Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont and I are good friends and are in large agreement on most of this I see, but obviously there are certain things that we do not have full agreement on. Let me comment on a couple of the points that were made. First and foremost is that before any benefits or bonuses are going to be realized, we really do have to produce something that has not been produced in this country in a long time. That is a decrease in the number of out-of-wedlock births. Now I think I am probably one of the Members of this Chamber who has voted time after time to make sure we do not spend the taxpayers' money unwisely and have tried very hard here to establish what I think are priorities for spending. I, too, am concerned whenever we spend money here, even if it is $75 or $80 million here and in a budget of $1.5 trillion. The reason that I am supporting this so strongly is because I can think of very few spending priorities that we could possibly establish that would be more important to the future of our Nation and would more directly address the problems we confront than the priority of encouraging a nationwide effort to reduce illegitimate births. I think in the long run there will be more savings than spending because to the extent that we end this problem, we reduce this problem, there will be benefits for many. Separately, when we set priorities here I do not disagree with the Senator from Vermont when we talk about job training and education and so on. I think this priority is one that Americans across the board agree on ought to be at the top of our list. These dollars only get spent if we succeed in addressing the problem. They do not get spent if we fail. I think at least in my State most people would say that establishing this type of incentive system is the step in the right direction of trying to bring attention to this problem and trying to give States the kind of encouragement I think they need to change and to adopt a broad set of policies--not just welfare policies but education policies. As I said in my remarks, perhaps changes in tax codes, perhaps inviting private entities to play a greater role in helping teens at risk and so on. I think this will be the outcome. I hope that our colleagues who have talked, and many, many have talked about the out-of-wedlock birth problem will come to see this. I do not think anybody has the perfect solution. The reason I so strongly support this one is that it does not dictate to any State what it can or cannot do. If a State does not want to collect the data, if a State does not want to try to deal with the problem, it is not under any mandate to do it. It will not be punished. If States take up the call, if States join the effort, if States make positive progress, if States actually reduce the rate of illegitimate births, I think a reward of the sort suggested here is a step in a positive way in terms of setting our priorities. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise tonight in support of an important element of the Dole welfare reform package. This provision--known as the illegitimacy ratio bonus--will help, I believe, the fight against the chronic problem of illegitimacy without increasing the tragedy of abortion. I urge my colleagues to vote against striking it from the reform package. We now know, Mr. President, that the dramatic increase in out of wedlock births is a chief cause of welfare dependency and a chief cause of a number of other social pathologies. Children brought up without the benefit of two parents are six times as likely to be poor and to be poor longer than other children. They are two to three times as likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, more likely to dropout of school, become pregnant as teenagers, abuse drugs, commit crimes, and even commit suicide. This makes illegitimacy a driving force behind welfare dependency and that is doubly tragic because our welfare system is a significant cause of illegitimacy. Welfare, as currently constituted, creates a vicious cycle of dependency. Children have babies and turn to the welfare system in a failed attempt to become ``independent.'' Then their babies, in turn, too often end up on welfare. And illegitimacy has reached epidemic proportions in America. By the end of this decade, 40 percent of all-American births will take place without the benefit of marriage. Mr. President, I believe we must stop the spread of this epidemic. It is destroying our cities and more importantly, it is destroying far too many lives. One problem we face in fighting out of wedlock births is that no one here in Washington really knows what constitutes the total solution to the problem. Circumstances in our various States and localities vary too widely for any single one size fits all Washington strategy to succeed in lowering illegitimacy. Thus, I believe our best course is to encourage the States to implement their own strategies to lower out of wedlock births. This provision, by giving bonuses to States that lower illegitimacy ratios, would do just that. Mr. President, reducing illegitimacy is just not a function of the welfare system. The States must look beyond welfare reforms; they should pursue educational reforms, tax reforms, such things as enterprise zones and others to create jobs and economic opportunity, things of that sort. They should explore ways to set up counseling centers to encourage, among another things, responsible behavior and discourage out of wedlock births. All of these need to be part of the solution, not just changes in the welfare system. And that is why we think this bonus provision is the right approach, because it will encourage creativity on the part of the States in pursuit of reforms in all of these areas. Some have expressed concern about the abortion language in this bonus provision. But I just point out the following: One, this provision does not affect any abortion laws. Two, it does not take a position, pro or con, on the issue of abortion. Three, it does not penalize or punish any State in terms of their Federal funding. Four, it brings about no changes in the requirements as to the reporting of names of individuals having abortions, or anything along that line. Now, as I have talked to Members of the Senate, both those who are pro-life and pro-choice advocates, I have not found anyone who wants to see the rate of abortions go up. Indeed, pro-choice advocates tell me they want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. And I believe them. To me, ``rare'' means as many, or fewer, abortions than we have today--not more. Therefore, no one should find this bonus provision objectionable. It is designed to encourage States to experiment with various new strategies to reduce illegitimacy, except the strategy of encouraging more abortions. I know some think that somehow that would produce new restrictions at the State level and, in some way or another, on abortion. All I can say is this, Mr. President. In this country, the abortion debates have been raised in the State Houses for 20-plus years. If there were going to be restrictions, they would be imposed on the basis of the debates we have already had. I do not believe the potential availability of these bonus dollars--only available if somehow this remarkable increase in [[Page S 13536]] illegitimacy were reduced--would be the final factor in causing a State to take action to change, in any way, or make their abortion laws more restrictive. In my judgment, this provision gives us a constructive means by which to attack a serious problem. By giving goals to the States, and rewards for meeting those goals, we will encourage them to develop strategies for fighting out of wedlock births. By leaving to the States the formulation of particular rules and programs, we will encourage experimentation in a variety of strategies aimed at addressing a variety of circumstances. Without increasing abortions, this provision will reduce illegitimacy, and thereby reduce the welfare rolls and increase opportunity for everyone. I urge my colleagues to vote against striking it from the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a sense-of-the- Senate resolution, amendment No. 2511. This resolution would state our commitment to passing enterprise zone legislation in this session of Congress. I believe this commitment is crucial because, as we debate welfare reform, we also must find ways to create the jobs necessary to rescue people from the welfare trap. Enterprise zones are a crucial part of our effort to help poor people in this country. Too many Americans far too long have been trapped in lives of desperation. They have been left without the support of their communities, without meaningful lives and without hope of good jobs and economic advancement. Many of our urban centers in particular are saddled with high levels of poverty, high rates of welfare dependency, high crime