Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. It would have to be disaggregated.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will debate the Kassebaum amendment and the unfunded mandates conference report during tomorrow's session of the Senate; however, no votes will occur. The first vote will be at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday on the cloture motion on the Kassebaum amendment dealing with striker replacement. For the information of all Senators, the official picture of the U.S. Senate in session will be taken by the National Geographic Society on Tuesday, April 4, 1995, at 2:15 p.m. All Senators are now on notice to be on the floor at 2:15 p.m. on April 4 for the picture.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate John Engler, Governor of my State of Michigan, for signing into law last week his 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th tax cuts since taking office. Governor Engler has increased the personal exemption in our State to at least $2,400, saving Michigan taxpayers $69 million on their income taxes in fiscal year 1995. The exemption also will be indexed for inflation starting in 1998. He has created a new refundable income tax credit for college tuition that will help individuals and families struggling to get an education. He has reduced the single business tax by removing unemployment and workers' compensation funds and Social Security payments from the tax base. He has begun phasing out Michigan's intangibles tax, raising the filing threshold and providing for its total repeal, effective January 1, 1998. Mr. President, 70 percent of these tax cuts will benefit individuals, with 30 percent benefiting the State's job creators. Taken together with the other 11 tax cuts he already has implemented, these cuts will save Michigan taxpayers $1.2 billion this year alone. We here in Congress would do well to look at Governor Engler's performance in setting out our program of fiscal reform from the Nation. When he took over as Governor in 1991, John Engler inherited a $1.8 billion deficit. That means that in 1991 Michigan was running a deficit that equaled 10 percent of its total State spending--almost as large a deficit in proportion to total spending as the one run here in Washington. Governor Engler had a tough choice to make. He could maintain Michigan's current spending levels and increase taxes, or cut spending and hold the line on taxes. But he decided to choose neither course of action, instead boldly cutting both spending and taxes. And the results have been remarkable. Through aggressive use of his line-item veto he brought about an 11-percent cut in real, after- inflation spending. In addition, he made Michigan our Nation's top State in creating manufacturing jobs, more than 40,000 in the last year alone, second in the Nation in personal income growth, and a leader in lowering unemployment rates. All this while increasing State funding to educate Michigan's children. Mr. President, Michigan can serve as an example to the Nation of how aggressive budget and tax cutting can go together to spur economic growth and better the lives of our citizens. We too can get our spending under control, without cutting essential programs; we need only the courage to put in place and utilized the tools Governor Engler and the Michigan State Legislature used to bring their State back from the brink of economic disaster. Michigan's constitution required a balanced budget; it also provides the Governor with a line-item veto. Both of these tools were essential to Governor Engler's efforts to bring spending under control. We have the power to do for America what Governor Engler and his partners in the State legislature have done for Michigan, if we are willing to enact a line-item veto and add a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. These tools will help us order our priorities and discipline our spending. Most important, we must recognize that by taxing the American people week the House Ways and Means Committee will report a tax reduction bill that creates a $500-per-child tax credit for families and cuts the capital gains tax in half. In all likelihood, the House will approve these important tax reductions. Some of our colleagues here in the Senate have suggested that we abandon tax cuts--and focus exclusively on reducing the budget deficit. Having lost the vote on the balanced budget amendment, I can understand their desire to put spending cuts first in order to produce a balanced budget plan. But as Governor Engler has demonstrated, cutting spending and taxes is the best way to reduce the deficit and encourage economic growth. We must have confidence that the American people, if allowed to keep their own money and spend it as they choose, will fuel the engine that runs our economy, producing more jobs, greater prosperity, and a balanced budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I also suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Monday, March 13, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on the Consumer Product Index.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, there then be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up for 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski for 30 minutes, Senator Exon for 15 minutes, and Senator Feingold for 15 minutes. I further ask consent that at the hour of 12:30 p.m., the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet. I further ask unanimous consent that, following the recess, the Senate resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill, and at that point Senator Byrd be recognized to speak. I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the conclusion of Senator Byrd's statement, the Senate turn to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill, and there be 3 hours for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion or yielding back of time on the conference report, the Senate proceed to vote on the conference report, without any intervening action or debate. If a rollcall vote is ordered on the conference report, I ask that the vote occur immediately following the scheduled cloture vote on Wednesday, notwithstanding rule XXII.