Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I would like to first thank the Senator from Delaware for his help, and providing this amendment has made it, I think, a stronger amendment, and I appreciate his judgment and guidance on these matters. Mr. President, I would also say that the Abraham-Dole amendment has been strongly supported by all the Nation's major small business organizations, including the NFIB, the National Association for the Self-Employed, the Small Business Legislative Exchange Council, and the chamber of commerce, among others. I ask unanimous consent that those letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. The concern the Senator from Ohio expressed was one that we took into account in the process of putting together the amendment originally. What we tried to balance was the responsibilities of the different officials in the Small Business Administration. The reason that we felt this particular office was the appropriate place to vest this authority was because of two things. No. 1, the responsibilities of this office are expressly those of advocating the concerns of small businesses. With all due respect to the head of any agency, as far as their set of responsibilities goes, whether it is the head of the SBA or any of the other agencies of our Government, they have other considerations they must take into account, whether it is political considerations or considerations that have to do with budget needs or managerial duties. But this office was set up, as we interpreted it, in an exclusive sense to try to really be the advocate of the small business community of America. It is the one place in Government where that power has been authorized by Congress. We felt, as a consequence, that there would be fewer countervailing types of considerations brought before the advocate than at the other offices of SBA. We thought, as a consequence, the advocate could perform their jobs freed of, and somewhat liberated of, some of the other countervailing responsibilities that an administrator or other agents of the SBA might have. That is how we reached this judgment. I think it certainly would be my expectation that the advocate would consult with and discuss with the agency and with the SBA Administrator decisions regarding regulations put on the rule. We thought this office was the place where the least argument could be made, where political pressures, special interest group pressures, and so on, were not justifying actions, and that in fact this had a certain amount of independence and a specific amount of authority, as well as what I said earlier, some of the tools it will take to make these decisions, because it is part of the current responsibility of the office to examine regulations for reasons of promulgation. So it makes sense that this might be the place.

Mr. ABRAHAM. At this point, I would not be in a position to make that change, I say to the Senator from Ohio. Because my mind is not fully closed on this, there are a number of people who participated in putting together this amendment initially, and I need to consult as to their feelings on this departure. I know a number of them earlier expressed the view that once we added the OIRA Administrator to the process in determining which regulations would be placed on the various agencies' lists, that we had satisfied any residual concerns which might exist as to having a person with a direct appointment and responsibility in the loop. I would need to go back and determine, I think, from some of the other people who are part of this, their receptive feeling to any change of that type.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I do not want to express the suggestion that we have spent a huge amount of time considering the specific role of the head of SBA. But let me go back to the point as to why the chief counsel for advocacy was initially identified. That is, because in the reg flex language that is currently on the statutes, it states specifically in 602(b) that ``each regulatory flexibility agenda shall be transmitted to the chief counsel for advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment, if any.'' In other words, because that was the way the statutes currently kind of vested authority for reg flex, we thought it was a sensible way to deal with it and was built more or less on that language. I think that was more the guiding notion that we used than any other particular consideration.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles be added as an original cosponsor of the Abraham amendment No. 1490.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch, the Senator from Utah, be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks. There does not appear to be anyone else at this point who wants to speak to the amendment. I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, for his support on these matters pertaining to sunsetting regulations, as he already indicated, before this Congress took office, and I am sure he will continue his support in the process of putting together this amendment. His broad support for sunsetting regulations has been an important ingredient in our efforts to bring this particular amendment to the floor. I want to thank him for his remarks today. As I said earlier, Mr. President, when I offered the amendment, I think that the bill we have before us has a system in place which will provide big businesses with a vehicle, a mechanism by which they can bring regulations up for review, because they will be in a position financially to afford the kind of technical cost-benefit studies and other types of inquiry necessary to present a petition that can be successful as it is considered. Unfortunately, small businesses do not always enjoy that opportunity. It is also the case that regulations which cost $30 or $40 million that do not quite make it to the level which we consider major rules in this legislation, at the $30 or $40 million pricetag are very costly rules, very major rules from the standpoint of a small mom-and-pop business that is out there in America trying to survive. So I think this amendment, as I said at the outset, strikes the proper balance between the need to place some constraints on how many regulations come up for review, on the one hand, and the legitimate needs of small businesses on the other to have their day in court. My parents owned a small business for quite a long time. I know what they encountered as small business people, truly a mom-and-pop operation, in attempting to just sort out the demands that we in Washington placed on their business. Others come to my office all the time with similar expressions of concern. I believe this amendment gives the small business community a mechanism by which regulations that are costly to small businesses can be brought up for review, even if they are not initially placed on the list of rules to be reviewed by agencies, and be brought up for review without necessitating on the part of small businesses [[Page S 9619]] who often will not be able to afford the expensive process that the petition system provides. I think it will be an effective addition to this bill and I hope an effective way by which small businesses across this country continue to have their voice heard as they deal with Federal regulation in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak briefly with respect to the Abraham-Dole amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not think that is correct. I believe Senator Hatch spoke for 30 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico such time as he shall need.