rates, poor schools and joblessness. Indeed, Mr. President, half of the people who reside in our distressed urban areas live below the poverty line. All of these factors add to the sense of hopelessness in distressed areas. All of them have been made worse by ill-conceived Federal policies, including taxes that discourage investment, regulations that punish innovation and a welfare system that punishes work and fosters dependency. One step toward restoring hope to our distressed areas, Mr. President, is the welfare reform measure we are debating today. But, as we work to end welfare as we know it, we must give careful thought to what we want to have replace it. We must institute policies that will further our fundamental goal of providing Americans with the opportunity to get off of welfare and into decent jobs. This requires pro-growth policies that will spawn greater economic activity and job creation. This requires enterprise zones. The concept of enterprise zones has been with us for some time. Former Congressman Jack Kemp introduced legislation on the subject in 1978. The Senate has endorsed and enacted the concept in one form or another over the years. We have endorsed the concept because it is clear that enterprise zones will spur investment, entrepreneurship, public spirit and the development of skills necessary for participation in our market economy. To give credit where it is due, President Clinton has instituted an enterprise zone program in an attempt to help distressed areas. The Clinton plan sets up nine empowerment zones in which businesses quality for an employment tax credit and an increase in expending, and 95 enterprise communities that quality for $280 million social services block grants. But the plan in my judgment provides for no significant tax incentives to spur investment entrepreneurship and job creation. And its social services block grants are based on the failed notion that Government can help create jobs and prosperity in America's inner cities. We have spent over $5 trillion on social services, and our distressed areas have only grown worse. Why? Because Government cannot create wealth. The best it can do is unleash our citizens' drive and initiative to succeed in the market economy. The last time we freed up capital and the entrepreneurial spirit minority business--and the American economy--greatly benefitted. Under Ronald Reagan's progrowth policies, from 1982 to 1987 the number of black-owned firms increased by nearly 38 percent to a total of 425,000. During the same period Hispanic-owned firms surged by 83 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal. Economically distressed areas contain disproportionate numbers of minorities. Thus these figures show an undeniable increase in economic opportunity in those areas. Unfortunately, in 1986 the capital gains tax rate was increased by 65 percent. And that huge increase brought us 4 straight years in which Americans started fewer businesses each year than the year before. The result, of course, was less job creation and less economic opportunity, particularly among minorities in our distressed areas. To reverse this dynamic, Senator Lieberman and I have coauthored the Enhanced Enterprise Zone Act of 1995. This act contains provisions, called for in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, designed to help distressed areas. It provides Federal tax incentives that expand access to capital, increase the formation and expansion of small businesses and promote commercial revitalization. It includes regulatory reforms that allow localities to petition Federal agencies for waivers or modifications of regulations to improve job creation, community development and economic revitalization. It includes home ownership incentives and grants to encourage resident management and ownership of public housing. Finally, it includes a school reform pilot project to provide low income parents with options for improved elementary and secondary schooling in the designated zones. The bill recognizes that private enterprise, not Government, is the source of economic and social development. [[Page S 13378]] We know the program will work because 35 States and the District of Columbia already have enterprise zones that have produced over 663,000 new jobs and $40 billion in capital investment. And the concept has been endorsed by the National Governors' Association, the Conference of Black Mayors, the Council of Black State Legislators and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Taken together, these incentives for investment, entrepreneurship, home ownership and skill development will bring the economies in distressed areas back to life. They will encourage full participation in our market economy and public interest in the local neighborhood. The result will be economic growth and, more important, new jobs. It is my hope that a positive vote on this resolution will put this Senate on record in favor of creating jobs and opportunity. The sense- of-the-Senate resolution I, with Senator Lieberman, am proposing will in my view spur us to enact legislation to strengthen enterprise zones. In this way it will increase the chances for people in distressed areas to get off of welfare and into decent jobs. Strengthened enterprise zones will add to the hopes of our people, the vitality of our cities and the proper functioning of our economy. I urge your support for this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excellent article on the Abraham-Lieberman enterprise zone bill by Mr. Stuart Anderson of the Alexis de Tacqueville Institution appear in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask for their consideration.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I call my colleagues' attention to an important addition to the debate concerning preferential policies in America. Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp recently published in the Washington Post an article that I believe goes to the heart of our troubles with affirmative action. Mr. Kemp first notes that affirmative action based on racial quotas and racial preferences is ``wrong in principle and ruinous in practice.'' He goes on to issue a call for policymakers to come forward with truly positive proposals--affirmative efforts--to replace it. Mr. Kemp has spent his public career valiantly fighting for an opportunity society. In this article, he continues that fight, arguing for school vouchers, tax and regulatory reforms, and other programs aimed at giving every American the chance to work for a decent education and a decent job in our free market economy. Mr. President, I commend Secretary Kemp's article to all our colleagues. In conjunction with Senator Lieberman, I will be presenting legislation in a few weeks aimed at furthering the cause of equal opportunity. By reducing taxes and regulations, particularly in distressed areas denoted enterprise zones, this bill will encourage economic opportunity. By providing for school choice in these same areas it will promote educational opportunities. In sum, it is an attempt to make the opportunity society a reality, particularly for America's inner cities and other distressed areas. I request that the following be entered into the Record: [From the Washington Post, Aug. 6, 1995] Affirmative Action: The ``Radical Republican'' Example (By Jack Kemp) The scene is Washington: a Republican President, new to the White House, defiantly throwing down the gauntlet to a Republican Congress, saying he will veto any bill that proposes to do more for ``black Americans'' than for ``whites.'' This is not some fast-forward vision of 1997 and the first days of a new Republican White House. It's a flashback to 1866. The agency to be vetoed was the Freedman's Bureau, established in President Lincoln's administration to ``affirmatively'' assist the recently emancipated African Americans. The president--Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor--worried that any ``affirmative action'' would hurt the white population by specifically helping ``Negroes.'' I offer this page from history not to prove once again that politically, there is not much new under the sun but to illustrate that the issues of race and equality are woven into the essence of our American experience. While our present-day passions on the subject of affirmative action open old wounds, they also summon us to moral leadership of Lincolnesque proportions. Thus far the summons goes unanswered by both liberals and conservatives alike. The unreconstructed liberal notion of endless racial reparations and race-based preferences is doubly guilty: wrong in principle and ruinous in practice. President Clinton's much-vaunted affirmative action review produced more of a bumper sticker than a policy; Clinton's focus-group-fashioned ``mend it, not end it'' slogan makes a far better rhyme than reason. The same, however, is true of the new affirmative action ``abolitionist'' position, which heralds equality but seldom addresses the way to truly give all people an equal footing. Critics are right in asserting that ``affirmative action'' quotas have contributed to the poisoning of race relations in this country. But critics must offer much more than just opposition and reproach. We know what they are against, but what are they for? ``A colorblind society,'' comes their response. Of course, the goal of equal opportunity is paramount and a worthy destiny to seek. But to say that we have arrived at that [[Page S 12423]] goal is simply not true. My friends on the right call for a colorblind society and then quote Martin Luther King's inspirational ``I have a dream'' speech, in which he imagined a nation in which every American would be judged not on the color of his or her skin but on the ``content of his character.'' All too often, though, they neglect to quote the end of his speech, where he describes the painful plight of minority America: ``The Negro,'' King said, ``lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.'' Much has changed in the 30 years since King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Minority enterprises have begun to gain a foothold, although there are far too few of them. But can anyone venture to the crumbling brick and mortar of Cabrini Green Public Housing, or the fear-ridden projects of Bed-Stuy or the streets lined with the unemployed in South Central LA or East St. Louis and believe that what he sees there today would pass as progress since Dr. King's day? This is not to negate the gains made by so many in the black and minority communities. But for large numbers the situation has not only not improved in 30 years, it has grown dramatically worse--with a welfare system that entraps rather than empowers, punishes work and marriage and prevents access to capital, credit and property. Reality requires that we admit two things--difficult admissions for both liberals and conservatives. First, that a race conscious policy of quotas and rigid preferences has helped make matters worse. Second, and more important, the Good Shepherd reminds all of us that our work is not done, and as we think about moving into the 21st century, we must not leave anyone behind. Sound policy begins with strong principles. Affirmative action based on quotas is wrong--wrong because it is antithetical to the genius of the American idea: individual liberty. Counting by race in order to remedy past wrongs or rewarding special groups by taking from others perpetuates and even deepens the divisions between us. But race-based politics is even more wrong and must be repudiated by men and women of civility and compassion. Instead, like the ``radical Republicans'' of Lincoln's day, who overrode President Johnson's veto on the Freedman's Bureau, we would honor the past by creating a future more in keeping with our revolutionary founding ideals of equality. In this way, the eventual ending of affirmative action is only a beginning--the political predicate of a new promise of outreach in the name of greater opportunity for access to capital, credit, prosperity, jobs and educational choice for all. The time has definitely come for a new approach an ``affirmative action'' based not just on gender or race or ethnicity but ultimately based on need. ``Affirmative'' because government authority must be employed to remove the obstacles to upward mobility and human advancement. ``Action'' because democratic societies must act positively and create real equality of opportunity--without promising equality of reward. Affirmative opportunity in America begins with education, America's schools, particularly our urban public schools, are depriving minority and low-income children of the education that may be their passport out of poverty. Even the poorest parent must have the option more affluent families enjoy; the right to send their children to the school of their choice. Affirmative effort means ending the educational monopoly that makes poor public school students into pawns of the educational bureaucracy. And we should be paving the way to a voucher and magnet school system of public and private school choice. Opportunity means an entryway into the job market. That mean removing barriers for job creation and entrepreneurship and expanding access to capital and credit. According to the Wall Street Journal, from 1982 to 1987, the number of black- owned firms increased by nearly 38 percent, about triple the overall business growth rate during that period. Hispanic- owned businesses soared by 57 percent, and their sales nearly tripled. Even so, of the 14 million small businesses in existence across the United States today, fewer than 2 percent are black-owned. And of $27 to $28 trillion of capital in this country, less than one percent is in black ownership. Affirmative effort would take aim at expanding capital and credit as the lifeblood of business formation and job creation--including an aggressive effort to end the red- lining of our inner cities and a radical redesign of our tax code to remove barriers to broader ownership of capital, savings and credit. Opportunity means the ability to accumulate property. Affirmative effort would mean an end to every federal program that penalizes the poor for managing to save and accumulate their own assets. An AFDC mother's thrift and foresight in putting money away for a child's future should not be penalized by the government welfare system as fraud as is currently the case. Finally, real opportunity for racial and ethnic reconciliation requires an expanding economy--one that invites the effort and enterprise of all Americans, including minorities and women. A real pro-growth policy must include policies ranging from enterprise zones in our cities to a commitment to lowering barriers to global trade. It should also offer relief from red tape and regulation and freedom from punitive tax policies. Each is part of an affirmative action that can ``move America forward without leaving anyone behind.'' Now that we have opened a somewhat hysterical dialogue on affirmative action, we can never go back--only forward. Our challenge is to put aside the past--abandon the endless round of recrimination and a politics that feeds on division, exclusion, anger and envy. We must reaffirm, as Lincoln did at his moment of maximum crisis, a vision of the ``better angels of our nature,'' a big-hearted view of the nation we were always meant to become and must become if we are to enter the 21st century as the model of liberal democracy and market-oriented capitalism the world needs to see.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to explain briefly the reasons behind my vote against the nomination of Lawrence Summers to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. As I have stated before, I generally will oppose a nominee only if there are serious questions as to the nominee's character, activities, or credibility. In Mr. Summer's case, troubling questions of credibility persist. Specifically, Senator D'Amato's investigation of the Treasury Department's role in the collapse of the Mexican peso has yielded reason to suspect that Mr. Summers has not been entirely forthcoming about his actions with respect to the origins of that crisis. We still do not know, for example, the degree to which Mr. Summers encouraged the Mexican Government to devalue their peso as a means, albeit misguided, of reducing Mexico's trade deficit. Thus, given the serious questions that still exist as to Mr. Summer's advocacy of a fatal and plainly misguided policy for Mexico, I cannot support his nomination at this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in further demonstration of our resolve to downsize the government and eliminate needless departments, agencies, commissions, boards, and councils, this amendment which I offer along with Senators Inhofe and Grams, will prohibit funding for the Defense Policy Committee on Trade. This is the third such amendment offered by myself and the other GOP freshman Senators to the appropriations bills to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful functions of government. The Defense Policy Advisory Committee on Trade was established under the Trade Act of 1974 to serve both the Department of Defense and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative by providing the Secretary and Trade Representative with policy advice and information regarding defense trade policy issues and domestic industrial base uses, specifically with regards to prohibitions on the transfer of dual-use technologies to the Soviet Union and its former client states. The thirty-five member committee meets twice each year. The committee received an estimated $4,405 in 1994. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed repealing Section 3151(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991, P.L. 101- 510, which authorized the technical committee. The committee's report was provided to Congress on October 7, 1991, thereby terminating the responsibilities of the committee. This committee is a Cold War anachronism and is no longer applicable to our national security needs. Furthermore, the issues of arms control, disarmament, and dual-use technology have changed markedly since the establishment of this committee, and the thrust of verification techniques no longer is directed toward mutually verifiable procedures. This amendment promotes the type of reform which is supported by the GAO, the CBO, and in some cases the President. It terminates funding for a committee, the job of which is complete. While it may not achieve savings in the millions of dollars, it is an important step in complying with the demands of the American people who told us on November 8, 1994, to balance the budget and cut the size of the Government. It is important that we demonstrate that resolve by reviewing even the most insignificant or inexpensive programs as well as the more prominent ones. Let us show the public we are serious and eliminate this useless panel. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to discuss private arts funding in this country as envisioned under my proposal to privatize the Endowments, and at the same time to pay tribute to one of the Nation's most beloved and most philanthropic artists, Jerry Garcia. Jerry Garcia, acoustic guitarist, artist, and the spirit and soul of the Greatful Dead, died early yesterday morning. As is well known, especially in light of the outpouring of grief across the country yesterday, Garcia and his band have attracted perhaps the most loyal and dedicated fans of any rock group. What is less well known, and is to the band's credit, is that Garcia's band also donated millions of private dollars to charitable causes-- particularly to offbeat and undiscovered artists, through the Grateful Dead's philanthropic arm, the Rex Foundation. The leader of that band died yesterday and I would like to pay tribute to Jerry Garcia and his spirit of genuine philanthropy by discussing one of his many charitable ventures, the Rex Foundation. The Rex Foundation is precisely the sort of private philanthropy that opponents of my bill believe cannot exist, or will not exist in sufficient numbers to make up the 2 percent of private funding of the arts that the NEA now provides. Well, this one rock-and-roll band provided a million dollars a year to struggling artists, composers, and other charitable causes. And unlike NEA grants, Rex Foundation grants came with no strings attached. Rex was established as an independent charity in the early eighties, what some call the decade of greed. The profits from the band's charity concerts--about $1 million a year--are funnelled into the Rex Foundation, named for road manager Donald Rex Jackson, who died in a car crash in 1976. The Greatful Dead have played as many as five benefits a year for the Rex Foundation. Half of the royalties from the Ben & Jerry's ice-cream flavor ``Cherry Garcia'' go to the Rex Foundation. The rest of the foundation's money mainly comes from private donations. The band absorbs almost all of the administrative and personnel costs. Rex money has had perhaps its greatest impact on modern symphonic music. Since its inception, the foundation has spent over $100,000 commissioning and recording works by avant-garde composers. Composer Robert Simpson was much acclaimed but poorly remunerated for his work during a long career. At 73 years old, many of his works remained unrecorded. One day, he received a $10,000 money order from the Rex Foundation, out of the blue. The composer used the grant to help record his ninth symphony. In addition to supporting obscure composers, the Rex Foundation has assisted saxophonist Pharaoh Sanders, bought uniforms for the finacially-strapped Lithuanian Olympic basketball team, set up scholarships that have enabled Salvadoran refugees to go to camp and Sioux women to study medicine, and financed programs to eradicate blindness in Nepal, clean up rivers in Alabama, protect striped bass in California and feed the homeless in Boston. Rex Foundation money was used to record the prison gospel choir of San Quentin. In 1991, Grateful Dead drummer, Mickey Hart, helped bring the Gyoto Tantric Choir Tibetan monks to America. As the monks passed San quentin in a van, they said they felt the presence of trapped souls within. They wanted to go right in, but Hart informed them that that might be a little difficult. When the monks later performed at San Quentin through the Rex Foundation they were able to see the prison's gospel choir perform. According to Hart, one prison guard began playing the drums and another played the organ. Guards and inmates were mixing and singing sacred songs. The album, titled ``He's All I Need,'' peaked at No. 28 on the Billboard gospel charts. All proceeds went to a fund earmarked for victims of the inmates. And it's not just musical events the Rex Foundation has funded. Another recipient of Rex Foundation Funds was the Blue Moon, the historic University District tavern in Seattle which received a grant from the Rex Foundation to support three projects: Words [[Page S 12310]] on Wednesdays, the Pym Cup cash prize and ``Point-No-Point,'' a literary journal. Just a month ago, on July 30, 1995, the band performed a show at Deer Creek Music Center in Indiana and donated all the net proceeds--about $300,000--to the Rex Foundation. Some of the beneficiaries of that show were local charities: Hoosier Hills Food Bank; Broadway United Methodist Church, for a day camp program; Pleasant Run Children's Home; Health Net Community Health Centers; Horizon House; Prevention of Child Abuse, Indiana; Gleaners Food Bank; Habitat for Humanity. The Rex Foundation has few hard and fast rules--the Grateful Dead have never been strict rule-followers for themselves or for anyone else. The Rex Foundation has no endowment, no fund-raising campaigns, and no paid staff. It solicits no grant proposals, rarely advertises its good works and raised almost all its money at rock concerts at which the Grateful Dead perform. Most of the 60 to 100 grants awarded each year go to recipients nominated by a body called the Circle of Deciders. It is composed of band members and their families, its 50 employees, and friends. Of course, I cannot list every grant the Rex Foundation has ever made--and if I could there might well be some I would not like. But that is one of the greatest virtues of a private philanthropy such as the Rex Foundation: No Senator, Congressman or Government bureaucrat's approval is required. So while we debate the appropriations to be afforded the Government agencies charged with funding arts and humanities, and debate as well as restrictions that must be attached to any Government distribution of taxpayer money, I think it is worth reflecting on the contributions to the arts and humanities made by Jerry Garcia's band, the Grateful Dead over the past 12 years--contributions made without taxpayer money, without offense to the people whose money is used, and--most strikingly--without self-congratulatory fanfare. And also I would like to give my condolences to Jerry Garcia's family, friends, and fans, who mourn the passing of the artist, musician and generous spirit, Jerry Garcia.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to speak today more broadly about the future of the National Endowment for the Arts as opposed to speaking specifically on this amendment. I had earlier thought about possibly offering an amendment of my own which, if agreed to, would have accomplished the objective of moving us in the direction of privatization of the endowments--both the arts endowment as well as the humanities endowment. For a variety of reasons, I have decided to withhold at this time. If we do bring our bill to the floor, which has passed the Labor Committee, to authorize the endowments, I will probably offer my amendment in that context where I think it would be more appropriate. I also may, at a later date, bring it as a freestanding amendment somewhere else, if I believe circumstances warrant that. I would like reflect here, today, a different viewpoint, to some extent, than that which we have heard; specifically, the viewpoint that one can be pro-art, and a supporter of arts, and a believer that the arts are important to this country, while not necessarily supporting the notion that the Federal Government and taxpayer dollars ought to be used to support the endowment, or a similar national entity supporting the arts. I have given a lot of thought to this, because I do not come at this from the perspective of feeling we should diminish the role of the arts in our society. But as I talked to constituents and watched the debate and read the articles that have been referenced here, I have increasingly come to the conclusion we are headed in the direction, ultimately, that