Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I did not mean to suggest that. The chart has been presented under a number of circumstances.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, when President Theodore Roosevelt sat down with his Cabinet for a meeting, he needed just nine chairs to accommodate everyone, including the Post-Master General. If he desired an impromptu gathering, he could just walk to the Old Executive Office Building next door. The offices of almost the entire executive branch were located there. Ninety-four years later, a Cabinet meeting has almost twice as many participants--even without the Postmaster's presence--and includes the Secretaries of 14 Cabinet-level Departments spread all over the District of Columbia. These meetings don't include the heads of hundreds of administrations, commissions, boards, and other Federal agencies below the Cabinet level. This tremendous growth in the size and scope of the Federal Government has resulted in enormous tax and debt burdens on our economy which, in turn, means lower living standards and fewer job opportunities for the American people. The Federal budget in 1901 consumed just over 2 percent of total national income. Today, it spends almost 25 cents for every dollar we produce. Measured against the size of the economy, the Federal Government is 12 times larger than it was at the turn of the century. In the meantime, a Federal budget that routinely enjoyed surpluses of 10 percent or more during Roosevelt's tenure hasn't seen the black in 25 years. In restraining the growth of the Federal Government, we need to target those departments and agencies whose activities are unnecessary, duplicative, wasteful, and simply outside the limits of Federal power prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. While this description fits much of the Federal Government, Majority Leader Bob Dole has set the standard by calling for the elimination of four Cabinet departments-- Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Education. These four departments alone employ more than 74,000 bureaucrats and have combined budgets of $70 billion--133 times more than the entire Federal Government spent in Roosevelt's era. While some of the programs within these departments serve useful purposes, we don't need these huge bureaucracies and buildings to oversee them. Instead, these programs ought to be consolidated, privatized, and devolved to the States and localities. Today, I am joined by Senators Dole, Faircloth, Nickles, Gramm, and Brown in introducing legislation to begin that process by abolishing the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce Dismantling Act of 1995 is the product of the Dole Task Force on the Elimination of Federal Agencies. It is the first of several bills the task force intends to introduce this Congress targeted at reducing the size of Government. It is the product of extensive work by several Senate offices, as well as the members of the House Freshmen Task Force, and it has been endorsed by the National TaxPayers Union, Citizens For a Sound Economy, the Business Leadership Council, Americans For Tax Reform, and the Small Business Survival Committee. The Department of Commerce houses the least defensible collection of Federal agencies in Washington, many of which are either duplicated or outperformed by other Government agencies and private industry. According to the General Accounting Office [GAO], Commerce shares its mission with ``at least 71 Federal departments, agencies, and offices'' while former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher recently called the Department ``nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in everything that you don't know what to do with.'' Ironically, regulating interstate commerce isn't one of them. That's handled by the independent Interstate Commerce Commission, itself a target for elimination. Commerce is a bit player in international trade as well. At least 10 Federal agencies are charged with promoting U.S. exports, but only a fraction of the funding is directed to Commerce. The Agriculture Department receives three-fourths. So what's left for Secretary Ron Brown, 263 political appointees, and the 36,000 bureaucrats who work for Commerce? Over half of the Department's $3.6 billion budget is consumed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]--the Nation's weather and ocean mapping service. Another $400 million funds the notorious Economic Development Administration [EDA], a traditional source of [[Page S8499]] pork barrel spending on things like public docks and sewer systems. At one point in its history, 40 percent of the Administration's loans were in default, while economic assistance grants were distributed to such economically troubled areas as Key Biscayne, FL. Even when it is effective, the EDA duplicates the efforts of numerous other programs in other departments. The Commerce Dismantling Act targets this waste and duplication. It transfers those functions that can be better served elsewhere, consolidates duplicative agencies, and eliminates the remaining unnecessary or wasteful programs. The terminations, transfers and consolidations are to be completed over a 36-month period under the direction of a temporary Commerce Programs Resolution Agency. According to preliminary Congressional Budget Office figures, the bill saves the American taxpayer $7.7 billion over 5 years. Let me quickly go through the bill. While the activities of NOAA are only tangentially related to the promotion of commerce, it makes up over half of the Department of Commerce budget. The individual functions of this agency would be sent to more appropriate agencies or departments. First, the enforcement functions of the National Marine Fisheries Service are transferred to the Coast Guard, while the scientific functions are transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Seafood inspection is transferred to the Department of Agriculture, which already carries out most food inspection programs. The State fishery grants and commercial fisheries promotion activities are terminated. Second, the geodesy functions of the National Ocean Service are transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey while coastal and water pollution research duplicated by the Environmental Protection Agency is terminated. Marine and estuarine sanctuary management would be transferred to the Interior Department, which already manages some fisheries. Nautical and aeronautical charting is privatized, as the private sector undertakes this activity already. Third, the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service's weather satellite of this agency are transferred to the National Weather Service to consolidate these functions which, in turn, is transferred to the Interior Department. The NESDIS data centers would be privatized. Fourth, because many of its activities are duplicative of other Federal agencies or could be better served by the private sector, this office is terminated. The labs which could operate in the private sector will be sold and the remaining labs will be transferred to the Interior Department. Finally, the NOAA Corps is terminated and its vessels sold to the private sector. Services can be obtained in the private sector and its fleet is in disrepair. Another significant part of the Department of Commerce, the Economic Development Administration, is terminated under this legislation. The EDA provides grants and assistance to loosely defined ``economically depressed'' regions. EDA's functions are duplicated by numerous other Federal agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, HUD, and Interior, the Small Business Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission. The parochial nature of the program often targets EDA grants to locations with healthy economies which do not need Federal assistance. This bill terminates the EDA, transferring outstanding obligations to the Treasury Department for management or sale. Although the Minority Business Development Administration has spent hundreds of millions on management assistance--not capital assistance-- since 1971, the program has never been formally authorized by Congress. The MBDA's stated mission, to help minority-owned businesses get Government contracts, is duplicated by such agencies and programs as the Small Business Administration and its failed 8(a) loan program, and Small Business Development Centers, along with the private sector. The MBDA is terminated and its 98 field offices closed. The U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration seeks to promote travel and tourism in the United States through trade fairs and other promotional activities. According to the Heritage Foundation, ``the agency often works with private sector organizations, including the Travel Industry