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, one of the most frequent questions asked during the debate over the budget resolution was why, in the face of large deficits, were Republicans insisting on tax cuts. The answer is simple: Tax cuts work. By allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn, tax cuts encourage economic growth, job creation, and an increase--not decrease--in revenues to the U.S. Treasury. Following the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, we witnessed one of the longest economic expansions in the history of the United States. Over 20 million new jobs were created while revenues to the Treasury increased dramatically. Just as importantly, the benefits of the Reagan tax cuts were felt by Americans from all income classes--rich and poor. Tax cuts enacted this year could achieve similar results. I am including a short article by Malcolm S. Forbes, Jr. which makes an eloquent case for reducing the burden on the American taxpayer. As Mr. Forbes makes clear, Republicans can, and should, cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time. Fact and Comment memo to the gop: the 1980's worked (By Malcolm S. Forbes Jr.) Republicans have accepted the notion that the 1980s were a big fiscal mistake, that Ronald Reagan was wrong to insist on tax cuts even in the face of congressional resistance to reducing spending. Republicans are now in effect saying that no budget cuts mean no tax cuts. The GOP has it backwards. Properly structured tax reductions would trigger a robust economic expansion, as they did in the 1980s. They should be the center on which budget cuts are structured. Voters would thus see the GOP as the party of opportunity and growth, not as the party of austerity. Growth would also expand government revenues. Reagan's much-criticized tax cuts were the principal catalyst of our longest peacetime expansion. Federal income tax receipts grew mightily. Even more impressive was the extraordinary surge in revenues of state and local governments. The federal deficits of the 1980s resulted from our unprecedented peacetime military buildup--which finally won the 40-year Cold War for us--and, more important, from Congress' inability to say no to domestic spending constituencies. If Republicans combine Reagan's pro-growth tax approach with their antispending proclivities, they will get credit for reviving the economy and curbing government. Why should Republicans buy their opponents' bum raps about what actually happened when Reagan ruled?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, last week the Senate conducted two cloture votes on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General of the United States. As a member of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, I was already on record in opposition to the nomination. However, for the benefit of my colleagues and my constituents, I wanted to once again outline my reasons for opposing Dr. Foster and why I voted against cloture. At the outset of this nomination, I chose to reserve final judgment on Dr. Foster's qualifications to serve as Surgeon General until he had an opportunity to appear before the Labor Committee and address my concerns and the concerns of other Senators and until I had an opportunity to review the entire record. After careful thought and consideration during the Labor Committee's deliberations, I decided that I could not support Dr. Foster's nomination. I came to this conclusion for three reasons: First, I have serious doubts about whether Dr. Foster can unify the American people behind important national health policies. Second, I am troubled about where Dr. Foster comes down on the continuum which places parents' rights and responsibilities on one end and the State on the other. And third, I believe serious credibility questions regarding this nomination continued to exist. And for reasons I shall elaborate upon later, I ultimately came to believe that in this instance, extended debate of this nomination was necessary and appropriate. Now let me just add that Dr. Foster obviously is dedicated to serving others. He tended the health care needs of thousands of poor, rural women in the still segregated Deep South of the late 1960's and early 1970's. He taught at and helped run a historically black medical school which provides 40 percent of the black doctors in America. And he helped the youth of Nashville bridge the sometimes cavernous gap between a life of poverty and a life of education, economic advancement and social accomplishment. In all these endeavors, Dr. Foster has exhibited the finest qualities of civic duty and selfless public service. On that basis alone, one has to admire him. Nevertheless, in each of the areas I cited earlier, Dr. Foster was unable to allay my concerns. Mr. President, the first concern I have relates to what I perceive as this nominee's inability to serve as a unifier, bringing Americans together behind key public health principles. I have repeatedly expressed my worry regarding Dr. Foster's suitability to replace Dr. Joycelyn Elders. Given the extremely turbulent and divisive nature of Dr. Elders' service as Surgeon General, it came somewhat as a shock to me--and I think to many others as well--that the administration would select someone to replace her whose background would create anxiety among many Americans. I have never felt that Dr. Foster's background as an ob-gyn or his pro-choice views disqualify him for serving as Surgeon General. However, I believe that the fact that Dr. Foster personally has performed abortions creates a different sort of burden on his nomination. Dr. Foster has said that he wants to be seen as the Nation's doctor, but his past actions will cause many Americans to shrink from thinking of him in that role. This would not matter if the position involved were managerial or technical; but it is not. The Surgeon General's role is almost exclusively that of a public educator. He has a bully pulpit that must be used to bring Americans together behind improved medical and health practices. As I have said, following our experience with Dr. Elders, I think most Americans believe we should find someone for this position who can serve as a unifying force on the critical health care issues confronting or Nation. I was concerned that, because of his past practices, many would not at first blush choose Dr. Foster to be their physician. Therefore, at the confirmation hearings I asked Dr. Foster how he would try to restore this confidence in his ability to serve as the Nation's doctor and how he would do it. Regrettably, Dr. Foster could not seem to relate to this request; his response bordered on the dismissive. Mr. President, I did not expect Dr. Foster to change his views. But I did expect, or at least hope, that he would have a plan to unify people and reach out to those who--at the outset--were worried about his selection, but he did not. Indeed, he did not offer a single idea concerning how he might address his challenge--not speeches, not meetings, nothing. I feel in a position as sensitive as this we need someone who would work hard to bring people together. Dr. Foster offered no commitment or dedication to pursue such an objective. I believe that was a mistake. Mr. President, this brings me to another area of concern that I have specifically expressed from the outset: I have been worried about where Dr. Foster comes down on the continuum which places parents' rights and responsibilities on one end and the State on the other. Traveling throughout Michigan during my campaign I repeatedly heard parents strongly express two messages: They were concerned about the breakdown of the family unit and the consequences they viewed as emanating from that trend: teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and crime. And they were concerned about the degree to which Government's attempts to solve these problems, often exacerbating them in the process, pushed more traditional support systems such as families, relatives, and community out of the equation. Now I realize that some will say this is a little old-fashioned in the generation X world of post-modern morality, but I want the Federal Government's chief health spokesman out in front on this issue, leading the fight to involve parents more directly in their children's lives and resisting further Government usurpation of parents' responsibilities. Regrettably, Dr. Foster's actions and positions have led me to conclude that he could not fulfill this role. For example, Dr. Foster stated during the hearing that he opposed laws requiring parental notification when contraceptives are provided to minors. And Dr. Foster has a history of opposition to parental consent laws in the case of minors seeking an abortion, even those with judicial bypass provisions. Mr. President, I share Dr. Foster's view on the importance of preventing teen pregnancy, and on other crucial health and social issues as well. Where I believe we differ is on the level of responsibility we think parents should have in these areas and the steps each of us is prepared to take to achieve parental involvement. The question is: Would Dr. Foster, as Surgeon General, throw the moral authority of his office behind such initiatives? By most accounts, Dr. Joycelyn Elders dismissed parents altogether from playing any role in the sexual education and development of their children. Dr. Foster, it appears, believes that parental involvement is something to be desired and encouraged, but because of the positions he has taken and will presumably continue to advocate, he will send a different, contradictory signal. We need a Surgeon General who recognizes that parents must become very involved and will take positions that are consistent with that philosophy. Mr. President, the final concern I have, and the one which not only leads me to oppose this nomination but to vote against cutting off debate, is the issue of Dr. Foster's credibility. In order to succeed, a surgeon general requires one asset above all others: utmost credibility. But Dr. Foster's credibility