will be a lose-lose for America and specifically for people who support the arts. There are, obviously, a lot of arguments against the notion of Federal support in general. There is the philosophical question of whether or not the Government has an appropriate role in supporting the arts. I do not wish to address that today. There is obviously quite a lot of division on that. But we are in an era of limited budget availability for all programs, and while certainly a case has been made by some that the arts, as a priority, should be high on the list, it is hard in an era where we are limiting the growth of many important programs--whether it is Medicaid or Medicare or school lunches or anything else--that those priorities should not come first. In addition--and quite visibly in recent months, of course--we have had questions once again raised about the funding of art projects or of artists or of entities which sponsor what clearly becomes objectionable expressions of art. And whether it was the eating performances or the more recent Horizons project in California, I think American taxpayers are rightfully upset when they see their dollars being used to subsidize in part or in full what at least is claimed to be art but which, at least to them, is in fact objectionable and in some cases perceived to be obscene. These issues will not go away. I think we, as the Congress, should try to look at the long-range perspective here, not just the question of whether or not there are $99 million or $112 million next year in the endowment's war chest. The fact is, these problems will continue. I do not think halfway measures will work. Consider where we are headed. Where we are headed now is in a direction in which we both provide less funding than in the past for the endowments, but with more strings, more hoops to jump through, more restrictions on the kind of support that is going to be provided. It is my belief that this approach will continue to make the money available to the arts scarcer--at least that from the Federal Government. And I believe we will continue to increase the amount of regulations on the endowments in the years ahead, because I think we are probably no more than one or two additional objectionable projects away from a complete elimination of funding. I think that is a lose-lose situation. It is a ``lose'' in the sense the Federal support, or national support, for the arts will end in its entirety. And it will happen so suddenly there will not be an adequate time of transition to deal with that cessation of support. And the reason it will happen is because we cannot, in my judgment, in Congress ever successfully arbitrate the dispute which on the one hand has constituents calling and complaining to us that we should not be providing taxpayer funds for what they consider to be obscenity or objectionable art and on the other hand please the people who are beneficiaries of this, be they the artists or museums or others who say we should not censor the arts. When Government gets into the middle of providing support and then placing strings on the various grants that are given, we inevitably have, I think, an impossible fine line to try to walk: the line that separates obscenity on the one hand and censorship on the other. So it is my view that all the intermediate steps, whether it is just giving the money back to private institutions rather than individual artists or just giving the money to State councils or putting a lot of boards and regulations into place, all of these I think are going to appease for a short period of time only. And then another project will come along that people find so objectionable that I think the grassroots will rise up and cause a majority of people in the Congress to say ``enough is enough.'' Indeed, on the House side, I guess that is where they have already arrived. So what I will be offering, as I say, at some point is an amendment that I brought before our committee, the Labor and Human Resources Committee, an amendment on a reauthorization bill which called for a privatization of the national endowments, a privatization over a sufficiently lengthy period of time--5 years--that would give the endowments an opportunity to make the transition from Government funding to private funding. It would proceed on a slow enough pace I think for the entities to be able to develop the kind of financial resources necessary to continue to be national entities but to no longer be ones which had either, A, direct taxpayer support; or, B, a lot of Government censorship as part of their day-to- day regimen. I know that some people question whether or not this is feasible. But the fact of the matter is that today the role in terms of the funding that we provide--that is, the Congress provides--the arts is a very small percentage of the total amount of funding that the arts receive annually. Indeed, it is less than 2 percent. Our $145 or $147 million, which was this year's funding level, is just a thimbleful of support compared to what comes from private sources. Mr. President, over $9 billion in support of the arts comes from private sources. It seems to me that it is very likely and very feasible that a national entity which would continue to provide the sort of national imprimatur that we have heard discussed here today would be able to raise the kinds of resources necessary to maintain a level of activity at least as vigorous as we currently have. Indeed, I would suggest that a national entity, if it received as much support from the artists and the arts community that we have seen evidenced in this debate, would be able to have even more resources available to support the causes that such a national entity decided to back. So, Mr. President, without belaboring the issue at great length today, I will be coming back to this Chamber at some point with an amendment which will outline a 5-year plan of privatization. I think the net effect of that will be a win-win: a win in the sense that there will remain a national entity providing the imprimatur of support for worthy arts projects across America; a win for the taxpayers in the sense that those who wish to continue supporting it could make charitable contributions and receive tax deductions for those charitable contributions, but the taxpayers who do not support the program will no longer be forced directly to support such an entity; and I think a win for the American people in general and for the arts community in particular because I believe when it is over and that process is in place, that there will be more, not less, support available from a national source to give those worthy projects the backing they need to remain in existence. Mr. President, I will be bringing this to the floor sometime in the near future. I look forward to discussing it further with interested colleagues. I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it has been almost 30 years since Lyndon Johnson began the much publicized War on Poverty--30 years and $5.4 trillion later. It seems to me that poverty is winning that war. Today's poverty rate of 15.1 percent is actually higher than the 14.7 percent it was in 1966 when the war on poverty began. What is more, as a result of impersonal, family-destroying welfare policies, we now have what the First Lady herself terms ``cities filled with hopeless girls with babies and angry boys with guns.'' Former Reagan Education Secretary Bill Bennett's index of leading cultural indicators shows that while population increased only 41 percent between 1960 and 1990, the violent crime rate increased more than 500 percent; the teen suicide rate more than tripled; and the divorce rate more than doubled. Also since 1960, illegitimate births increased more than 400 percent. By the end of this decade, 40 percent of all births in America will occur without benefit of marriage. We now know that the children who never know their fathers fare far worse in crucial aspects of life than do children who grow up with both parents. For example, children of single parents are twice as likely to drop out of high school, 2\1/2\ times as likely to become teen mothers, and 1.4 times as likely to be idle, out of school and out of work, as children who grew up with both parents. Why do we have such high rates of out-of-wedlock births with all the bad consequences it brings? In significant part, I think it is because we have a welfare system that discourages the formation of intact two- parent families, all this while costing America's taxpayers $380 billion per year. Mr. President, the welfare system is broken. I do not think there is anyone in America who believes the present system is working--not the recipients of welfare, not the bureaucrats who administer welfare programs, and certainly not the taxpayers who pay for them. I say we have to stop spending $380 billion a year on welfare only to [[Page S 11819]] produce more welfare dependency, more