabin was an architect. I remember at that ceremony thinking about how much progress had been made in the Middle East over the past several years. I was impressed by the extent to which this fragile peace process had been kept on track despite what seemed at times to be insurmountable hurdles. Yitzhak Rabin was critical to keeping the delicate process moving forward. This, however, was not his only accomplishment since he began his second term as Prime Minister in 1993. Prime Minister Rabin orchestrated the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, the normalization of relations between Israel and Tunisia, Israel and Morocco, and the acceptance of Israel by many others in the Arab world and around the globe. Mr. President, on November 6, I joined some 4,500 members of Detroit's distinguished Jewish Community to pay tribute to Yitzhak Rabin at a memorial ceremony organized in my State by the Detroit Jewish community Council and the Detroit Jewish Federation. It was an incredibly moving experience for me and my wife Jane. We listened to Jewish leaders from Detroit talk about their memories of the slain Israeli leader and all he had meant to the Jewish people. I especially was struck by the message of the last individual who spoke that evening, Rabbi Steven Wiel. During his remarks, Rabbi Wiel posed the following question: ``Do we not love what we love more than we hate what we hate? Do we not love the chance for peace, do we not love the state of Israel, do we not love our Jewish brethren, do we not love human life more than we may hate decisions made by political leaders with whom we may disagree?'' Mr. President, the hatred that Rabbi Wiel spoke of may have been acted upon by Yigal Amir in Tel Aviv on November 4, but it exists in various forms throughout the Middle East and in too many other places in the world. This hatred can be found in individuals of all faiths and of all nationalities. And if we truly are committed to a lasting peace in the Middle East, we not only must help Israel overcome its most recent tragedy, but we must also unite leaders from the entire region against the hatred of those who have tried and will continue to try to derail this peace process through heinous and murderous crimes. In this vein, I have already pledged my strong support for Mr. Rabin's successor, Shimon Peres, and I commend Israel's leaders from across the political spectrum for seeking to unify the Israeli people during this tragic time. It is absolutely essential that the United States stand behind Prime Minister Peres and the citizens of Israel as they work to overcome this crisis and continue to work toward peace. I believe the greatest way the United States can pay tribute to our partner, Yitzhak Rabin, is to continue to assist the efforts of those trying to make peace in the Middle East. Any peace that is achieved forever will be attached to the name of Israeli leader and peacemaker Yitzhak Rabin. I yield the floor.