has been seriously compromised in several ways. A major credibility problem arose from Dr. Foster's stewardship of the ``I Have a Future'' Program. When announcing the selection of Dr. Foster as his nominee, President Clinton spoke of the doctor's work in this program and its emphasis on reducing teen pregnancy. The President cited these as primary reasons for selecting Dr. Foster. The H.H.S. press release sent out that same day stated, ``The program stresses abstinence * * *.'' Dr. Foster himself, during a February 8 ``Nightline'' broadcast, proclaimed, ``I favor abstinence. Abstinence, that's what I favor. That's the bedrock of our program.'' But there has been no concrete evidence presented to support that assertion. It came as a great surprise to everyone on the committee, I think, when neither the administration, the nominee, nor the ``I Have A Future'' Program could produce the much-heralded abstinence brochures supposedly distributed during Dr. Foster's service as director. Nor was any other evidence forthcoming that abstinence was the bedrock principle of the program. After repeated requests to the administration and to Dr. Foster for those materials, the only abstinence brochures which were ever produced were those which Senator Dodd distributed at the hearing. And, as everybody knows, those brochures turned out to have been published earlier this year--long after Dr. Foster had ended his direct supervision of the ``I Have A Future'' Program. There are other reasons to doubt assertions that the ``I Have A Future'' Program had abstinence as its ``bedrock'' principle. In an article written by Dr. Foster and two of his colleagues for the summer 1990 issue of the ``Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved,'' entitled ``A Model for Increasing Access: Teenage Pregnancy Prevention,'' the authors clearly stated that the ``I Have A Future'' Program places considerable emphasis on widespread distribution of contraceptives to teenagers. This article and other ``I Have A Future'' materials make clear that reducing pregnancy among sexually active teens was the primary focus of the program, not promoting abstinence. Mr. President, I find it difficult to believe that Dr. Foster and the administration would fail to provide documentation for their crucial claim, that abstinence was the dominant feature of the program, if such documentation existed. Considering the emphasis placed by Dr. Foster and the administration on the role abstinence and the ``I Have A Future'' Program played in this nomination, this was a devastating revelation and comment on the credibility of the nomination. The critical question here to me was not whether abstinence was the ``bedrock'' principle behind the program. What I found most disturbing was the apparent attempt to deceive people regarding the degree to which the program was based upon abstinence. Another credibility problem, Mr. President, exists with respect to Dr. Foster's position on the issue of parental consent in the area of abortion. During the hearings, Senator Mikulski and I each queried Dr. Foster about whether he supported requiring parental consent in cases where minors seek abortions. In the end, Dr. Foster maintained that he supported parental consent laws as long as a judicial bypass provision was included. However, in a speech before a 1984 Planned Parenthood conference, Dr. Foster expressed strong opposition to consent statutes, including a Tennessee statute which included judicial bypass language. In that speech, Dr. Foster stated, ``However, the [Supreme] Court upheld consent laws for minors; hence our opponents can still create abortion deterrents by seeking legislation which will necessitate such an approval.'' And, moments later, Dr. Foster repeated this sentiment. ``The Supreme Court * * * upheld by a single vote margin the constitutionality of minority consent requirements, but in doing so, it did not examine how such laws work in actual practice. Hence, an opening has been left for those who would like to see such laws invalidated.'' Those are pretty definitive statements. And they are in direct conflict with the support Dr. Foster professed for consent legislation at the hearing in response to my questions. This lack of consistency was troubling, Mr. President, and further buttressed my concerns about Dr. Foster's credibility. Furthermore, this nomination has from the very beginning been dogged by another credibility issue: the question of how many abortions Dr. Foster actually performed over the years. The White House originally told the chairman of the Labor Committee that Dr. Foster had only performed one abortion. Then Dr. Foster issued a written statement claiming he had performed less than a dozen abortions. Days later, on ``Nightline,'' Dr. Foster changed his position and stated that he had performed 39 abortions since 1973. During the Labor Committee hearings he admitted that he had performed a 40th--albeit a ``pregnancy termination''--performed before 1973. During the same ``Nightline'' broadcast, Dr. Foster also was asked whether he was including in this count the 59 abortions obtained by women participating in a clinical trial he supervised for the drug prostaglandin. Dr. Foster said that he did not include those abortions because they were part of a research study performed by a university trying to maintain accredition. Thus, Dr. Foster, at various times throughout this process, has said that he performed 1 abortion, then 12, then 39, then 40, then another 49. In short, the number has changed with too much frequency and is still somewhat dependent on semantics. The issue here is no longer the actual number, but, again, one of credibility. Knowing that the issue of abortion was going to be of great concern, I believe it was Dr. Foster's responsibility from the start to provide a complete and accurate accounting so that the Labor Committee and the American people would have reliable information with which to judge his qualifications. Finally, Mr. President, Dr. Foster's credibility has been undermined by his characterization of the transcript from the 1978 HEW Ethics Board meeting, a meeting at which he was an active participant, and at which he is specifically reported to have said that he performed ``perhaps'' 700 abortions. The White House's initial response to news of the transcript's existence was to suggest that Dr. Foster had not even been at the meeting. The White House then shifted its approach and began issuing statements calling the transcript a fraud. That charge later proved to be false as well. Now, even if the White House issued these false statements without Dr. Foster's knowledge, I believe he had a responsibility--to the White House, to Congress and to the American people--to correct the errors once they appeared. To my knowledge, no such attempt was made. Only after others verified that Dr. Foster was at this meeting and that the transcript was, in fact, genuine did the White House and Dr. Foster adopt their current position: They now contend that the remark attributed to Dr. Foster about performing 700 amniocentesis and therapeutic abortions was an error in the transcription. However, after reviewing the transcript, it was clear to me that there was no transcription error. The only transcription problems occurred during different portions of the meeting and were corrected on the spot. Additionally, in response to my written questions, Dr. Foster did not deny other remarks about amniocentesis and therapeutic abortions attributed to him in the transcript. In fact, he admitted to having performed ``therapeutic abortions'' after diagnosing genetic disorders in unborn babies. This revelation conflicted with Dr. Foster's previous assertions about what was said at the meeting and raised even further questions in my mind about Dr. Foster's credibility. Mr. President, on the matters I have just outlined, I believe Dr. Foster's credibility has been seriously damaged. Because I believe credibility is such an essential quality for any effective Surgeon General, I do not see how, given this liability, I could in good conscience support Dr. Foster's nomination. Now, Mr. President, let me offer my reasons for voting against cloture in this instance. Generally speaking, it is my intention to vote to confirm qualified individuals that the President nominates. But in those circumstances where the integrity and credibility of a nominee--or the actions of an administration in presenting a nominee-- are clearly or seriously in question, I will reserve my right to vote against the President's choice, or against efforts to close off debate on the Senate floor. In my judgment, this nomination does present clear and serious questions about the nominee's credibility. For that reason, Mr. President, I felt a sincere obligation to vote against invoking cloture