poverty, more broken families, more babies born out of wedlock into lives of desperation without hope or solace. Mr. President, this is not a debate about just another Government program. It is a debate about our children. It is a debate about whether we are willing to do what is necessary to save literally millions of American kids with futures without parents and too often without hope. Some of our colleagues and others who are interested in this subject have come forth in recent days claiming that any approach that empowers the States to make their own welfare choices will somehow be less helpful to America's children. I ask my colleagues, and others who espouse this view, a simple question: What has been the legacy of the current welfare system to children? Let me repeat some of the points I mentioned earlier. First, both overall poverty and child poverty is higher than when the war on poverty began. Second, the teen suicide rate more than tripled between 1960 and 1990. Third, the rate of out-of-wedlock births has increased more than 400 percent since 1960. Again, children of single parents are far more likely to drop out of high school, become teen mothers, be out of work and out of school as children who grow up with both parents. And so, Mr. President, it is my view that if this is what constitutes a caring approach that helps our children, count me out. I will take my chances with a new approach that vests power and authority with the States. Our current welfare system is not working, and that is why reform is so important. The question is, what form should the new system take? I believe that any truly successful reform attempt must be guided by three core principles: Reform must consolidate and reduce welfare programs and bureaucracy; it must promote certain national objectives, such as strengthening families, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility; and it must allow maximum State flexibility. First, welfare reform must consolidate and reduce Federal welfare programs and bureaucracy. There are at least 79 duplicative and overlapping welfare programs designed to aid the poor, ranging from AFDC to food stamps to public housing. If reform is to be successful, I think the system of assistance we provide must be comprehensive and integrated so that all of the component parts fit together coherently. Further, welfare reform must cut the welfare bureaucracy, not expand it. According to the Heritage Foundation, ``Welfare bureaucracies are prolific in inventing new programs which allegedly promote self- sufficiency but accomplish nothing or actually draw more people into welfare dependence.'' Second, welfare reform must establish and achieve several Federal goals: Specifically, strengthening families, requiring personal responsibility, and promoting self-sufficiency. I do not believe that the Federal Government should, or effectively can, design welfare programs for all 50 States and accomplish these goals. But I think it should set the goals in place and then give States the opportunity to fulfill them. We have tried a centralized, Washington-based welfare system for 30 years, and it has been a failure. So I say let us leave the details to those closest in proximity to the people and their problems. But the Federal Government must have its voice heard as we work to support the fundamental principle that people must put forth some effort, that we must try to create intact families and encourage their formation in exchange for the assistance they receive. So, third, welfare reform must also allow for maximum State flexibility and experimentation. States must be given the authority to design the day-to-day regimen of their programs and to respond to the unique needs and circumstances that cannot be anticipated or appreciated by the Federal Government. The current system at least provides States the opportunities to seek waivers from certain Federal requirements. But this waiver system has proven to be clumsy and time consuming. It is laborious and often stalls or even kills innovative ideas. For example, my State of Michigan still is seeking a waiver so that it can implement its idea to cash out food stamps for clients who are working. Michigan thinks this would be an excellent way to reward aid recipients who are making progress toward self-sufficiency. The program would eliminate the stigma of using food stamps for those who work to at least partially support themselves; in other words, so that people do not have to go to the grocery store with food stamps and continue to feel that they are not productive in their own right. Unfortunately, the State has been waiting for approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for this waiver since March 1994. In short, Mr. President, the waiver system is inefficient because it puts the least innovative bureaucrats in bureaucracies--indeed, those bureaucracies at the Federal level who have the least incentive to make dramatic changes to the system, because many of them might lose their jobs--in charge of approving or disapproving new program ideas submitted by the most innovative Government agencies, those at the State and local level. Unfortunately, far too much of the State's time and resources are spent either complying with onerous Federal requirements or seeking waivers. In my State of Michigan, it has been estimated that front-line welfare workers, those who deliver the services to Michigan's neediest families, spend two-thirds of their time interpreting the dizzying array of complex and arcane Federal rules and filling out paperwork, either to support those regulations or to seek waivers from them. We have had reports on this in several hearings in which I participated as a member of the Budget Committee. I was listening to this testimony from people who actually were on the front line of the welfare battle that persuaded me that it was time to really change direction and give the States the kind of authority that we are considering this week, because when I realized that two-thirds of the front-line welfare worker's time was being spent not helping people but filling out forms, I realized that redtape from Washington was a major source of the problem with our welfare system today. So, Mr. President, using these three guiding principles for welfare reform, I believe the best approach would be to combine as many welfare programs as possible into a single block grant and give the States authority to battle local problems, to develop innovative welfare reforms, and to tailor reforms to local circumstances with as few Washington rules, regulations, mandates, and strings attached as possible. We all want to reduce the number of out of wedlock births and increase incentives to work. But Federal mandates and strings that do not allow States to take into account their own varying local circumstances can only have adverse consequences. Each State has different poverty populations which may require different reforms to achieve the best results. Mr. President, many of our colleagues have raised concerns about the block grant approach. Specifically, some oppose the no strings block grant approach because they believe that State and local government leaders will not fulfill their requirements and their obligations to take care of the needy. Instead of doing their best to help poor people, on this view, State officials will, if freed from Washington control, commence a race to the bottom. States will compete with one another to cut welfare benefits so as to convince recipients to settle elsewhere. The result, it is said, will be mothers and children left with little or no assistance from the State. According to this view, only bureaucrats in Washington have the brains and heart to make decent welfare policy that will help all who deserve it. Mr. President, I cannot speak for any other colleagues here, but for myself, I know of no one that would let this happen. This is not the 1850's, or even the 1950's. We are entering the 21st century. State and public officials do care about their citizens. In fact, I think they probably care about them more than the people do here in Washington. I would challenge those who adhere to this race-to-the-bottom notion to tell us what State--name the State-- [[Page S 11820]] that would allow its families and children to fall through the social safety net. Again, I cannot speak for every State official, but I can assure you that, in my State of Michigan, we can and will continue to take care of our people. For example, in this era of fiscal austerity and tight budgets, our State held the line and protected education funding from cuts and dramatically increased spending for children at risk. In addition, we have achieved a long-awaited reduction in the infant mortality rate, and other similar kinds of project lines designed to help the most needy and the most at risk among our population. I think this example of Michigan shows how our