Association of America, to organize events such as the `Discover America Pow Wow' or the `Pow Wow Europe.' There is no justification for Federal involvement in such promotional activities of a commercial nature.'' Because functions such as these are already extensively addressed by States, localities, public sector organizations, and the private sector, the USTTA is immediately terminated. The Technology Administration currently works with industry to promote the use and development of new technology. Because Government in general, and the Federal Government in particular, is poorly equipped to pick winners and losers in the marketplace--frequently allowing political criteria rather than market criteria determine the choice--this agency is terminated, including the Office of Technology Policy, Technology Commercialization, and Technology Evaluation and Assessment. The Industrial Technology Service programs, including the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, are terminated; these programs are often cited as prime examples of corporate welfare, wherein the Federal Government invests in applied research programs which should be conducted in the private sector. The weights and measures functions of the National Institute for Standards and Technology would be transferred to the National Science Foundation. The National Technical Information Service, a clearinghouse for technical Government information, would be privatized. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an advisory body on national telecommunications policy, would be terminated, including its grant programs. Federal spectrum management functions would be transferred to the Federal Communications Commission. Providing for patents and trademarks is a constitutionally-mandated Government function. Our proposal would transfer this office to the Justice Department, requiring the PTO to be supported completely through fee collection. The Bureau of the Census, another constitutionally-mandated function, is transferred to the Treasury Department. Select General Accounting Office recommendations for savings at the Bureau would be implemented. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is transferred to the Federal Reserve System to ensure the integrity of data. The superfluous ESA bureaucracy would be eliminated. The Bureau of Export Administration is one of several agencies responsible for monitoring U.S. exports that may compromise national security. Because this function remains important to the country, this legislation would reassign these functions as follows. The determination of export controls is transferred to the Department of Defense. The United States Trade Representative would advise the Defense Department in disputed cases. The Customs Service, which already has the staff, expertise, and facilities, would enforce the export licensing determined by the DOD. While the Department of Commerce claims to be the lead in trade promotion, it actually plays a small part. Five percent of Commerce's budget is dedicated to trade promotion, and it comprises only 8 percent of total Federal spending on trade promotion. The International Trade Administration is the primary trade agency within the Department of Commerce. This bill makes the following changes. The Import Administration is transferred to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The USTR, which already plays a role in this area, would make determinations of unfair trade practices. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is transferred to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The domestic component of USFCS is terminated, and the foreign component would be transferred to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which already takes the lead in trade policy. The International Economic Policy is also terminated and these functions would continue to be carried out by the USTR. Finally, the Trade Development functions are terminated and replaced with [[Page S8500]] a series of industry advisory boards, composed of representatives from the private sector to provide advice to policy makers, at no cost to the Federal Government. Mr. President, the philosophy behind the Dole Task Force, and the underlying objectives of this bill, are based upon the same fundamental principles of limited and efficient government that the electorate overwhelmingly supported last November. It is a reasonable approach to restore some much needed fiscal sanity to our Federal Government; making it smaller, less costly, yet more efficient. The new Republican Congress is committed to balancing the budget by the year 2002. While this commitment means we must do the heavy lifting of reducing the growth of Government, it also presents us an opportunity to establish a proper balance between States and the Federal Government that protects the vigor and diversity of our States and local communities. Only by recognizing the limits of the Federal Government can we restore the vitality that breeds character, innovation, and a sense of community. This bill represents the first step in the process of achieving that goal. It conforms with both the Senate and House-passed budgets and it has the support of leadership in both House and the Senate. I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, just prior to the Memorial Day recess, the Senate considered a near-record number of amendments to the Senate budget resolution. Since many of these amendments were offered after time had expired and voted upon without debate, I want to take some time now to offer explanations for several of the more critical votes about which I was unable to comment at the time. During the budget markup in committee the focus of many amendments was the so-called fiscal dividend reserve fund. This fund was established to incorporate the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office regarding the benefits of balancing the budget. According to the CBO, if Congress successfully balances the budget over the next 7 years, we will experience lower interest rates and lower costs to the Government--about $170 billion over the next 7 years. It was the position of the chairman--a position I strongly support--that any fiscal dividend resulting from balancing the budget should be given back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. One amendment offered on the Senate floor was the Feingold amendment to strike the budget surplus from the resolution. Instead of using the surplus for more spending--as previous amendments had--this amendment would have killed it outright, striking at the heart of efforts in the Senate to provide tax relief for American families. I opposed it for that reason. Over the next 7 years, the Federal Government will spend approximately $12 trillion. Much of this spending will take the form of transfer payments from those people who are working and paying taxes to those less fortunate. I believe it is important for a compassionate country to take care of the elderly and the poor, and I support many of these programs. However, I also support those families who are not receiving Federal assistance but rather are working hard and paying taxes. The fiscal dividend is about 1\1/2\ percent of total Government spending over the next 7 years. In my mind, this tiny surplus belongs to the taxpayers who make all the other Government programs possible. One amendment I did support was the Hatfield amendment to restore $7 billion in spending reductions to the National Institutes of Health by cutting all other discretionary accounts across-the-board. As Senator Hatfield made clear during the debate, the United States is suffering from epidemics of cancer, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. The research conducted by the NIH is instrumental in fighting these diseases, and it is important that their efforts be fully funded. Another amendment I supported was the McConnell amendment to restore funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. Under the Senate budget, all funding for ARC would have been eliminated over 5 years. Rather than eliminate the entire program, this amendment will reduce the program's funding by 35 percent in 1996 and 47 percent overall. I believe it strikes a careful balance between cutting spending and hurting economic development in specific regions of the country. In recent weeks, I have been working on a task force to determine the efficacy of Federal agencies. Should that effort conclude that the Appalachian Regional Commission is duplicative, wasteful, or has attained its objectives, [[Page S8126]] then my position regarding funding for ARC may change. One budget area where I have special concerns is education. As reported out by the committee, the budget reduces mandatory education spending by a considerable amount--and these reductions could affect