on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now begin controlled debate on the budget conference report, and when the Senate receives the conference report, the time consumed be subtracted from the overall statutory time limitation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I rise today, Mr. President, to urge my colleagues to seize the historic opportunity we now have to reform the regulatory process. In my judgment, we can and must reform this process so that we may reduce the regulatory burden on American businesses and consumers. Certainly, we can all agree that some regulation is needed to protect human health and safety and preserve the environment. But all too often the cost of regulation far exceeds the benefits. Too many regulations impose huge costs on our economy and people while providing little if any benefit. Excessive regulation constitutes a hidden tax on America. It adds to the price of everything from paint to potato chips and, by increasing costs for our State and local governments, ends up raising direct taxes as well. Mr. President, the tide of regulation in this country is high and it is rising. If left unchecked, it threatens to drown our economy in a sea of red tape. Consider the following: First, excessive regulation imposes an enormous burden on our economy. A recent GAO analysis of existing academic literature found that regulation in 1994 cost $647 billion. According to Wayne Crews, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute: Looked at differently, that is more than the entire economic output of Canada or more than the combined GNP's of Australia and Mexico. Or, put another way, an amount greater than all U.S. pretax corporate profits combined, which were $456.2 billion in 1993. In other words, the cost of regulation in 1994 was estimated to be more than all of the corporate profits of every corporation of this country. Here on the floor of the Senate, we often hear talk about corporate profit taking, corporate profiteers, and so on. I think this puts in perspective how costly regulations have become in our country. The second point that needs to be made is the size of Government bureaucracy has increased to record levels under the current administration. According to the Center for the Study of Americans Business, the number of bureaucrats devoted to implementing regulations was 124,648 in 1995, an all-time record. The center has also calculated that the amount of Government spending on regulatory programs was $11.9 billion, the highest amount ever spent to run the regulatory apparatus. Third, the number of pages in the Federal Register, the document in which all new regulations are published, was 64,914 in 1994, the highest since 1980. Fourth, and perhaps most disturbing of all, the cost of Government regulation per American family is now $6,457 a year. Combined with the cost of taxes per household, the total cost of Government per family today is almost $20,000. [[Page S 9355]] Now, according to the Americans for Tax Reform, in 1994 the average American had to work full time until July 10 to pay his or her share in the combined cost of Government taxes and regulations, a week longer than was the case in 1990. And that is not the only issue. Like any other tax, regulations raise the cost of consumer goods and services, lower wages, and increase unemployment. Regulations dampen investment and reduce technological innovation. But the facts and theory do not tell the entire story. So let me share with you a few stories from my State of Michigan that illustrate the problem with Washington's excessive and overreaching regulatory system. Take, for example, the impact of the EPA's recent regulations governing the use and removal of lead-based paint on bridges. Because of this regulation, the toll on cars to cross the Mackinac Bridge in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan--and this connects the Upper and Lower Peninsula--is currently $1.50, one-third more than it would otherwise be. There is a story behind this as told by Burton Fulsom of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy: For nearly 30 years after the Mackinac Bridge was completed in 1957, it was painted with a lead-based paint. Every 9 years or so, it was sandblasted and repainted. . . .To comply [with the EPA's paint regulation], the Mackinac Bridge Authority will soon be removing the bridge's paint by a process called ``enclosure,'' whereby the structure is cleaned with a tent-like covering to keep paint chips from falling into the water or blowing onto populated areas. The cost of the ``enclosure'' is staggering: Nearly $50 million, which the Authority wants to pay for by budgeting $2.2 million each year for the next 21 year. . .. Unfortunately, this ``enclosure'' scheme is a huge-- Huge and very questionable-- spending of money. No one has ever documented any harm caused by paint chips falling off the Mackinac Bridge. The greater risk, in fact, may be to workers [who will be within the enclosures] inhaling the paint particles or having accidents during the enclosure process. Mr. Fulsom further notes that the expenses and risks of EPA's mandated paint removal process are being undertaken despite the fact that the health risk from lead has been dramatically reduced. For example, the Department of Health and Human Resources reports a sevenfold drop in national levels of lead in human blood in the last 25 years. Further, Lakes Michigan and Huron are up to four times cleaner than they were 25 years ago. And finally, as Mr. Fulsom has pointed out, most of the lead paint problem was from paint inside buildings, not outside, and especially not from the bridges. Mr. President, this is a prime example of a rule promulgated by Washington bureaucrats that is too far reaching and that will produce little if any environmental gain but still will impose great costs on the citizens and businesses of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Sometimes regulatory agencies actually demand that more dangerous procedures be used merely in order to protect the agency's power and authority. To take another example from Michigan: The sediment on the bottom of Lake Michigan's Manistique Harbor contains quantities of PCB's. These contaminants can be cleaned either by capping them with a layer of clay or by dredging them up and out of the harbor. Capping would cost about $3.5 million. Dredging would cost nearly $15 million. Separate studies conducted by the EPA and private parties both concluded that capping would protect the environment better than dredging, which necessarily would stir up and release the PCB's into the harbor. Because capping is obviously the most cost-effective remedy, Michigan's Governor, John Engler, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Manistique local government, State representatives, and our congressional delegation all expressed support for capping rather than dredging the PCB's in the harbor. Yet, for months on end, the EPA indicated it would require that the harbor be dredged. The EPA generally prefers dredging over capping, and an internal EPA memorandum states that allowing the harbor to be capped would set a ``risky precedent.'' Adherence to this position would bankrupt the Manistique economy, putting many people in the community out of work; all this while actually increasing PCB contamination. Fortunately, it now appears that the EPA will allow the harbor to be capped, but this comes only after Manistique businesses incurred enormous legal fees and after I and the other members of the Michigan delegation repeatedly expressed our vehement opposition to dredging the harbor. Absent those extraordinary circumstances, there is no doubt that the EPA would have required that the harbor be dredged. Here then was one near miss in terms of regulatory overreach. But even if the regulations and their interpretations were rational, the cost of conforming with EPA paperwork requirements would still be staggering. In yet another example, Kent County, MI, recently spent $300,000 on EPA-ordered work at a closed landfill. Of that amount, $80,000 was strictly for the cost of preparing reports for the agency. This means, Mr. President, that the taxpayers of Kent County, MI, paid $80,000, more than a quarter of the full cost of compliance, merely for paperwork filing. Nationwide, individuals and businesses spent about $200 billion to process paperwork and to pay legal and accounting fees, according to economist Thomas Hopkins from the Rochester Institute of Technology. Mr. President, the need to lift the excessive red tape burden on America's small businesses--which are engines of job creation in our economy--is perhaps the most compelling reason for regulatory reform. Because of huge administrative and paperwork costs, regulation is disproportionately a burden to small- and medium-sized