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate our colleagues in the House for acting this week to bring our tort system under control. The bill passed by the House earlier this week imposes all attorneys fees on a party who turns down a settlement offer if the final judgment is not more favorable to the offeree than that which he turned down. It also would eliminate junk science from the courtroom and require courts to sanction attorneys who file frivolous claims. The House action constitutes an important first step toward reforming our civil justice system. I also would like to take a few moments to respond to the criticism recently leveled at attempts to reform our tort system. President Clinton and his Attorney General have called the House reform bill ``too extreme.'' His counsel Abner Mikva went even further, claiming that the bill would ``tilt the legal playing field dramatically to the disadvantage of consumers and middle-class Americans.'' Some of our colleagues and the American Trial Lawyer's Association, one of President Clinton's most generous and loyal contributors, would like this characterization to take hold. Opponents of tort reform would like it if the American people were to see changes in our civil justice system as a boon to big corporations and the rich rather than a broad-based set of reforms that will help consumers, victims, and the general public at the expense only of a handful of individuals and lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits. To hear much of the public debate you would think that tort reform is a struggle between corporate fat cats who want to injure the public with impunity and legal barracudas who seek only to feed on small business and the tort victims who must entrust lawyers with their claims. But this heated rhetoric in my judgment, helps no one, in fact it keeps us from focusing on the issue at hand--making our tort system more just and fair. I come to this debate, not to attack lawyers, but to help victims and consumers. I take exception to the charge that tort reform is anti- consumer, particularly given the faults in the system as it stands. Is it really pro-consumer to have a system like the current one in which those who are injured--consumers of legal services--receive only 43 cents of every dollar in damages awarded? Is it really pro-consumer to have a system in which, as reported in a recent Conference Board survey, 47 percent of firms withdraw products from the marketplace, 25 percent discontinue some form of research, and 8 percent lay off employees, all out of fear of lawsuits? Does it really help consumers and the middle class to have a system in which, according to a recent Gallup survey, one out of every five small businesses decides not to introduce a new product, or not to improve an existing one, out of fear of lawsuits? Are we and our children better off when pharmaceutical companies stop producing helpful drugs like the DPT vaccine out of fear of lawsuits? In this last case, that of DPT, two of the three companies making the vaccine stopped production in 1985 because they could not afford to deal with all the suits arising from the always highly suspect and now clearly disproved theory that it might in very rare instances cause brain damage. To conserve the limited supply remaining the Centers for Disease Control recommended that doctors no longer vaccinate children over age 1, leading to who knows how many illnesses in small children. Is it really pro-consumer to have a system in which poor, unsophisticated clients in particular must hire lawyers, without fully knowing how much they will pay or what their options for legal services are? Are our communities better off when the parents of Little Leaguers are afraid to have their kids play or organize games for fear of being sued? Legal reform is in everyone's interest. The tort reform bill Senator McConnell and I have introduced would lower prices, establish a legal consumer's right to know what he or she is purchasing and at what cost, promote early settlements, and reduce time and cost to injured parties, as well as often innocent defendants. Our bill would curb windfall profits in lawsuits--thus reducing the price ultimately paid for goods by the consumer--by capping punitive damages and eliminating joint and several liability. The bill would empower clients in their dealings with lawyers by requiring that attorneys disclose in writing, to any client with whom they have entered a contingency fee agreement, both the actual services performed and the precise number of hours expended on performing them. The bill also would require lawyers to tell clients that they may pay a percentage of their award or, alternatively, pay an hourly fee. Thus we would protect consumers' right to know how much they are paying and for what services. We recognize this right to know in all other markets and should do so in the legal services market as well. Our bill also would reform contingency fees by providing that, if a plaintiff receives a settlement offer and still wants to go to trial, the lawyer would receive the usual contingency percentage only on the portion of the award that is above the original offer. Besides preventing lawyer over-reaching, this last contingency fee reform also will encourage early settlements, thus saving transaction costs Our bill also would allow defendants, by making an early offer, to limit their exposure to certain damages and legal fees. If a potential defendant agrees to pay in full for economic losses and the plaintiff accepts the offer there obviously would be no lawsuit. Under our bill, should the plaintiff not accept the offer, he or she still can sue, but can only recover noneconomic damages if