student loan programs. Although I had previously supported restoring education funding through offsetting spending cuts, I did not support any amendment that attempted to increase education spending through tax increases. This opposition included both the Dodd and Kennedy amendments. These amendments would have restored $28 billion in education spending over the next 7 years by raising taxes. While the authors argued that the offsetting tax increases would only come from the elimination of certain tax preferences targeted at large corporations, their practical effect would be to instruct the Senate Finance Committee to raise tax revenues by $28 billion through any means, including the elimination of tax provisions which I support, such as the home mortgage interest deduction. As I have stated previously, while I am willing to establish education spending as a priority, I believe its enhancement should be achieved by reducing spending in other budget areas. Similar reasoning was behind my vote against the Bradley amendment targeting so-called tax expenditures. The underlying premise of this amendment is that the Federal Government, not the taxpayer, has the first right of refusal to all income. In my judgment, the whole concept of tax expenditures is misguided, since the logical conclusion of the argument is that all income not taxed still belongs to the Government. I believe the real purpose behind the tax expenditure concept is to provide ammunition for those Members who wish to raise taxes. As I have said before, I support reviewing corporate tax loopholes within the context of overall tax reform. However, I do not support targeting these loopholes if their result is to increase spending elsewhere. One of the more positive signals coming from the budget debate was the rejection, across-the-board, of numerous amendments to reduce our defense budget. It is important to note that the bipartisan rejection of these amendments represents the Senate's recognition that investment in our national security is as low as it can possibly go. In my opinion, it is already too low to ensure the continued security of the country and, for that reason, I oppose amendments to reduce it further and supported efforts by Senators Thurmond and McCain to raise defense spending above the President's levels. One extremely close vote took place on the Baucus sense of the Senate amendment to encourage the use of the highway trust fund to support Amtrak. While the issue of Federal subsidies for interstate passenger rail service is extremely contentious and involved, using the highway trust fund to support Amtrak clearly undermines the integrity of the fund and should be opposed. If Congress chooses to continue its support for Amtrak, it should be done through general revenues and subject to the same review process to which other discretionary spending is subject. Two substitutes were offered during debate of the budget which I believe merit comment. First, Senator Conrad offered his substitute to balance the budget over 10 years without assistance of the Social Security surplus. While I applaud Senator Conrad's commitment to the Social Security system, his budget falls short of the standard established by the Republican budget. Under the guise of balancing the budget, this amendment is old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics. The Conrad budget raises taxes by $228 billion over 10 years. We don't have a budget deficit because Americans are under-taxed. We have a deficit because the Federal Government spends too much. Yet the Conrad budget ignores the history of over-spending by concentrating on the revenue side of the ledger. At the same time, discretionary spending under the Conrad substitute will be $190 billion higher than under the Republican budget while mandatory spending will be allowed to grow at several times the rate of inflation. In other words, the Conrad substitute would allow Government spending to continue to grow unchecked by raising taxes on Americans--just the opposite of the limited Government message sent to Washington by last November's election. The second substitute was offered by Senator Bradley. The Bradley amendment balances the budget over 7 years through a combination of spending freezes and tax increases. It raises taxes by $197 billion over the next 7 years while reducing discretionary spending by $25 billion. In other words, while the Bradley amendment reduces Government discretionary spending a little, it raises taxes a whole lot more. And we witnessed with the earlier education amendments, many Senators still find it easier to raise taxes than to cut spending. Finally, Senator Bradley also offered a sense of the Senate amendment expressing support for eliminating tax loopholes and using the money to lower individual tax rates. While I agree with the premise that our current Tax Code is hopelessly complicated and that a major reform of the Code was in order, Senator Bradley's amendment would preclude certain deductions which I support. Efforts to target tax benefits at depressed or blighted areas through enterprise zones--or tax free Renaissance Zones recently announced by Governor Engler--would not conform with the Bradley amendment and it jeopardizes the home mortgage interest deduction that homeowners rely upon in order to make the payments on their homes. For those reasons, I opposed it.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this legislation as well. I also pay tribute to my colleague from Oklahoma, whom I think today presented an extraordinarily strong and compelling argument in favor of the reforms of habeas corpus that we are looking at today, and against a series of amendments. Later in my remarks I will address some of those reforms and that issue, although I am unable to think of how I can address them more vividly and effectively than the Senator from Oklahoma has already done. Today I rise to also just indicate my overall support for this legislation. Clearly, the people in our country and in our State of Michigan in particular stand back and look at the events which took place in Oklahoma City with great concern. They have asked us to act. I believe this bill properly incorporates the best ideas as to the sorts of actions we should be taking at this time to address the problem of terrorism, wherever it may originate. At this point I would like, in my remarks, to highlight a series of provisions in the bill I have worked on with our outstanding floor leader and my good friend, the Senator from Utah, with the majority leader, and others. These provisions would facilitate the deportation of aliens who have committed serious crimes while in the United States. The provisions at issue, contained in title III, section 303(e) of the bill, require that aliens who are convicted of serious crimes in courts of law in this country be deported upon completion of their sentences without any further judicial review of the order of deportation. These expedited deportation procedures will apply to the almost half a million aliens currently residing in this country who are deportable because they have been convicted of committing serious felonies. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, aliens who are convicted of felonies after entry are already deportable. They are rarely actually deported, however, because criminal aliens are able to request equitable waivers from the courts and other types of judicial review that were never meant to apply to convicted felons. Such abuse of process operates to prevent the order of deportation from becoming final. Notably, both the administration's antiterrorism bill and S. 735 contain expedited deportation procedures for a small class of aliens reasonably suspected of planning future terrorist activity. The administration's bill, however, makes no provision for rapid deportation of aliens who have actually committed crimes. This, despite the fact that the Attorney General has said that the removal of criminal aliens from the United States is one of the administration's highest priorities and that our prisons and jails are crowded with criminal aliens. The substitute to S. 735 remedies that omission. According to the FBI, foreign terrorists have been responsible for exactly two terrorist incidents in the United States in the last 11 years: the World Trade Center bombing and a trespassing incident at the Iranian mission to the United Nations. While the World Trade Center bombing was obviously a very serious matter, it should not be the exclusive focus of our efforts to take strong action to protect American citizens from criminal conduct by non-citizens. More than 53,000 crimes have been committed by aliens in this country recently enough to put the perpetrators in our State and Federal prisons right now. An estimated 20 to 25 percent of all Federal prison inmates