businesses. Small businesses simply do not have the resources to absorb the direct costs of regulation or hire lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, and accountants to comply with paperwork requirements. Indeed, complying with Government regulation has replaced making a profit or a better product as the primary concern of many of America's small business people. According to a recent Arthur Andersen survey of 1,000 midsized businesses, 52 percent said Government regulation was their biggest challenge, while only 18 percent said turning a profit. Mr. President, it seems clear, in my judgment, that regulations often unnecessarily distort business decisions. They make business people put their resources into filing paperwork instead of making profits. This increases product prices, reduces consumer choice, lowers quality, and even causes some businesses not to hire new workers. The Center for the Study of American Business provides real world examples of the negative consequences of regulation on job creation. Dr. Murray Weidenbaum of that center reports that: World Class Process Inc., a new and growing Pittsburgh processor of flat-rolled steel coils, has increased its work force to 49. According to the company's chief financial officer, ``We are going to keep it at 49 as long as we can,'' in order to avoid being subject to the 50 or more employees threshold for coverage under [various programs such as the Family Leave Act.] Similarly, other studies indicate that firms are using 50 employees or other similar numerical limits as a basis to avoid various paperwork requirements of the Federal Government. Mr. President, this does not help our economy. I submit we no longer can afford to ignore the concerns of small businesses. I understand that there will be amendments offered to our regulatory reform bill by Senators Domenici and Bond to ensure that the needs and certainly the problems of small business are adequately represented in the regulatory process. I will certainly support those efforts and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, we have already begun to act with a new awareness to solve the problem of overregulation. Our legislation, in regard to unfunded mandates, which was passed and signed into law earlier this year, is a case in point. Through it, we recognized that Federal demands bring costs with them, and that these costs do not necessarily represent the best use of a city's, State's, or business' money. But the most important step we can take to stem the tide of regulation, in my view, is the regulatory reform bill we will be debating. This bill will require rules to be cost-effective and require agencies to use sound science in assessing dangers to the public. It will [[Page S 9356]] help prioritize risks, thereby targeting the use of our resources toward those activities and substances that pose the greatest risks. It will see to it that agencies take all pertinent information and all viable options into account before increasing the regulatory burden on the American people. When combined with the unfunded mandates law, this regulatory reform bill will do much to free the American people from unnecessary regulations. In this way, it will increase consumer options, lower prices, increase productivity and, most important, increase the amount of freedom enjoyed by the American people. Mr. President, in closing, I want to congratulate the majority leader and Senators Hatch, Roth, Nickles, Murkowski, Johnston, and others for their efforts in putting together this compromise measure. I believe there are provisions in this bill that could have been much stronger, such as the decisional criteria, judicial review, and sunset provisions, but I believe we have worked very conscientiously and in good faith on both sides to move us to the point of completing a very important piece of legislation, and I applaud those who have been central to those discussions. It is my hope that ultimately we will have the kind of strong bill come out of our final deliberations and conference that will create the proper balance between the necessary health and safety and environmental needs of the American people, on the one hand, and the freedom and liberty that we all seek for our country on the other. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I yield myself whatever time I may take--I believe 15 minutes or so.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Madam President, last November, voters sent 11 new Members to the Senate. I believe all of us came to Congress dedicated to keeping the promises we made in our campaigns, and specifically we promised to end business as usual and to replace the old equation here in Washington of higher taxes and more Government with smaller Government and the goal of letting people keep more of what they earn. Central to our campaign was a commitment to end 25 years of deficit spending here in the Congress. Today, the Senate is debating a budget resolution which delivers on those promises. First and foremost, this resolution balances the Federal budget over the next 7 years. It does so by slowing the growth of Federal spending from 5 percent a year to 3 percent a year. In dollars, that means Federal spending will continue to grow from $1.6 trillion next year to $1.9 trillion in the year 2002. Now some, of course, have argued that we moved too fast. But the facts are quite simple. If we do not take action now, America will face an economic crisis far greater than any this Nation has ever confronted before. Here is why. If Washington keeps spending money the way it has for the last quarter of a century, the Medicare trust fund will go bankrupt in 7 years. In 15 years spending on entitlements and interest payments on the national debt alone will equal all tax revenues. That means not $1 for national defense, law enforcement, education, job training, veterans programs and so on, unless we run up even higher deficits in the future, deficits at levels we have never previously contemplated. Most importantly, unless the actions we begin in Congress are enacted and signed by the President, a child born this year, 1995, would during their lifetime pay $187,000 in Federal taxes, not in total, but just to cover their share of interest on the national debt that already exists and will accumulate during their lifetimes. By adopting this budget we can avoid fiscal disaster and begin the process of removing the mountain of debt from the backs of our children. Moreover, balancing the budget also sets the stage for an era of lower interest rates, accompanied by expanded job creation and a higher standard of living. Balancing the budget will result in significantly lower interest rates, which means that the average homeowner can save up to $500 per month on their mortgage. In addition, the GAO reports that balancing the budget could produce real income growth of up to 36 percent by the year 2020. For families and children then, balancing the budget means more than just reducing public debt, it means keeping a roof over their heads, putting food on their table, going to better schools and financing retirement. It means a brighter future. How do we get there? We get to a balanced budget by setting priorities and making tough decisions. We get to a balanced budget by keeping our promises, promises to eliminate wasteful spending, to evolve programs to the States and control growth of entitlements and provide taxpayers with some badly needed relief. First, this resolution trims the fat off of the Government and does so by eliminating unnecessary agencies, consolidating duplicative programs and privatizing those functions that are better served by the private sector. The resolution includes the elimination of almost 150 departments, administrations, agencies, commissions, committees, boards and councils--everything from the Board of Tea Experts to the Department of Commerce. It also assumes the privatization of entities like the naval petroleum reserve and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation and the Alaska Power Marketing Administration, all of which provides services which are better left to the private sector. Finally, this resolution consolidates duplicative programs to make the Government less cumbersome and more efficient. And all these reforms save the American taxpayer $190 billion over the next 7 years. This budget also devolves powers to State and local governments. During my campaign I promised the people of Michigan to return the operation of various Government functions back to the State, where Governor Engler and our legislature are out front on important issues like reforming welfare, Medicaid and education. I know Governors from other States are equally as innovative. This budget takes advantage of the tremendous talent outside the beltway by utilizing block grants to