Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Washington for his responsiveness to our concerns. As he may know, the Great Lakes Center conducts fishery stock assessments that are relied upon by States, tribes, and Canada. And effective management of fish stocks in the Great Lakes is important to the $4 billion fishing industry in the region.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate PVS Chemicals, based in Detroit, MI, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Jim Nicholson, president and chief executive officer of PVS, and son of founder Floyd A. ``Nick'' Nicholson, has a great deal of which he should be proud. Since he came to head PVS in 1979 Jim has diversified its products and services and expanded into the international marketplace while maintaining the company's commitment to safety, quality,environmental responsibility, customer service, and employee and community support. Founded in 1945 in Detroit as Pressure Vessel Service, Inc., PVS has grown and expanded dramatically. Today it manufactures inorganic chemicals for industry, and also for municipal water treatment. With reported sales of $121.7 million in 1994, PVS also expedites recycling of selected chemical wastes and operates a licensed waste treatment facility in Detroit. In addition to its commitment to the Responsible Care Program of the Chemical Manufacturers Association and to the Responsible Distribution Program of the National Association of Chemical Distributors, PVS maintains an active concern with improving the quality of life in the communities in which its plants are located. Each PVS location chooses a direction for its own community outreach activities. Educational support has been a major focus, including scholarships, intern opportunities, mentoring, tutoring, career day participation, equipment and materials donations, and significant contributions at the college level. Site adjacent cleanup activities also are a common PVS contribution to the community. River cleanups, trash pickup, and even adoption of park areas and vacant blocks characterize these efforts to spruce up PVS neighborhoods. And PVS plans to extend and integrate all of these activities to better help their communities. PVS' public spirit clearly stems from the vision of its president and CEO, Jim Nicholson. Jim took over PVS in 1979 after serving a stint overseas with the First National Bank of Chicago and serving in PVS as a vice president and later treasurer. He is an active member of his community, having served as vice chairman for economic development for Mayor Archer's transition committee, on various boards of directors and on the Advisory Board of United Way for Southeastern Michigan, the Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society Corporate Relations Committee, and the dean's board of advisors for the Wayne State University School of Business Administration. He also is actively involved with the Michigan Chapter of the Nature Conservancy and the United Negro College Fund and has served on committees for the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and several other charitable causes. Mr. President, this Nation needs more companies like PVS, which take seriously their obligations to the communities in which they work and live. I congratulate PVS on 50 years of responsible, successful work, and wish them many more.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to say that I hope other Members will have the chance to read what the distinguished Senator from Illinois has offered us today. I gather he will be making a series of such speeches in the days ahead. As always, his remarks are insightful and thoughtful. I am glad I had the opportunity to hear him today.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to a statement made by President Clinton's chief spokesperson Michael McCurry, as reported in the March 22 Washington Times. In discussing the Republican Presidential field and candidate Pat Buchanan in particular, Mr. McCurry said: ``Mr. Buchanan and his mutaween will be out there parading across America, and we can track them down.'' Mr. McCurry's reference is to Saudi religious officers, to whom I gather he is equating American conservatives who are both religious and interested in playing a role in politics. With this statement, Mr. McCurry has managed no mean feat: he has slurred religious Americans, he has slurred individuals of Arab descent, and he has misused his position as White House spokesman. Mr. President, I believe it is wrong to attack those who are religious and involved in politics as zealots and extremists. These attacks are unfair, divisive and destructive. They challenge the right to engage in important moral arguments in public life, to everyone's detriment. People of strong faith always have been involved in politics and their faith has influenced their political action--to America's benefit. Even before our Nation was founded, people of faith brought Americans together through their eloquent advocacy of religious, moral and political principles. During the Revolutionary War ministers used political sermons to expound and elaborate on Thomas Jefferson's famous words in the Declaration of Independence--that all men are created equal and ``endowed by their creator'' with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They told Americans that it was their religious as well as political duty to protect their rights and the rights of their children and grandchildren by fighting for independence. These brave ministers established an American political and religious tradition that continued to thrive, through the Civil War and on into this century. of course, the Reverend Martin Luther King--a religious minister. His crusade for racial justice and equality of opportunity drew explicitly on references to God and God's will. Reverend King called for racial equality, not because some mere philosophical, academic principle demanded it, but because God demands that we treat one another with respect, according to the content of our character and not the color of our skin. In this way he showed Americans their duty toward one another, and brought us together in pursuit of a just equality of opportunity. Today, however, conservative people of faith are attacked as intolerant extremists for having the temerity to make demands on our conscience. Mr. McCurry's statement is only the latest in such regard. Peaceful pro-life protesters are condemned as religious bigots for opposing what they feel is a great moral crime. The Christian Coalition and other similar groups are often depicted as a dark force whose participation in the political process is somehow inappropriate. Mr. President, we must reject this kind of antireligious bigotry