are noncitizens; in California, almost one-half of the prison populations are noncitizens. According to a 1995 Senate Report on Criminal Aliens in the United States, a conservative estimate of the total number of deportable criminal aliens presently residing in the county is 450,000. All of these aliens have committed at least one serious crime in this country. For that reason all are deportable under the law. They have not been deported because they have been able to prevent the order of deportation from ever becoming final by seeking repeated judicial review. The grounds on which criminal aliens are legitimately entitled to waivers of deportation are extremely narrow. To avoid deportation, criminal aliens essentially must prove a case of mistaken identity-- that the alien is not who the Government thinks he is; that he is not an alien, at all; or that he has been pardoned or had his conviction overturned. Mistakes of this order do not happen often. Mistakes of this order certainly have not happened 450,000 times--for each of the deportable criminal aliens currently in the country. Rather, the alien's capacity to demand successive judicial review, even wholly merit less judicial review, grinds the deportation process to a halt. Meanwhile, the Immigration and Naturalization Service does not have adequate facilities to house this many criminal aliens. As a result, the great majority of these convicted felons are released back to our streets after serving their sentences, with instructions to report several months later for a hearing before the INS. Needless to say, the majority of criminal aliens released from custody do not return for their hearings. Having been returned to the streets to continue their criminal predation on the American citizenry, many are rearrested soon after their release. Thus, for example, a recent study by the GAO found that 77 percent of noncitizens convicted of felonies are rearrested at least one more time. In Los Angeles County alone, more than half of incarcerated illegal aliens are rearrested within 1 year of their release. The provisions at issue will put an end to this abuse of process by doing the following: First, they will prohibit the Attorney General from releasing criminal aliens from custody prior to deportation. They will also eliminate judicial review for orders of deportation entered against criminal aliens--although criminal aliens will still be entitled to challenge their orders of deportation before the Board of Immigration Appeals. In addition, these provisions will require deportation of criminal aliens within 30 days of the conclusion of the alien's prison sentence in most circumstances. Finally, they will apply these expedited deportation to aliens who have committed the ``General Crimes'' listed in section 1251 of title 8 of the United States Code. These include crimes such as murder, rape, drug trafficking, espionage, sabotage, and treason. These reforms are extremely reasonable. Aliens in this country who commit these crimes will still be afforded all the due process protections and lengthy appellate and habeas corpus review afforded U.S. citizens on the underlying offense. Moreover, once those appeals have run and the conviction has been upheld, the alien will continue to be entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether an order of deporatation should be entered. And if an order of deportation is entered, the alien will still retain the right to appeal the order to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The substitute to S. 735 only eliminates additional judicial review for criminal aliens beyond this point. Without the rapid deportation provisions for criminal aliens in this legislation, aliens who are convicted felons will continue to be deported at the current pace, that is about 4 percent a year. At this rate--assuming no alien is ever convicted of another felony--it would take 23 years to deport all the aliens presently residing in the country who are under felony convictions. Meanwhile, many will be released back into society to prey on more American citizens. No country, no matter how civilized, should continue to tolerate this abuse. For that reason, as well as the many others that have been advanced over the past few days, we should enact this legislation, and quickly too. I urge the Senate to do just that. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about another very important set of provisions in this bill: the sections that would reform habeas corpus. Like the provisions concerning deportation of criminal aliens, the habeas corpus reforms in the bill correct a common abuse of judicial process in our criminal justice system. In this case they correct the obstructive and abusive manipulation of the writ of habeas corpus by criminals who have been convicted of serious violent crimes. Right now, the delay made possible by abuse of this writ allows convicted criminals to essentially overrule a State's entire criminal justice system. By filing repetitive or frivolous habeas corpus petitions, criminals are able to delay the imposition of capital sentences indefinitely. This delay in turn seriously undercuts the moral authority of the people, through their elected representatives, to impose this punishment on people who have committed extremely heinous crimes. This is not fair to the people, who are entitled to determine the punishments to be accorded crimes committed in their States. Nor is it fair or even humane to the families of the victims of crime. The habeas reforms in the antiterrorism bill impose reasonable limits on the use of the writ--reforms that are long overdue. I support these reforms and I urge the Senate to enact the antiterrorism bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Like the Senator from Minnesota, I also campaigned on a platform that emphasized tax relief for all Americans including the $500 per child family tax credit, and savings and investment incentives such as estate tax reform for family-owned businesses. The fiscal dividend included in the budget resolution will provide approximately $79 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years. Now, our amendment directs the Committee on Finance to use this dividend for family tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth. By including these directions, I believe we have substantially improved the Senate's position when entering into negotiations with the House over tax cuts. Is it the majority leader's intention to work for additional tax cuts in the budget resolution conference to ensure that the largest possible family and pro-growth cuts are enacted this year?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, while I strongly support the goal of the Snowe-Simon amendment to lessen the cuts in the education function, I cannot vote for this approach because it proposes to raise taxes. Although the authors of this amendment claim that this will be accomplished by closing a tax loophole for foreign sales corporation, which I would support in the context of fundamental tax reform or overall tax reduction--as, indeed, I strongly favor closing many tax loopholes, and will work to so when a tax bill is under consideration-- the practical legislative effect of this amendment would be to instruct the Senate Finance Committee to raise tax revenues by about $9.4 billion over 5 years through any means. Mr. President, that could mean higher taxes on working families, the elderly or others whose economic future I care about. Out of the some $12 trillion we will spend under this budget, I believe that over the next 7 years, we can find the additional dollars to fully protect needy students by cutting corporate welfare and unnecessary spending. That is why I worked with Senator Snowe yesterday on an amendment that would protect student loans by cutting spending. Having said this, if this amendment should pass, I will support this budget resolution and strongly encourage the conferees on the budget to retain this resolution in student loan funding, but do so by cutting spending in other areas. Further, in my position as a member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee I will work to ensure that the Guaranteed Student Loan Program is fully funded under any circumstances I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Would the majority leader yield for another question?