replace the hundreds of Federal welfare, housing and education programs. These block grants, which in many committees are already moving forward on a bipartisan basis, will provide the Governors with the resources and the freedom they need to carry out such reforms. Another promise I made to the people in Michigan was to work to control the growth of Federal entitlement programs. The need for this reform was made apparent in February when the Medicare trustees announced the trust fund will be insolvent 7 years from now. The trustees concluded that the HI program is severely out of financial balance and that the trustees believe that the Congress must take timely action to establish long-term financial stability for the program. This budget embraces this call to act by addressing both the short- and the long-term insolvency of Medicare programs. First, it allows Medicare to continue to grow at a 6.4 percent rate per year. This reform enables Medicare to pass the trustee short-term solvency test while still growing at twice the rate of inflation. Second, the resolution includes a call for a special commission to address the long-term stability questions facing Medicare and to advise Congress on how to keep Medicare's promise for future generations. President Clinton's most recent budget endorses this approach by advocating similar reforms. Now, we have heard a lot during the debate on this budget when it first came before us, and we heard already today, and I am sure tomorrow we will hear issues raised as to whether or not we should do these things with regard to entitlement programs and Medicare in particular, whether or not we can limit the growth to twice the rate of inflation. And the claims will be made that this is impossible to do simply because, if we did this at the current rate of growth, the current rate of inflation in health care programs, it will have this, that or the other effect. All these horror stories we heard suggests it is impossible to change any system in this country. That is certainly not the case, at least based on the recent evidence we have seen in the health care area. What we have seen is that in the private sector the inflationary health care has been dramatically reduced as corporate America, small business America, as families in America have addressed these growth problems by finding innovative ways to deal with health care and health insurance costs, by engaging in more preventive medicine and joining managed care facilities, by finding other alternatives to simply assuming that the rate of inflation can never change. I think it can. I think on a bipartisan basis we can, while providing the same level of service, limit the rate of growth of Medicare to the types of percentage that are contained in this budget resolution. Another central promise of my campaign was to fight for tax relief for America's families and businesses. Federal, State, and local taxes today combine to take almost 40 percent of every American's dollar that they earn. The tax burden on American families has increased by 300 percent over the past 40 years. Our Tax Code is excessive and it is often arbitrary and too often it chokes innovation and job creation. In my campaign, I promised the people of Michigan to support much- needed tax relief, like the $500 per child family tax credit, which we have talked about already and will continue to discuss in this body. This budget delivers on those promises by providing $245 billion in relief over the next 7 years. Under this resolution when spending has been cut and a balanced budget is ensured, $245 billion is made available to the Finance Committee for legislation providing family tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings and investment. And we need those incentives. Recent economic indicators suggest the economy may be slowing down. If slower growth is on the horizon, then we need to do more than just focus on spending. Slower economic growth endangers our common goal of a balanced budget in the year 2002. According to the OMB a 1-percent slower economic growth rate translates into $150 billion in higher deficits over the next 5 years. By including real incentives for investment and savings, we can help stimulate the economy and ensure that revenues keep pace with projections. A good example of how this can work, I think, was embodied in Jack Kemp's original enterprise zone proposal. In these zones lower taxes on capital would encourage businesses and employers to go into economically depressed areas, spurring economic growth and job creation. The primary benefits of these zones go to the residents of the zones themselves as their neighborhood is given a much-needed boost. And within the next few weeks I plan to introduce a bill that would supercharge the current empowerment zones with powerful savings and investment tax incentives such as those that have been previously outlined in enterprise zone bills to try to create that kind of job creation. By including a tax cut in the budget, we are opening the door for tax reforms like enterprise zones, family tax credits, and other incentives for savings and investment. These tax cuts in turn will increase--grow, create jobs, improve savings and ultimately improve the standard of living for most Americans. I intend to work with the Finance Committee to provide Americans with a profamily, progrowth tax cut this year. Madam President, 2 weeks ago Bill Clinton sent to Congress a proposal that embraces the central themes of this Republican budget. It cuts spending. It limits the growth of entitlements, and it provides Americans with relief from excessive Federal taxes. In short and in many ways, the President's budget alternative vindicates Republican efforts to balance the budget. While the plan falls short of its goals, which has been quantified by the Congressional Budget Office, I still think it is a good start in the right direction. I also hope that the President now will support other Republican efforts to create jobs and strengthen our economy, and I look forward to working with the administration to do so. Madam President, this budget resolution takes a historic step toward balancing the budget by slowing the growth of Government and returning power to the States. It is a credit to Senator Domenici and to the members of the Budget Committee and to the leadership, I think, that we have set this goal and stuck with it. As is the case, I know, with the President and many others in this Chamber, there are parts of this budget resolution that I wish were different. There is an area, for example, in the student loan area where I wish it were different, closer to something that I had worked out before. But I think it does an extraordinarily good job of ordering priorities and reaching the commonly held objective of bringing the budget into balance, and it is the reason that I strongly support what we are attempting to do today and tomorrow. The question before Congress is not just about dollars and cents, revenues and outlays. The question confronting us is whether this will be the first generation of Americans that fails to pass on to our children as much freedom and opportunity as we inherited from our parents. Like many other new Republicans in Congress, I ran for the Senate promising to fight for an agenda that would guarantee my children and their generation more freedom and opportunity. This budget, I think, keeps those promises, because it guarantees that the freedoms and opportunities for future generations are greater than ever. I look forward to working with the President and, hopefully, congressional Democrats to get this job done. We heard earlier today numerous people comment on the implications of this budget. The previous speaker was quite eloquent in trying to outline his view of America and where he thought this budget would take us. He talked about his family and their experiences in this country. I would just like to close by talking about my family. My grandparents were all immigrants. They came to this country about a century ago in search of freedom. None of the four could speak English. Probably cumulatively the four had about $5 in resources when they got here. But they came to this country because they wanted to live in a country that was free and they wanted their kids and their grandchildren and future generations of their family to live in a nation that was free. They did not come here seeking a nation for the purpose of finding a place where there were great Government benefits. They believed in their own capacities to do things, and they wanted a place where they would have a chance to enjoy the freedom to do the things they want. My parents were very hard-working folks. Neither of them had a college education. They were not really well educated, in fact, but they cared an awfully lot about their children