States, if allowed the necessary flexibility, can come to grips with the problem of welfare dependency that is plaguing our Nation. With only limited flexibility under AFDC waivers, Michigan Governor John Engler managed to get 90,000 welfare recipients off the rolls and into paid jobs. Governor Engler did this not by abandoning the poor but by asking them to sign a social contract that committed them to working, engaging in job training, or volunteering in the community at least 20 hours per week. Our Governor and legislature also let welfare mothers--and this is innovation--keep the first $200 per month of their earnings without counting it against their assistance. And he let them keep 20 percent of the money they earned after the $200 cutoff point. The effect was predictable. It was one in which people had a much greater incentive to be productive, get into the work force, and get out of the cycle of dependency. The success is, I think, rather staggering. Since the policy began in October 1992, average earnings by AFDC recipients have gone up 16 percent to $460 a month as of April. The percentage of cases with earned income has skyrocketed, in Michigan terms, to 27.6 percent--triple the national average. As explained recently in the Detroit Free Press, the ability to keep part of their earnings prodded recipients to accept low-level, first- rung-of-the-economic-ladder type jobs. As they gain more experience, they work longer hours and begin to land higher paying jobs. Thousands of them ended up earning such an amount of money, in fact, that they no longer needed AFDC assistance. Again, 90,000 people were saved from lives on welfare, and at a savings of over $100 million--after inflation. In my view, that is quite impressive, and it reflects only a part of the progress we can make by giving our States more freedom to order their own social spending priorities. Mr. President, we could do more, but, unfortunately, too often the Washington bureaucracy is in the way. Recently, at the hearings I referenced earlier, we heard from the people who run the social services department in Michigan. They came with huge notebooks, similar to the ones the Senator from Oregon recently had, in terms of paper load. They had notebook after notebook, almost from literally a table top halfway to the ceiling of the room in which the hearing was held, made up of the forms and the paperwork that the welfare workers in our State are forced to fill out just to seek a waiver--to be given the flexibility to do positive things to try to both reduce caseload and give people the incentive to find jobs and get out of the cycle of dependency. Governor Engler, at one of our hearings, produced a scroll that stretched from one end of the hearing room to the other, and it indicated on it a list of all the programs and regulations that a State administrator had to confront in order to deal with the many, many programs which they are required to administer under these laws. Think of what we could do if the people administering those programs could cut that paperwork burden in half, or more, and devote their time to helping more people get out of the cycle of dependency and find opportunities and get on the first rung of the economic ladder and make their way independently. I think that would be quite an accomplishment. Some people come at this from a different perspective--people who generally share my respect for State and local prerogatives but who oppose the no-strings approach, for different reasons. They argue that block granting will produce no significant policy changes. They believe that the State bureaucracies and liberal social workers constitute entrenched bastions of the status quo, and they are equally committed to expanding and maintaining the current welfare system. But, in my judgment, there is no evidence to suggest that a new set of Washington rules, regulations, and mandates will produce better outcomes. I do not think there are any good arguments, either liberal or conservative, for centralizing welfare in Washington. Mr. President, I think the choice is clear: It is a choice between business-as-usual welfare reform with some window dressing, bells, and whistles, versus real reform that shakes up the current welfare system in ways that benefit both welfare recipients and the taxpayers. It is a choice between a Washington-centered welfare system and a new State system. Given the magnitude of the current problem, I say the real change will occur only if we rely on the States. In summary, Mr. President, I believe the amendment before us encompasses many of the objectives for welfare reform I outlined at the outset of my speech. It reduces welfare growth by consolidating programs into block grants and cuts the welfare bureaucracy and the relevant departments by 30 percent; it sets national goals on the issues of work and illegitimacy; and it gives States the freedom to pursue innovative ways to reduce dependency and increase self- sufficiency among welfare recipients. I know several amendments will be offered, and some I intend to support because I think they will more fully flush out some of the objectives I outlined earlier. I think when those amendments are adopted, the full amendment before us will achieve the objectives which I have been working for in the context of this legislation. So in closing, I argue that Washington has not cornered the market on compassion. As the experience of Michigan and many other States have shown, innovative State programs are better able to lift the poor out of welfare dependency, give people a chance to get on the first rung of the economic ladder and are, therefore, ultimately more compassionate than a one-size-fits-all program, head- quartered in Washington. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Iowa in offering this amendment linking U.S. force levels in Europe to the effort our European allies make in sharing the costs of NATO defense. For too long we have applied a cold war rationale for the United States to carry the European burden, when the underlying, U.S. national security interests no longer apply. It costs us 10 to 20 percent more to station a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman in Europe than it does to keep him in the United States. Furthermore, we hire thousands of civilian foreign nationals to work for the U.S. military forces in Europe, civilians who pay taxes to the host government, spend their money in the host country, and never will spend a cent in the United States. This amendment addresses this inequity by requiring our European allies to pay for a portion of the defense we provide them. I know the House recently passed a measure similar to this, but included all nonpersonnel costs incurred by U.S. forces in European NATO countries as the basis for their burdensharing calculations. My fellow sponsors and I do not believe this is fair, as it requires the Europeans to incur obligations for costs we would incur if these same troops were stationed in the United States. We have therefore changed that language accordingly to incremental costs. But even then, significant revenues can be derived. The Congressional Research Service has calculated U.S. incremental cost in Europe as roughly $1.5 billion per year. This would provide approximately $1.125 billion in host-nation support contributions per year under this amendment's formula. Furthermore, having the Europeans contribute 75 percent to the foreign national labor compensation costs incurred by the United States would yield an additional $575 million per year by the year 2000, for a total of host nation support contribution of $1.7 billion per year. This is not an unreasonable demand. We, for too long, have sought negotiated settlement and passed sense-of-the-Congress resolutions that the Europeans should pay more for the costs we incur in defending their lands. Last year's Defense Authorization Act called for the Europeans to ``assume an increased share of the nonpersonnel costs so that by September 30, 1996, those nations have assumed 37.5 percent of such costs.'' This goal is far onerous than that provided by this amendment. It is not fair to expect our European allies to absorb a portion of all our troop costs, but it is fair to expect them to absorb a portion of those costs unique to operating in their countries, that is, incremental costs. This amendment does just that, but also introduces another critical source of host nation support. In fiscal year 1995, Germany provides only 6 percent of the foreign national labor compensation costs incurred by the United States in Germany, while the United Kingdom provides 9 percent and Italy provides 16 percent. Japan, on the other hand, contributes 94 percent of the United States foreign national labor compensation costs. When the United States agrees to keep 100,000 troops in Europe to provide the Europeans with that added sense of security, it is preposterous to