in whatever form it takes. After all, should Martin Luther King have been dismissed as an intolerant religious fanatic? I certainly hope not, for that would have denied our country his moral force, which contributed mightily to the civil rights movement's success. Yet Mr. McCurry's apparent disdain for the involvement of people of faith in the political process would surely have kept Reverend King out of politics, unless, of course, such intolerance only applies to conservative people of faith. I also am concerned about Mr. McCurry's comments because, frankly, I believe that it perpetuates in American public life the stereotype that anyone connected to the Arab world must be an extremist. As an American of Lebanese descent, I take great exception to Mr. McCurry's use of his White House podium in this fashion. I believe it is inappropriate to employ ethnic-based references or comparisons as a means of insulting or demeaning others. Arab-Americans have worked hard to assimilate and succeed in America. According to the 1990 census, 82 percent of Arab-Americans graduated from high school, while more than half, 52 percent had at least a college degree and a full 15 percent held some form of graduate degree. Furthermore 36.4 percent, more than one-third, of Arab-Americans are represented in managerial positions or the professions. However, it is difficult for any ethnic group to enjoy full acceptance and assimilation if they remain targets of scorn or if people of their heritage are employed as negative symbols. Whenever someone is insulted for being ``stupid'' or ``lazy'' or ``fanatical''-- ``just like'' people of a certain ethnic group--we reinforce the notion that all the members of the ethnic group so referenced are a people who are stupid or lazy or fanatic. The result is ethnic division, bad feelings and unfounded prejudice. That is what Mr. McCurry's statement does. Moreover, invoking as it does the prestige of the White House inevitably will heighten anti-Arab feelings in this country and place an unfair burden on people who are hard-working, loyal, tax paying citizens. Finally, I am concerned about Mr. McCurry's statement because it seems clear to me that a Presidential Press Secretary, whose salary is paid for by the taxpayers, should not engage in such blatantly partisan activity. I am not here supporting Pat Buchanan's run for the Presidency. But in my view Mr. McCurry stepped over an important line when he attacked Mr. Buchanan in the way he did. The American people are not paying Mr. McCurry so that he can make insensitive stereotyping statements intended, among other things, to help his boss' chances in the next election. The President has many avenues available to him if he wishes to make campaign statements. He also has the option of going through the steps necessary to make an open bid for reelection. Within this context it would be understandable that his campaign spokesman would make partisan statements. But to have a public employee making such blatantly political attacks, capitalizing on the media access and prestige of the Presidency for purely political ends, is simply unacceptable. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would call up amendment No. 401.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the purpose of the modification is to address technical concerns which were raised by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and others. These concerns pertain to whether parts of a bill that do not constitute an item under the definition set out in the substitute would have to be disaggregated. The effect of this modification is to make clear that only new direct spending or new targeted tax benefits must be disaggregated. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for raising questions that led to this clarification. And I wish to thank my colleagues from Indiana and Arizona for their willingness to work with me on this matter. Mr. President, I yield the floor Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole substitute to the McCain-Coats Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 1995. I do not feel it necessary to revisit, here, the stores of dubious spending programs, whether on cranberries, bees, helium, or whatever, that unfortunately find their way into legislation and our bloated Federal budget. I will, however, repeat what we all know, or at least should know: that we desperately need to regain control over our spending so that we can stop adding to our country's huge and exploding deficit. We must use every means at our disposal to eliminate unnecessary spending, including Presidential vetoes of particular spending programs that have been inserted into larger bills. Those who argue that this bill improperly hands excessive power to the President ignore the history of Congress' budgeting process or fail to come to grips with its effects on our spending habits. During the early years of our Republic Congress' appropriations comprised all of four or five pages. Back in the 1940's and 1950's, however, Congress developed the habit of putting riders, in reality spending programs irrelevant to the underlying legislation, on our bills. It was the funding for these riders that Presidents impounded, and it was in 1974, after Congress took away the President's impoundment power, that the legislature began earmarking all funding. At that point Congress began to pass appropriations bills, laws, and enabling legislation of hundreds of pages in length. The word ``omnibus'' no longer finds its way into legislation, but many of the so-called laws Congress passes actually are bundles of laws and appropriations put together for reasons of political convenience. During most of the 19th and part of the 20th century, Congress passed shorter, more precise, and concise laws that only aimed to accomplish particular goals--setting or better yet eliminating a particular tariff, paying an individual for a particular service, and so on. We also put fewer burdens on our people in the form of taxes and regulations. It is simply unrealistic to pretend that the legislation that generally comes out of Congress today represents unitary legislation. In some ways, perhaps, our society requires more complex legislation--to, for example, set forth a complete program that has a number of distinct but mutually dependent elements. But too many of us have come to use complex legislation as a form of cover under which we can hide pork for our constituents. This is wrong, and it should be stopped. The line-item veto essentially returns to the President a power he already has--that of reviewing legislation and vetoing it if he finds it improper. Discrete programs and appropriations still would be sent to the President as