and they wanted my sisters and me to have a little more opportunity than they did. My dad worked for almost 20 years as a UAW member on an assembly line in Lansing, MI, in an Oldsmobile factory, and he and my mom had a small business after that. They worked very hard, 6, sometimes 7 days a week, to give my sisters and me a chance to have the other part of the American dream--freedom and opportunity. I think what they envisioned for my generation and what I think they all wanted for my children's generation was a chance to grow up in a nation that provided these opportunities. I sincerely believe that if we burden the next generations with an ever-increasing amount of debt, we will not pass on the kind of freedom that my grandparents came to this country to find and that my parents tried to pass on to my sisters and to me. I just will close by saying this. We heard a lot of talk about compassion and which party has the ability to provide it and what this budget will do. But just remember, Madam President, that in this budget, we will be spending over the 7-year period involved something in the vicinity of $12 trillion of taxpayers' money, of moneys sent to us by hard-working people across this country. We are a very compassionate Nation, I think, and we are spending most of those dollars in one way or another on programs which benefit people who are less fortunate. So I think we are a compassionate Nation. If we continue to provide the people with the freedoms and the incentives to pursue their entrepreneurial instincts and pursue the kind of opportunity my grandparents came to this country to find, we will get the job done. I cannot imagine, in a nation that does as much, how we can ever get to the floor and suggest we are not compassionate, our programs are not effective. I think this budget allows us to continue providing support for people who are truly needy but, at the same time, make it possible for people to enjoy the freedom and opportunities in America. So I strongly support what we have done and look forward to working to adopt this resolution. At this time, I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 240. This legislation makes a number of important reforms that are designed to prevent abuse in litigation connected with the issuance of securities. This in turn will improve the investment climate in this country, which will make it easier to start businesses and create jobs. These changes will be made without, in my judgment, in any way undermining protection for investors against genuine fraud or other misconduct by issuers. There is one particular set of reforms the bill would make on which I would like to focus. The bill will require courts to sanction attorneys who file frivolous pleadings. This reform will apply when the lawyers file frivolous proceedings on behalf of plaintiffs and on lawyers filing on behalf of defendants. I think it is an extremely sound proposal which should command strong support from Members on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, as the Presiding Officer will recall, he himself offered a similar provision with regard to the product liability issue some weeks ago, a provision which I supported and which a majority of Senators supported at that time. Mr. President, under present law, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 11 requires all attorneys to have some factual and legal basis for filing any claim or defense. If attorneys violate this requirement, courts may award sanctions against the violator. Right now, however, the courts are not required to take any action against the violator. The changes proposed by S. 240 would do three things. First, they would require courts to find, at the end of all securities cases, whether any attorney violated rule 11. Second, the court would then have to impose a sanction if they found a violation. Third, that sanction would presumptively require the attorney in violation to pay the other side's attorney fees, although the court could select another sanction if the attorney shows that the presumptive sanction would impose an undue burden on the sanctioned party. Two important features of this reform should particularly be known. First, the court would only be obligated to impose a sanction on an attorney who filed a frivolous pleading; that is, a pleading wholly lacking in a legal or factual basis. This reform will in no way kill legitimate litigation. Second, the sanction is paid by the person signing the frivolous pleading; that is to say the attorney responsible, not by the party the attorney is representing. The Supreme Court itself has noted the securities litigation has been especially prone to be misused as a tool to extort settlements. It is Congress' 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. This leaves me, however, with one problem about what we are doing here this week. It is certainly good we are taking serious steps to enact litigation reforms that will address abusive practices in the securities area. Similarly, it was good we took similar steps to enact reforms that address abusive practices in the field of product liability, which we did just a few weeks ago. I ask, Mr. President, why are we stopping here? Brokerage firms, accountants, and manufacturers, and the people who buy their products or use their services, are far from the only victims of our out-of- control civil justice system. Our homeowners, farmers, volunteer groups, charitable organizations, small businesses, State and local governments, architects, engineers, doctors and patients, employers and employees, are likewise injured by our civil justice system on a daily basis. Every day, lawsuits suffering from the same defects as those the sponsors of this litigation have brought up are filed against all of these people. Indeed, when their plight was brought to the attention of the Senate during the product liability debate, along with several other colleagues, I led an effort to broaden the reforms that bill would have made. We wanted reforms that would benefit all Americans. A majority of Senators supported many of our broadening proposals, yet the will of that majority was frustrated by opponents of broader reform, who made clear they would filibuster a bill that made civil justice reforms that would benefit all Americans. I considered mounting a similar effort in conjunction with this bill, but sponsors of this legislation were assured that it would suffer a similar fate. Therefore, and with some regret, I yielded to their request not to offer broadening amendments at this time. However, I do not believe the Senate can forever avoid confronting the fact that, while it is making important reforms in specific areas of civil justice, it is refusing to make broad-based reforms that will help small businesses, charities, and other institutions that form the backbone of this country. I, for one, will continue to bring these reforms up, again and again. I will not rest until broad-based reforms to our civil justice system are adopted. Mr. President, I think it is important that we take the actions we take today to protect the people in the securities industry and people who are shareholders in corporations that are affected by these frivolous lawsuits, just as I think it was appropriate that we take those actions in conjunction with product liability actions. But across America, every day the small business people, the farmers, and the charitable organizations in our communities suffer from frivolous lawsuits brought against them. They suffer when the joint and several liability provisions cause deep pockets to end up paying for damages they had virtually no connection with creating. I think it is time for across-the-board reforms that protect, not just certain areas of civil justice, but all areas. For those reasons, I intend to come back to this Chamber at a future time to offer some of those types of reforms, and I look forward to working with other Members of the Senate who agree we need them and we need them soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to set forth the reasoning behind a number of my votes with respect to S. 652, the telecommunications bill. Although S. 652 would not deregulate the telecommunications industry as much or as quickly as I would like, it eventually would lead to competition in a number of telecommunications markets that currently are monopolistic. Specifically, the bill would remove artificial barriers to competition in the phone services markets as well as in the cable, equipment manufacturing, and other markets. I, therefore, supported final passage of S. 652. Much of the debate concerning the bill focused on the issue of RBOC entry into the long-distance market. An amendment offered by Senator McCain, No. 1261, would have defined the term ``public interest'' as it relates to the FCC's decision