expect the United States to pick up over $725 million in wages. This is not another U.S. jobs program, and the Europeans should not expect the United States to pick up this tab. Now I know the administration is opposed to this measure because the Europeans are supposedly suffering from particularly acute economic problems, that they contribute to other programs such as the NATO Infrastructure Program, and that previous host nation support requirement proposals would fall disproportionately on Germany and the United Kingdom. I disagree strongly with this rationale. I challenge any of my colleagues to stand up and claim the United States should bear the brunt of a modern industrial economic state's economic well-being given today's strategic environment. Can anyone honestly state that it is our responsibility to cover European defense costs because they suffer from high unemployment? That, Mr. President, is simply international welfare. But even if we accept that responsibility, we already are bearing disproportionate costs of European defense. While the United States spends over 20 percent of its Federal budget on national defense, the Europeans pay only 6.2 percent. Furthermore, while the United States expends 4.4 percent of our gross domestic product on national defense, the Europeans spend only 2.5 percent on national defense. This translates to the United States spending over 250 percent more per capita on defense than the Europeans. I could understand the objections to this proposal if the Europeans were closer to matching us on defense spending. But the fact of the matter is, they aren't even close, and that is just not fair. What makes this amendment unique to previous requests for greater European host nation support is its enforcement mechanism. This is not a proposal aimed at further reducing our presence in Europe. Rather, it recognizes the value the Europeans place upon the presence of U.S. troops, and utilizes them to compel European burdensharing. There is no reason the Europeans cannot share in those costs unique to our troops living and operating in their countries. This presence directly and materially contributes to the national security of our European allies outside of any NATO context. Considering the markedly lower level the Europeans pay for their national defense, it would appear they need our troops to provide a measure of their security. Therefore, European cost sharing can most efficiently be compelled by the threat of troop pullouts. We have passed sense-of-the-Senate resolutions over the last 15 years requesting the administration seek greater European defense spending and host nation support, yet we still find ourselves bearing the lion's share of NATO spending, even when accounting for relative size and national security interests. I believe the Europeans have come to depend on the United States to provide for their common defense, even when they are fully capable of providing at least a greater portion of that defense themselves. It is not fair to the American taxpayer to force their taxes to go to Europe in what is essentially international welfare to strong, democratic, industrially advanced countries. It is because of the savings provided by this amendment to the taxpayer that Citizens Against Government Waste supports this amendment. They understand this issue: it is not fair to the American taxpayer to allow the Europeans a free ride on something as critical as national defense, when they are fully capable of paying their fair share. Furthermore, the only instrument that will work in forcing European support is the threat of U.S. troop pullouts. Finally, the requirements this amendment places on European support are fair, reasonable, and easily attainable. Therefore, Mr. President, I call on all my colleagues to stop this coddling of our European allies and tell them to pay their fair share. Vote for the Harkin-Abraham-Snowe amendment to rectify this inequity. Mr. President, I yield the floor. [[Page S 11407]]

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to comment on the so-called Good ol' Boys' Roundup that was recently the subject of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. During that hearing, I and other committee members heard testimony about reprehensible acts of racism that took place at the roundup. In my view, incidents like the roundup paint all law enforcement officials--not just the ATF and the FBI--with the coarse brush of racism and discrimination. I do remain confident that the attitudes and biases displayed at the roundup are not, in fact, representative of the views of law enforcement officials generally. But incidents like the roundup cannot help but erode citizens' confidence in what the 14th amendment calls the equal protection of the laws. When citizens have occasion to wonder whether the law is being enforced evenhandedly, they sometimes cannot help but look with suspicion upon the actions of the officers involved in a particular case. As a result, trials in criminal cases often focus more on the actions of the police than on those of the defendant. Adhering to the maximum that the best defense is a good offense, defense attorneys in criminal cases, in effect, put the police on trial, just as the prosecutor puts the defendant on trial. The upshot, then, is that racist events like the roundup erode the effectiveness not only of the agencies whose officers were involved, but also of police departments across the country. Mr. President, we must, therefore, redouble our efforts to ensure that racism is not present in the law enforcement community. Officers who engage in racist activities should be severely disciplined. Moreover, officers who do not themselves take part in racist activities must understand that they cannot passively stand by while others engage into racist behavior, without regard to whether they are on or off duty. The no-tolerance policy for racism must extend from the highest to the lowest ranks of our law enforcement community. Only by this kind of vigilance, Mr. President, can we ensure that the promise of the 14th amendment is kept.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the floor. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in putting together the budget I think Members on all sides worked hard to try to identify various departments, agencies, commissions, boards, and councils whose functions were either unnecessary or duplicative of other activities going on in Government. Working in conjunction with a number of my fellow freshman Members of this body, we have tried using the assumptions made in that budget, using suggestions that have been previously made by the GAO, by the CBO, in some cases by the President in the budget submission he made, to try to identify numerous agencies of Government which no longer fill their purpose and which consequently ought to be terminated. The purpose of this amendment, and it is the first of several we will be bringing during the course of the appropriations debates, is to bring to an end to these various no longer necessary Government agencies. The amendment I am offering today will repeal the authorization of two technical panels who have outlived their usefulness, the Technical Committee on Verification of Fissile Material and Nuclear Warhead Controls and the Technical Panel on Magnetic Fusion. Neither of these panels currently receives funding. Nor do they have the support of either Congress or the executive branch. In other words, they are deadwood that should be cleared away as part of the process of balancing the budget. Mr. President, Congress has the opportunity to produce something a vast majority of Americans want very deeply, a balanced budget. But to do so means trimming the fat from Government and cutting spending. This amendment represents a step in that direction. It terminates the activities of two Federal panels whose job is either finished or never began. More important, it sets the tone I believe we should adopt with all of our spending bills. And so, as I said, from time to time during the appropriations process, a number of us are going to be working together bringing other similar amendments to the floor in the hope we can produce the tangible reduction of numerous activities, agencies, and programs in Government that have outlived their usefulness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Ashcroft as a cosponsor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak briefly to the amendment. Earlier this summer, the Congress adopted a historic budget resolution.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside. This is an amendment on behalf of myself as well as Senators Grams and Kyl.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment I think will be agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I will.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order, following my remarks and the remarks of Senator Daschle.