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during my campaign, I promised the voters of Michigan to both oppose any effort to raise their taxes and to support badly needed tax cuts--especially for the hard working middle- class families in our State. While not perfect, I intend to support the amendment before the Senate because it first provides for a balanced budget and also provides significant tax relief primarily targeted at American families. Indeed, I plan to support any reasonable proposal for middle-class family tax relief brought to the Senate until some form of family tax cut is adopted. Although I support much in this amendment, there are certain provisions which I would change given the opportunity. For example, while I support restraining the growth of mandatory spending, the underlying resolution already slows the growth of Medicare as much as most Governors are willing to support. Furthermore, while I agree that it is possible to reduce discretionary spending further than the pending budget resolution provides, I do not think it is advisable to do so on a proportionate across-the-board basis. Rather, I believe additional program eliminations [[Page S7228]] and consolidations in targeted areas is the proper course to follow. Given these reservations, I intend to work to see that other spending reductions--focused primarily on corporate welfare--are used to help pay for tax cuts in the event this amendment passes. A final concern I have is with the overall distribution of benefits resulting from this amendment. I disagree with those who would set up a quota system for tax cuts, measuring the value of each provision by how uniformly it distributes its benefits. At the same time, it is easy to forget that it is middle-class Americans and their families who pay most of the taxes the Federal Government consumes, and I believe they should be the primary beneficiaries of tax cuts. Thus, if this amendment or any other tax reduction proposal is adopted, I intend to work with the Finance Committee to ensure that middle-class Americans are made the focus of any tax cut passed by the Senate this year. position on vote

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join Senator Snowe in offering an amendment to restore $6.3 billion in mandatory education spending through offsetting cuts to corporate welfare and general Government. Before I discuss the details of the amendment, let me make clear that my sponsorship in no way detracts from the chairman of the Budget Committee or his resolution. Senator Domenici and his staff have done a Herculean task of putting this budget together and they should be applauded. In the area of education, however, I have some concerns. Mr. President, going to college has been an integral part of the American dream ever since Harvard University was established by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1636. For millions of young Americans from lower and middle-class families, a college education is the first step towards a brighter and more productive future. For many of these families, however, that dream is out of reach without some form of assistance. The student loan program makes it possible for children from families of modest means to attend college and get their degree. Because of the important role the student loan program plays in so many lives, I am concerned that the spending reductions included in the education, training, employment, and social services function will result in decreased access for low- and middle-income students to a college education. While it should be noted that the reductions in this function will not necessarily come out of the student loan program, the size of the reconciliation instructions included for the Labor and Human Resources Committee make such cuts possible. By reducing these instructions by $6.3 billion, I hope to relieve pressure on the authorizing committee so that in reaching their target, they don't have to resort to some of the cuts listed in the CBO ``Spending and Revenue Options'' book for mandatory education spending. Options like increasing the student origination fee, including home and farm equity for when calculating financial need, and eliminating the 6-month grace period between graduation and when the loan payments begin hit students and then families hard when they can afford it the least. The goal of this amendment is to protect undergraduate students from higher out-pocket-costs when they apply for Federal loans. To pay for this restoration of funding, we are offering the offsets from the [[Page S7212]] transportation, general government, and allowances function. Speaking generally, I am certain a good case could be made for each of these spending areas. With the goal of balancing the budget, however, the Senate must set priorities, and trading corporate welfare for the dream of a college education is a good bargain. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me just say that the Federal Government has been helping students gain access to higher education for over 40 years. This partnership has enabled millions of men and women to go to college, get their degree, and go on to live more productive and creative lives. This amendment would protect that tradition and ensure that student loans continue to be available to all Americans. It is a good amendment, and I hope the Senate will support it. I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to elaborate a little further on some of the reasons why I think this amendment is so important. As a candidate for the Senate during the 1994 campaign, I traveled throughout my State. I was struck by the extent to which young people in Michigan, college students, high school students, and others really believe that it was important that we focus on the future. They were looking to us, I think, those of us had who were running, to try to address how we could make our Nation more competitive, how we could expand opportunities, particularly opportunities in the private sector in the next century, how we could be more competitive in a global environment in which we compete no longer with just three or four other industrial nations but with virtually the whole world. I think, as I talked to people, both those who might themselves be beneficiaries of student loans in this 7-year period we are discussing but also to leaders of industry in my State, it became increasingly clear to me that a top priority had to be a well-educated work force, a work force prepared to be competitive with the kind of global economy which we will encounter. That is why I think it is important that we make our citizenry as competitive as it can be. I believe this amendment, by producing the kinds of environments in which not only the volume of student loans that are available does not decrease but the access to those loans by people of more modest means remains unchanged, is the way by which we can fulfill for many people their dreams to be able to participate fully in the kind of competitive economic environment of the future. For that reason, I think the amendment particularly is sensible, one that I hope other Members of the Senate will join us in supporting when we cast our votes on this. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Thurmond-McCain amendment to increase the level of defense spending to a reasonable level. Throughout my campaign, I promised the voters to oppose additional cuts in defense, and sufficiently fund important weapons systems modernization programs needed to ensure our forces' technological supremacy. Although there may no longer be a monolithic threat to our existence, there are a myriad of threats and strategic interests which warrant a United States military force level capable of protecting them. In defining and protecting the U.S. strategic interests, the Clinton administration has been negligent. It has consistently failed to request the funds necessary to field, maintain and train the forces necessary to carry out its own National Security Strategy. Estimates of this budget shortfall range from almost $50 billion to over $480 billion during the next five years. In fact, the President's budget will allow military spending to fall below the anemic levels provided to the hollow forces of the Carter administration. From 1985 to the end of the Clinton administration's budget in 2001, critical procurement modernization programs will fall over 57 percent, while research and development spending is cut by almost 40 percent. Therefore I believe our military capability is seriously compromised. Senator McCain's February 1995 Report on Military Capabilities and Readiness stated that although smaller forces can still be militarily effective, they must also be ``continually enhanced through modernization.'' The former service Chiefs of Staff who conducted this study found military modernization at a standstill, while procurement and research and development budgets were insufficient to maintain our force's technological superiority. Mr. President, in light of these conditions, I find it imperative to support the amendment proposed by Senator Thurmond. This amendment would increase defense spending by $67.9 billion over seven years and finance it by an equivalent reduction in non-defense discretionary spending. As I mentioned during the debate on the Gramm tax cut amendment, I agree that it is possible to reduce discretionary spending further than what is proposed in the budget resolution. However, I do not think it is prudent to do so on a proportionate across-the-board basis. In my judgement, additional program eliminations and consolidations in targeted areas of the budget is the proper course to follow. In closing, providing for the Nation's defense is the Federal Government's first and primary responsibility. To [[Page S7191]] allow the President to deplete our military below that level necessary to protect our strategic interests is irresponsible and ill-advised. We must increase the funding to the National Defense account and we must do it now.