as to whether to allow a Bell to enter the long-distance market. The bill as introduced did not define that term. I voted for the McCain amendment because the absence of such a definition would give the FCC virtually absolute discretion as to whether a Bell can enter the long-distance market--or, put differently, as to whether consumers will enjoy the benefits of full competition in that market. The Senate's rejection of McCain amendment No. 1261 was part of the reason for my vote against the Dorgan-Thurmond amendment, No. 1265. The Dorgan-Thurmond amendment would have added yet another layer of regulatory obstacles to the RBOC's entry into the long-distance market. The bill already would have required a Bell to satisfy an extensive competitive checklist and to secure the FCC's public interest determination before entering the long-distance market; and even then, the Bell could enter that market only through a separate subsidiary. Moreover, the bill would for the first time allow utility and cable companies to compete for the Bells' local customers, thereby further reducing the Bells' ability to subsidize predatory pricing in the long- distance market by raising the prices paid by local customers. Thus, the Dorgan-Thurmond amendment, by requiring the Bells additionally to secure the approval of the Department of Justice before entering the long-distance market, would only delay unnecessarily the arrival of full competition in that market. To paraphrase Holmes, three layers of regulatory obstacles is enough. From the outset of the Senate's consideration of S. 652, I was concerned that the bill might mandate discounted telecommunications rates for selected groups. The cost of such mandatory discounts is inevitably passed on to customers whose rates are not set by Congress, and thus often falls, at least in part, on poorer customers who cannot muster the lobbying clout necessary to secure special treatment. Moreover, apart from the equities of the issue, I think Government exceeds its legitimate role when it sets special telecommunications rates for favored groups. I, therefore, supported McCain amendment No. 1262, which would have struck bill language, contained in section 310, that would force telecommunications providers to provide their services to schools and hospitals at discounted rates. After the Senate rejected amendment 1262, I voted for another McCain amendment, No. 1285, that at least would subject section 310 to means testing. The amendment passed. Finally, I want to set forth in detail my reasons for supporting McCain amendment No. 1276. This amendment would jettison our current crazy-quilt of universal-service subsidies, in favor of a means tested voucher system. The universal-service subsidies and rate-averaging schemes currently in place have as their principal effect the perpetuation of telephone service monopolies in rural areas. These schemes exclude competitors from rural telephone service markets in two ways. First, by keeping rural rates artificially low, rate averaging reduces if not eliminates the incentive of would-be competitors to enter the rural services market. Second, the subsidization of existing providers effectively bars the entry into those markets of competitors who would not be similarly subsidized. In contrast, a voucher system would not distort market signals or suppress competition in the markets whose customers it seeks to help. Thus, the need-based voucher system described in the McCain amendment would be vastly preferable to the current and proposed cost-based schemes, which make the inner-city poor pay higher phone rates so that customers in remote areas, including wealthy resort areas, can enjoy lower rates.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will say that I think it is an academic debate, because the question about wage earners that we are talking about--and we are going to encounter this question in the budget debate--is which policies cause wages and family income to go up, and which policies cause them to go down. I submit policies of high tax and high regulation tend to cause these wage earner family incomes to go down. The concern I have using charts like these is that they do not necessarily reflect a consistent set of policies. During the period that is involved there, we had two very traumatic shifts. It began in an era with a policy of higher taxes and low regulation, and wages went down. It shifted to a policy of lower taxes and less regulation, and family incomes went up dramatically, then shifted one last time to policies of higher taxes and higher regulation again, and they have begun to decline. I think we need to examine this. My point today is to reflect the fact that there are changes within that timeframe that are reflected in changed policies that I think do affect workers and make these inquiries more than academic.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be brief. I agree with the comments of the Senator from Illinois with respect to the comments we all have made with respect to some of the budget problems that have happened. I would assign them a little differently maybe. There was a tendency to see, as was implied earlier, that somehow by reducing taxes we generated less revenue for Washington. I always like to remind the Senate, what we are talking about when we reduce taxes is letting people keep a little more of what they earn. But I also point out that during the 1980's, the percentage of gross domestic product that ended up being paid in taxes did not change. In fact, it remained as it has for literally decades, right around the 19-percent level. What did change, and where I think both parties have the responsibility in particular, is in terms of our spending practices. Obviously, what we did during that decade was spend more. We spent on everybody's priorities. We refused to say we have to set some priorities. So it did create the kind of increased deficits that were referred to. I agree with the assessments that those deficits did hurt. I do not know whether it is 19 or 25 percent. One of those figures was from the University of Michigan, so I will tend to be more likely to agree with the ones from my home State, but that clearly was a burden both parties, I think, were responsible for.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to ask my colleague this on the chart indicating from 1979 to 1993. Can he say whether or not during that period of time the aggregate numbers he has there were reflective of a straight-line decrease in the share for the people in the lowest 20 percent and an increase for the people in the top 20 percent, or if there were fluctuations during that period, and if he is familiar with the year-by-year data during that timeframe?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I have seen this chart, of course, in our Budget Committee meetings and our Labor Committee meetings, and on the floor several times. I think it may have originated with Secretary Reich from the Department of Labor, who used this chart to argue that the economic policies over that last period, the period in question, 1979 to 1993, have been consistent policies. This chart is usually employed to argue that it has been the Republican policies that were harmful to certain segments of the economy, particularly certain income groups. But I have tried to look at this chart in terms of the policies that were in place during that timeframe. What I discovered was that there were some very significant changes during that timeframe. It begins in 1979. That is during a timeframe in which we had President Carter in office, and we had policies of higher taxes and more regulation. We had very high interest rates in this country and quite high inflation during that timeframe. Those policies were pretty much in effect, Mr. President, until about 1982, when after 1 year of the Reagan administration, the change in policies took place. Now, between 1979 and 1982, you have a significant decline, a very significant decline in family income during those years. Then from 1982, I discover that you have a reversal of course, and I think we all recall that there was a substantial increase for the next 8 years or so in family income. It starts back down again around 1989, 1990. And, as the Senator noted, it has gone especially down in the last year or so. But I think that to use this chart to reflect or create the illusion that there has been a sort of straight-line decrease really does not capture the essence of what happened during this timeframe when, in fact, there was a sharp decline during the first 3 years of this and a significant incline for all groups, all quintiles on the chart, for about 8 years, and a decline over the last 3 years. So I am not sure that the 14-year chart really reflects what happened in terms of policy or in terms of family income.