they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally acted against the plaintiff's rights. Besides discouraging lawyers and litigants from unreasonably holding out for more money and higher fees unless it clearly is warranted, this reform also would discourage defendants and their insurance companies from dragging out litigation in hopes of making plaintiffs give up their suits and go away. Promoting early settlements, reducing insurance and legal transaction costs and thus reducing prices and stimulating production and innovation, and protecting the legal consumer's right to know. Those are the reforms we seek to institute for the good of all members of the American community. Which brings me to my final point. Community is one of President Clinton's favorite terms. The President even wants a new covenant to bind us together as a people. Well I too am a proponent of community. I think it is important for Americans to join together in their homes, in their churches, and on their neighborhood baseball fields to learn one another's needs, form common habits, and see one another more as brothers and sisters than as strangers. But Americans join together less and less, out of fear that an accident on the Little League baseball field will land them in court. Accidents happen, we all know that. But in my judgment, if we all spend all of our time trying to avoid them, or at any rate avoid paying for them in court, we will not have much time or energy left over to form the bonds of community that hold our society together. Without the bonds formed on our ballfields and in our local civic halls we will lose that sense of our duty to be decent and civil to one another that maintains our civilization. Our current tort system, by turning neighbors into potential defendants and/or plaintiffs, discourages us from coming together, and that is a major reason why I believe it must be changed. We must reform the system to reward the neighborly, who seek to settle disputes quickly and so reduce the fear of being sued that hangs over too many relationships in our society today. As we proceed with legal reform in the Senate, I would urge that we consider everyone's needs and interests--victims who should receive quick and fair settlements, consumers who should not have to pay higher prices or have their product choices and economic opportunity stifled by high legal costs, and members of our own communities, whom we should not be tearing apart through explosive rhetoric but rather bringing together in a spirit of trust and cooperation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support the legislation sponsored by my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici. Not long ago we passed legislation that finally subjects Congress to most work place and other laws that affect the American people. I enthusiastically supported this legislation out of a sense of fundamental fairness: it seemed to me that the body that legislates rules for the rest of society at the very least ought to be obliged to follow those rules itself. But I had another reason for supporting the accountability act. You see, it seemed to me that when Members of Congress actually had to confront and deal with some of the onerous regulations they have been imposing on the people of America they might decide that it was time to eliminate some of the overregulation that is strangling our economy. For too long Congress has acted as if regulation is cost free, even though at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's estimate, they cost our economy $510 billion a year--9 percent of our gross domestic product. For too long Congress has acted as if the burden of paperwork these regulations impose is either light or nonexistent when, according to the chamber of commerce, Federal regulations alone require 6.8 billion hours of paperwork to our businesses and entrepreneurs. But the accountability act alone will not be enough because the sheer inertia of Government regulation continues to push our businesses, and small businesses in particular, into bankruptcy. We must cull the code books of regulations that are redundant, obsolete, unnecessarily costly and just plain unnecessary. This Regulatory Sunset and Review Act will go a long way toward fighting the inertia of Government regulation by putting in place a mandatory review procedure for all regulations our bureaucrats want to see continued. It would place in each agency a review officer who would review all regulations, new and old, with the aid of Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. All existing regulations would terminate within 7 years unless they pass a rigorous review process. For new regulations the initial sunset period would be 5 years. The goal would not be to eliminate all regulations, after all some regulations are needed to enforce statutes we have passed to protect Americans' health and safety as well as their rights. But we do not need regulations, and should not have them, unless as required by this act they are shown to be: necessary; more beneficial than costly; reasonable in their cost and other impact on consumers; clear and unambiguous; unlikely to cause unnecessary litigation; and reasonable in their burden on local, State and National economies. Only by subjecting our regulations to rigorous, repeated review can we finally bring the spread of over-regulation under control. Only by setting up a standardized review procedure can we ensure that bureaucratic inertia and discretion no longer stifle our economy and our liberties. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of endorsement for the Domenici-Abraham regulatory sunset bill from the National Federation of Independent Business be entered into the Record:

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great sadness and a deep sense of personal loss that I note the passing yesterday of a close friend, Mr. Ed Prince of Holland, MI, a successful businessman, family man, and philanthropist. I had the privilege of knowing Ed Prince and his family for a number of years. Ed was a self-made businessman who took seriously his Christian duty to help his neighbors and others less fortunate than himself. After quitting his job as chief engineer at the local machine works in Holland, MI, Ed started his own automotive components company. Now that company employs 4,500 people and is the Nation's largest producer of die cast machinery. But Ed did not let concern with the bottom line take him away from his Calvinist roots and family values. He devoted time and money to family causes on a local, State, and national scale. He was a major contributor to his church, local charitable organizations, and such national organizations as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family. Perhaps Ed's greatest accomplishment, other than serving as an exemplary husband and father, is his commitment to his hometown of Holland. When downtown Holland began struggling financially, Ed and his wife Elsa came to the rescue. They bought a number of downtown buildings, refurbished them, and sold or leased them back to small businesses. They even put heaters under the sidewalks so folks could come downtown during Holland's severe winters without fear of slipping and falling or being disinclined because of the winter. I also know the residents at the Evergreen Commons Senior Center a facility which I have visited, will miss Edgar and his support. He gave $1 million to that organization so that Holland's senior citizens could maintain their dignity while being helped in their old age. He also has been a major contributor to colleges in his area--both Calvin and Hope colleges owe him a great debt of gratitude. As his pastor, David Guerrin, remarked, ``He used all of his resoruces--both personal and financial--not as an end in themselves, but always as a means of glorifying God.'' Those words constitute a fine tribute to a great man, a man to whom I also owe a great debt of gratitude for the example he provided through his generosity, strength of character, and spirit of fellowship toward his community. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will undoubtedly cast many hundreds of votes during my tenure in the Senate, but it is unlikely I will cast any more important vote than the one I will make later today. With that vote, I will seek to amend the Constitution of our Nation to require that our national budget be balanced. There are many reasons why I conviction that our responsibility to secure the economic future of our country can only be fulfilled if we adopt this amendment. Last night, when I said good night to my 20-month-old twin daughters, I thought about the country they will inherit when they grow up. I will not bequeath to them and their generation a legacy of debt. For too long, this Congress has failed to meet this responsibility to future Americans. The failures have occurred on both sides of the political aisle, and so now the solution must be bipartisan as well. I call on my colleagues to provide Betsy and Julie Abraham, and the other children of this country, the future they deserve--a future in which they will have the fullest opportunity to realize the promise of America. Mr. President, I urge this Senate to adopt this amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today, once again, one final time, in strong support of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and to urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Last November the American people sent a clear signal to Washington. They made clear that they are tired of business as usual. They made clear that they no longer will accept, or re-elect, representatives who do not take we must put our financial house in order. Only when we have re-established order can we again represent the people's interests as we should. Only when we have re-established the discipline necessary to make hard choices can we begin again to recognize what is important and what is not so important. Only when we begin to balance our own budgets--to sit down and decide how much of the people's money we can afford to spend--will we again have fully earned their trust. The simple fact is that we are spending more than we should as a government. We are spending the people's money on things the people do not need, or that the people of a free country can more safely and efficiently provide for themselves. The people demanded a more efficient government this past November. They also demanded a smaller Government. One that is more careful in how it spends their money and more careful not to interfere unduly with their lives. We have a bloated, inefficient Government because for decades Congress has not felt the need to sit down and decide what it has a right to spend the people's money on, and what we must, as a government, do without. You see, those who oppose the balance budget amendment, or complain that it will cause too much pain, ignore the pain our current irresponsible deficit spending already causes. Our spiraling debt inflates interest rates, it causes economic dislocation--and higher taxes on the American people. Worse, it leaves our children and grandchildren a legacy of debt. After all, every year we must pay hundreds of billions of dollars to retire old debt, even as we add new debt. Our current irresponsible spending causes economic pain; pain which will only get worse if we allow it to continue. This amendment will not suddenly eliminate Federal spending. It will not even suddenly eliminate deficit spending. Until the year 2002 we will continue to spend more than we take in--only at a less horrifying pace. But this amendment will reintroduce discipline to the budgeting process and help us get a grip, once again, on our spending priorities. It will force those of us in this Chamber to actually sit down and decide what our priorities ought to be. Instead of spending money on everything, we will, for a change, debate which programs we should, and should not, fund