before, only now the President would be able to approve or disapprove of each of them, even when bundled together into a large, more disparate bill. The line-item veto would provide us with an important tool in combating hidden pork and yet maintain an appropriate balance of power--with a legislative process under which the President may review and even veto any piece of discrete congressional action, and under which we in Congress may, if two-thirds of us agree that we should, override that veto. Far from taking away our proper legislative function, this line-item veto ensures that we will scrutinize every piece of legislation, every program and spending proposal, to see to it that it is in the interest of the American people. We must restore discipline to our budgeting process and this regulation requires that we examine every proposal that affects the budget to make sure that it is both worth the cost and necessary. With a line-item veto in effect Congress no longer will reach compromises by giving everyone the spending programs they want because a third party, the President, will hold an effective veto power over each element of that compromise. Instead of being forced to choose between accepting a good program that has been stuffed with pork or vetoing the entire bill, the President now will be able to slice away the pork, leaving the program itself intact. In this way the President, once again, can serve as a check on overspending by Congress, without taking away our constitutional right and duty to consider and enact legislation in the interest of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the comments he made yesterday and the questions which he raised with respect to this amendment. I appreciate his help on that.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 401, and I have a further modification of my amendment, which I send to the desk.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I have modified it.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I am sorry?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I would defer that interpretation to the manager.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, it does.

Mr. ABRAHAM. As I said, the concerns that had been expressed in the period of time during which this compromise was worked out and were expressed, I think by you yesterday and by others here today, were concerns I felt could be adequately addressed and resolved in this fashion. So I thought in developing this amendment we could effectively handle the concerns that had been raised, although, as I say, I do not necessarily accept the notion that the legislation would not pass constitutional muster as is. But I thought this would allay fears and concerns that had been brought up.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I have watched the debate as it has proceeded here. And certainly during the period of time after the compromise version of this legislation was developed, I have heard various Members of the Senate express concerns about its constitutionality and it struck me that the area in which the concerns were primarily focused was, as earlier expressed, I think, by Senator Leahy, the presentment issues that I have tried to address here. My feelings were, although I believe as drafted the legislation could sustain a constitutional test, that it was in our interests to make the changes I am proposing in this amendment to try to further address any concerns people might have.

Mr. ABRAHAM. After consultation with the manager of the bill, it is our interpretation that, yes, it would include reconciliation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I defer on this to the Senator from Arizona. I yield to him at this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is correct. As I interpret the question, our amendment is designed in a mechanical sense to call for a yes-no vote on the question of all those separately disaggregated portions whether it is a reconciliation bill or other.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that we return to the consideration of my amendment No. 401, which I submitted yesterday.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is straightforward. Rather than deeming the work product of the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate to be separate bills and transmitting them to the President directly, my amendment calls for one last single vote on the entire package of bills by both Houses of Congress after the bills have been disaggregated. This will not appreciably slow the work of the Congress, since it will only require one vote on the whole package. In addition, the amendment provides for highly expedited procedures that would allow only one hour of debate on the entire package with no other business being in order. On the other hand, in my view this amendment greatly strengthens the likelihood that this legislation will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Indeed, although I did not know this at the that the Department of Justice's Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Walter Dellinger, expressed in advising President Clinton regarding the constitutionality of S. 137, an earlier proposal containing enrollment procedures similar to those in the substitute. His letter states: Furthermore, there appear to be ways to refine S. 137 so as to avoid the objection that what must be presented to the President is the ``bill'' in exactly the form voted on by each House. So long as the Houses of Congress have treated each bill subsequently presented to the President as a bill at the time of each of their respective final votes, this objection would not arise. Thus, for example, internal House and Senate procedures that provided for disaggregating an appropriations bill into separate bills and then voting en bloc on those bills would result in the President's being presented with exactly [what was] voted on by each House. The chances of S. 137's being sustained would be improved were the bill amended to incorporate such refinements. In short, in my view, we stand a much better chance of all the hard work that has been done by our colleagues over the years on this matter not being undone by the courts if my amendment is adopted. I believe it would directly address, and satisfactorily address, the concerns that were earlier expressed by several Senators on the floor today as to the constitutionality of this legislation with respect to its presentment to the President. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues who support this legislation to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I send a modification to amendment No. 401 to the desk.

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