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we would agree to that if we can then have Senator Hatfield, who would like 15 minutes, and Senator Gramm who would like 10 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need. Earlier this year, the Senate failed by one vote to support a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. At the time, opponents told the Senate that balancing the budget did not require amending the Constitution. All we needed, we were told, was to make the tough choices and cast the hard votes. Mr. President, the hard choices are here. The budget resolution before us makes those choices and balances the budget by the year 2002--without raising taxes and without gutting national security. It accomplishes this task by slowing the growth of Federal spending from 5 percent per year to a more reasonable 3 percent per year. In dollars, that means Federal spending, under this budget, will increase from $1.6 trillion next year to $1.9 trillion in the year 2002. Let me repeat that. Federal spending will increase from $1.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion over 7 years. Only in Washington would a $300 billion increase in spending be called a cut. Clearly, while the budget presents us with tough choices, allowing spending to increase 19 percent is not an impossible or even unreasonable goal. Nevertheless, some do not agree with this objective. As Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on Meet the Press earlier this year, balancing the budget is not a priority of the Clinton administration. The subsequent budget proposal only serves to reinforce that admission. According to CBO, deficits will rise under Clinton's budget from $177 billion to $276 billion in the year 2000. Under the Clinton budget the national debt will grow by $1.2 trillion over the next 5 years. Mr. President, what does this neglect mean to future generations? Consider the consequences of adopting President Clinton's budget for fiscal year 1996. Under that budget, by the year 1999, the total debt will hit $6.4 trillion, or $27,700 of debt for every man, woman, and child in America. In the year 2000, interest payments on the debt will be $305 billion--more than we spend on defense, more than we spend on all other discretionary programs combined, and more than we will spend on Medicare. In the year 2010, entitlements plus interest will consume all Federal tax revenues, which means we must either slash spending, print more money, borrow more money, or enact draconian tax increases. In my judgment, they are all bad options. In the year 2030, spending for entitlements will consume the entire Federal budget. That means nothing will be left for defense or any other discretionary program, including those targeted at children and the poor, and it means we would not even be able to finance the interest payments on the debt. On the other hand, balancing the budget is not just an exercise in good government. Eliminating the deficit will pay big dividends to Americans in the form of lower taxes, lower interest rates, higher economic growth, and the bottom line, a higher standard of living. Here are some of the projections: [[Page S6873]] Most economists agree that balancing the budget will result in significantly lower interest rates, thereby saving the average homeowner up to $500 per month on their mortgage payments. According to the CBO, these lower interest rates will result in a so- called fiscal dividend to the Treasury of around $170 billion between now and 2002. I believe that this dividend should be returned to the American people in the form of tax cuts. I will support efforts on the floor to do so. Finally, according to the GAO, if we balance the budget by 2002, the average American will enjoy a real growth in their incomes of 36 percent by the year 2020. Given the costs of doing nothing and the benefits of taking action, I believe it is obvious that balancing the budget is in everyone's interest. That leaves the question of how we get there. The budget before us shows the way. At the beginning of the budget process, I set out five priorities that I hoped would be embraced by the Senate budget resolution: First, privatize; second, eliminate waste and duplication; third, return the operation of various Government functions to the States with block grants; fourth, eliminate outdated programs; finally, fifth, reduce Government bureaucratic overhead. I am pleased to say this resolution includes all five. First, it assumes we will privatize those areas of Government that are better left to the private sector, including the naval petroleum reserve, the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, and the Alaska Power Marketing Administration. The naval petroleum reserve is a good example of why we need to privatize. The reserve was created to ensure that we had sufficient supplies of oil in the event of a crisis. As President Clinton recently acknowledged, however, that is no longer the case. As the President stated, the reserve's function of producing and selling this oil is a commercial, not a governmental, activity. Mr. President, there are many other naval petroleum reserves out there. This budget identifies them and moves them out of the Federal Government. Second, the budget consolidates Federal departments and agencies that are duplicative and wasteful. The GAO reports that the Department of Commerce alone shares its mission with at least 71 other Federal departments, agencies, and offices. In other functions, the Federal Government operates 163 separate job training programs and has at least 10 agencies devoted to promoting international trade. Obviously, there are savings to be made by ending this wasteful duplication and focusing these efforts. This budget takes advantage of those savings. Third, we need to return government to the States. We need to revive the 10th amendment which says ``the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' In my own State of Michigan, Governor Engler is out in front on important issues like welfare, Medicaid, and education reform. I know Governors from other States are equally as innovative. This budget takes advantage of the tremendous talents outside the beltway by utilizing block grants, to replace the hundreds of Federal welfare, housing, and education programs. These block grants will provide Governors with the resources and the freedom they need to carry out these reforms. Returning these programs to the States is both an exercise in good government and a means of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Fourth, this budget eliminates outdated programs. Programs like the Interstate Commerce Commission, the honey program, even the Department of Commerce are targeted. All told, 59 programs, 25 statutory boards and commissions, and 63 agencies are soon to be terminated under this budget. Let me just cite some more of the program terminations assumed in this budget: The Small Business Administration tree planting program; the Swine Health Advisory Committee; the Board of Tea Experts; the Technical Panel on Magnetic Fusion; the Dance Advisory Panel; the honey program; the Fastener Advisory Committee. Mr. President, some of these programs might be useful, but we simply cannot afford them, given our exploding national debt. Finally, we have reduced overhead. The President stated that over 100,000 Federal jobs have been eliminated toward the goal of trimming the Federal bureaucracy by 250,000 positions. A vast majority of the personnel reductions come out of the Department of Defense. Other areas of the Federal bureaucracy have barely been touched. This budget addresses this imbalance by reducing Federal overhead accounts by 15 percent, eliminating hundreds of political patronage jobs, and expanding the ability of Federal departments to work with less expensive private contractors. Having focused on what this budget does, it is just as important to focus on what it does not. First, this budget does not abandon Medicare. In their 1995 annual report, the Medicare trustees announced that the Medicare trust fund will be insolvent 7 years from now. The trustees conclude 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 the call of the trustees to action by addressing both the short- and the long-term insolvency of the Medicare program. First, it allows Medicare to continue to grow at a 7-percent rate per year. This reform enables Medicare to pass the trustees' 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. Another group this amendment does not abandon is the American taxpayers. As I previously mentioned, balancing the budget by 2002 will, according to the CBO, provide $170 billion ``fiscal dividend" from lower interest costs. Senator Domenici has stated that this dividend will be used to pay for tax cuts. I believe that we should enact tax relief for the middle- class working families of this country and tax incentives for savings and investment. We can and should balance the budget and provide American families with real tax relief. Mr. President, if we look at Federal outlays of the span of this budget, the Federal Government will spend in excess of $12 billion between now and 2002. A significant portion of that amount constitutes a redistribution of dollars from those who work and pay the taxes, to those who are elderly, sick, homeless, and have low incomes. Federal programs targeted at the poor and the needy are the result of a truly compassionate society, and we should continue to support them. I resent the implication that is often made here on the floor, and made occasionally during our committee hearings, that somehow we are not a compassionate Nation. This budget will spend $12 trillion largely for the purpose of helping people who are less fortunate in our society. That is 2\1/2\ times the average GDP of America. I think that is an important investment, and hardly one to be described as lacking in compassion. Now, based on that, it is my opinion that if, after we go through this process of bringing the budget into balance, and if, after we go through the process of spending $12 trillion over 7 years on so many important programs, that any fiscal surplus created by this budget should go to those who have made the surplus and our compassionate programs possible--the hard-working taxpayers. Moreover, the surplus or dividend only constitutes 1\1/2\ percent of the $12 trillion we will spend over the next 7 years. To me, it only seems fair to allow those who pay the taxes to keep this tiny surplus or dividend so that they can invest it in their families and in our Nation's economic future. Finally, this budget also avoids the ever-present temptation to gut defense. Real defense spending has declined by [[Page S6874]] 37 percent since 1985, and while I believe there are many money-saving reforms possible within the DOD, I believe the savings should stay within defense to provide for our substantial security. No other responsibility of Government is as important. This budget recognizes the importance of our national security by maintaining the current level of spending and establishing protections against using defense cuts for other spending proposals. In conclusion, Mr. President, I should point out that without the assistance of the minority, Republicans have stepped forward and proposed the changes necessary to cap out-of-control Federal spending. In successfully reporting this budget resolution, the Senate Budget Committee has taken a historic step toward reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. Before the Senate today is a resolution that makes the tough choices, slows Federal spending and brings the Federal budget into balance by the year 2002. Many people doubted it could be done, and it is a credit to Senator Domenici that he set this goal and stuck with it. If we are successful in moving this budget through the entire budget process, I believe there is no better present we can give the future generations than a debt-free Government. The benefits of balancing the budget far outweigh temporary effects caused by reducing the growth of Federal spending. This is truly a long-term approach to fiscal sanity, and I thank Chairman Domenici for giving me the opportunity to make my first budget a balanced one. Mr. President, we will hear much talk during this debate and the hours remaining over the winners and the losers and so on when we debate this budget resolution. But it is my strong belief, and as I have traveled through my State during both the campaign last year and in the days since the content of our revolution has become a matter of public debate, I find that people from one end of my State to the other believe strongly that what we have to do here in the Senate is finally step up to the plate and accept responsibility and handle this budget deficit now. They understand that if we continue to wait, if we continue to say that every program must continue to grow at the speed and the pace that has America $4.5 trillion into debt, we are not just saddling our children with even more debt and indebtedness, we are setting the country on a course that absolutely will lead to a crisis we cannot reverse in just a few years--15 years to be specific, according to the Entitlements Commission. For that, only, I look forward to working, certainly, with Senator Domenici and with anyone else who is committed to the notion that we should bring the spending giant in Washington under control. I believe it is the most important thing I can do for my small children, for the children of Michigan and the children of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of the product liability reform bill now under consideration, and I would like to just preface my remarks by offering my compliments to the bill's managers for their tenacity in sticking with this process as we have moved through all the various perspectives to find a point of common agreement between 60 Members of the Senate. I think both Senator Rockefeller and Senator Gorton worked very effectively on this product liability reform effort. I believe the bill represents an excellent start at reforming our civil justice system, a system that eats up over $300 billion a year in legal and court costs, awards, and litigants' lost time, not to mention the loss to consumers and the economy from higher prices for products, innovations and improvements not on the market, and unnecessarily high insurance costs. By placing reasonable limitations on punitive damages in product liability suits, this legislation will begin the process of reforming our litigation lottery without harming anyone's right to recover for damages suffered. I am especially pleased that the bill now includes a special provision limiting punitive damages for individuals with assets of less than $500,000 and for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. This provision is modeled on a proposal that Senator DeWine and I cosponsored and provides that the maximum award against such individuals or entities is the lesser of $250,000 or twice compensatory damages. Mr. President, no one benefits when businesses go bankrupt because of arbitrary punitive damage awards. Small businesses are particularly susceptible to such problems as are the millions of Americans employed by them. The bill will also eliminate joint liability for noneconomic damages in product liability cases. Thus the bill would end the costly and unjust practice of making a company pay for all damages when it is only responsible for, say, 20 percent just because the other defendants are somehow judgment proof. The bill would replace the outmoded joint liability doctrine with proportionate fault in which each defendant would have to pay only the amount necessary to cover the damage for which he or she was responsible. The bill also creates some important limitations on the liability of sellers of products generally as well as on the liability of suppliers of raw materials critical to the production of lifesaving medical devices. These provisions go a good way toward restoring individual responsibility as the cornerstone of tort law. They also recognize an important fact about our legal system. Ultimately, in its current form, it is profoundly anticonsumer. By raising the prices of many important goods, our legal system makes them unavailable to poor individuals who cannot afford them when an exorbitant tort tax has been added. And in extreme cases our legal system can literally lead to death or misery by driving off the market drugs that, if properly used, can cure terrible but rare diseases or medical devices for which raw materials are unavailable on account of liability risks. These are important reforms, Mr. President; reforms that will increase product availability, decrease prices and save jobs. and innovation the real losers are consumers--who must pay higher prices and choose between fewer and less advanced goods--and workers-- whose job opportunities disappear. By eating up 4.5 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, the tort system costs jobs. Besides causing companies to discontinue or not introduce products, it also hurts American businesses overall by making them less competitive in the world market. A 1994 Business Roundtable survey of 20 major U.S. corporations reveals that they receive 55 percent of their revenue from inside our country, but incur 88 percent of their total legal costs here. Clearly such discrepancies in legal costs put our companies at a disadvantage in the world marketplace. It is no secret that I wish we had gone farther with this bill, to protect the nonprofit organizations, the towns and villages and the ordinary Americans who remain victims of our current broken legal system. I hope that Members of this body who support this legislation but at this time do not want to apply its reforms more broadly will on further reflection see their way clear to taking the next step; to enact similar reforms to assist homeowners, accountants, farmers, volunteer groups, charitable organizations, all small businesses, State and local governments, architects, engineers, doctors and patients, employers and employees. But I feel strongly that the legislation under consideration, even limited to its present scope, is an important step toward making our civil justice system fair and efficient and improving the lives of our citizens. I urge its prompt final passage. I urge its prompt final passage. Mr. President, as I say, I hope that we will go further in the days ahead, whether in the form of independent legislation or as part of further discussions of legal reform that may come before the Senate in the context of securities litigation or some other issue before us, because I think that we need an overall and comprehensive reform of the system. I know that I speak for a number of the Senators who are active and working on this bill in saying that we are delighted with the progress we have made so far and, while we may not think we are yet close to our final destination, we have taken a good first step. And, most importantly, I can say that, at least for this Senator, I am dedicated and committed to continuing the fight to keeping this whole issue of reforming our legal system before the Senate and I remain hopeful that we will enact more reforms in the months ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great man and a great head coach; Jim Harrick of the UCLA Bruins. While everyone may be familiar with Jim's most recent accomplishment, winning the 1995 NCAA Championship, those that have followed his career see a man that has accepted challenge after challenge and built a reputation for success. Jim attended the University of Charleston were, in addition to receiving his bachelor's degree in speech, he earned a place in the Hall of Fame and Alumni Gallery of Achievement. He then went on to complete his master's degree in education from the University of Southern California. Jim began his coaching career at Morningside High in Los Angeles, averaging over 25 victories and winning three Sky League titles in four seasons. After distinguishing himself as an assistant coach at Utah State and later UCLA, Jim accepted the head coach position at Pepperdine University. In his nine seasons at Pepperdine, coach Harrick won five conference titles, four WCAC Coach of the Year Awards, and, of course, the invitation to come back to UCLA as the new head coach. The UCLA basketball program has flourish under Jim's direction. He is the first UCLA coach to have 7 consecutive 20-win seasons and 7 straight tournament bids in his initial 7 seasons. At 146 wins and 54 losses, he also owns the best UCLA record after his first 200 games. Under coach Harrick's tutelage, the Bruins have advanced to the NCAA tournament's second round five times, the Sweet 16 three times, the Elite Eight twice and, in 1995, earned the crowning achievement as NCAA National Champions. And it is important to note that Jim Harrick's successes have not all come on the basketball court. He and his wife, Sally, celebrate 34 years of marriage and proudly speak of their three sons, Monte, Jim, and Glenn, and of their granddaughter, Morgan Paige. His integrity and character are well known and have earned him invitations to travel the world as an American goodwill ambassador. His dedication to the game, his concern with the well-being of the players, his focus and determination, and the integrity of the UCLA program all show his fine qualities as a coach and as an American.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 2 p.m. in closed/open session to receive testimony on the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's fiscal year 1996 budget request and the future years defense program; and on the future of the ABM Treaty.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on the Vaccines for Children Program.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on China: Illegal Trade in Human Body Parts.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on judicial nominees.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on primary Health Care Programs, during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 1995, at 9 a.m.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 1995 to hold hearings on the Navy T-AO-187 Kaiser class oiler contract.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology be authorized to meet on May 4, 1995, on High Performance Computing and Communications and the World Wide Web at 10 a.m.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes today to speak once again in support of the amendment that I have introduced along with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. The purpose of our amendment which we will soon be voting on is to try to expand the portion of the underlying bill on product liability that pertains to joint and several liability beyond the realm of product liability to other aspects of civil actions. As I spoke yesterday on several occasions, and as I have argued in quite a variety of settings over the last few weeks during this debate, what we are talking about here is what I believe is an underlying principle of the American legal process, the principle of fairness and the principle of justice. These principles, it seems to me, tend to be out of sync in the area of joint and several liability. As I have demonstrated in the floor statements I have made, we have countless incidents where persons who are only minimally responsible for the damages involved in a court action, or other legal action, find themselves shouldering all or most of the responsibility for paying damages because of the fact that they are the deep pocket. Unfortunately, this is not just something that afflicts defendants who are big businesses. As I demonstrated, it is also a problem for municipal governments, for county governments, for State governments. It is a problem that all too often afflicts nonprofit organizations, charitable organizations, and the like. We heard talk during the debate yesterday that somehow the amendment we are speaking of would be adverse to women. But the fact is that women do not just find themselves as plaintiffs in legal actions; they often find themselves as defendants. They, too, could be victimized by the joint and several liability process that we have today. Indeed, 30 percent of the small businessowners in this country today are women. It is the small businesses who are most at risk, in my judgment, unless we repair this defect in the legal system at this time. For those reasons, Mr. President, I just wanted to conclude the debate on this topic--at least from my perspective--by reiterating the arguments I made yesterday and by calling on those liability process in the context of product liability, to support this effort to expand this notion beyond product liability. Every argument that makes sense in the product liability context, where the people who are likely to be beneficiaries are the producers and manufacturers of products, also makes sense when the people who are likely to be aided are average American families, small businesses, charitable organizations and municipal governments. If this reform makes sense for product manufacturers, I think it equally makes sense for the small businesses, the charitable and nonprofit organizations, and for the local governments of this country. For that reason, I sincerely hope that those individuals who will support the product liability legislation will support the expansion of this particular provision of that legislation to help the small businesses, the cities and towns of America, the average American families and, I think most importantly, the communities of our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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