at the taxpayers' expense. The amendment will help reduce the size of Government by severely limiting the option to borrow money. Currently, when faced with demands for more spending, the Congress makes the easy choice to borrow money. Under the balanced budget amendment, Congress will be forced to make the tough choices. In this way, unless we are in the midst of a crisis severe enough to produce a supermajority in favor of deficit spending, Congress will be forced to control its appetite for spending, or select the even less desirable alternative of raising taxes. No longer will we be able to borrow against our childrens' future. No longer will we be able to continue increasing the size of Government, oblivious to its costs to our pocketbooks and our liberties. No longer will Government be able to duck responsibility for the way it spends the people's money. Mr. President, I remember well what the folks in Michigan told me when I was campaigning for the Senate a few months back. From Detroit to the Upper Peninsula, from Grand Rapids to Saginaw, Michiganders all expressed the same confusion about the way Congress does business. They could not understand why Congress could not operate the way they did in their families or the way businesses did in trying to meet a bottom line. The people did not ask for a fancier bookkeeping method that will make it look as if the budget is balanced when it really is not. They did not ask for a balanced budget except for this or that program. A balanced budget means just that. If you put spending programs off budget you are simply fooling yourself and the American people. But the people were not asking that we budget exactly as if we were a family. The big difference between Congress and a family is that a family is spending its own money. Congress, on the other hand, is spending money entrusted to it by the people. If a family decides to buy a home it will go into debt as it invests for the future. But the Government is not a family. Government is the servant of families. It is our duty to spend no more of families' hard- earned money than we need to. And massive public spending projects all too often are boondoggles rather than good investments for America's families. In fact, it seems to me we should not even need to debate the need for a balanced budget amendment because over the last 25 years Congress has proved that it is incapable of managing effectively the Nation's pursestrings. And President Clinton's latest budget makes clear that he has no intention of doing anything to fight the deficit in the years ahead. According to his own budget projections, Federal spending will grow from $1.5 trillion in 1995 to over $1.9 trillion at the turn of the century. Deficits will remain near $200 billion in every year through the year 2000. That means that between now and the end of the century we will add well over $1 trillion to the deficit. I think that the choice is clear. Either we continue spending trillions of dollars we do not have, or we get our financial house in order. Either we give up on the idea of getting our spending under control, or we pass a balanced budget amendment. Either we do the job we were sent here to do, or we continue to spend our childrens' and grandchildrens' money and leave them to foot the bill. Now, some of my colleagues have said that they like the idea of a balanced budget--but they fear one or another horrible unintended consequence of this amendment. From judicial budget writing to Presidential impoundment, some Senators fear there are dangers lurking in this amendment, dangers to our status as an institution and to the Republic itself. Mr. President, we must not shrink before these phantom dangers. This amendment is a model of clear, concise drafting. It does a single thing, and does it well. It says that Congress now must balance its budgets the same way families and businesses do--by spending no more than it takes in. I will not restate all the arguments again here. But it is clear to me that this simple, policy-centered amendment will provide the discipline we in this institution need to rethink our priorities and get spending under control--and nothing else. We should concern ourselves less with phantoms and more with our responsibilities to our Nation and to our families. Mr. President: My family is important to me. I work in large part so that I can pass on something to them. I hope I can pass on a little wisdom. I want to make sure I pass on some decent habits of hard work and honesty. And I also want to pass on as much economic opportunity and security to them as I can. Trillions of dollars in debt is not my idea of a good inheritance to leave to my kids. Neither is a government that has gotten out of control, that spends money with little idea of what is important, that has no discipline in its budgeting procedures, that interferes with the daily lives of its citizens simply because to do so is cost-free. Let Members protect our children from debt and from irresponsible government. Let Members limit government and expand freedom. Let Members pass the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an exemplary individual, Bishop Kenneth Povish. This year Bishop Povish will celebrate his 45th year as a priest, his 25th year as a Bishop and his 20th year as bishop of the diocese of Lansing, MI. I was lucky enough to grow up in Lansing and attend college in that community. Thus I came to know Bishop Povish as a man who has dedicated his life to serving his community's spiritual needs. Bishop Povish was born in Alpena, MI. There he attended parochial grammar schools and public high school. After graduating from Detroit Sacred Heart Seminary in 1946, he went on to earn his master's degree in education from the Catholic University of America in 1950. In that same year Bishop Povish was ordained a priest in Saginaw, MI, and began his pastoral duties in Rogers City. In 1952 he became assistant at Saint Hyacinth Catholic Church in Bay City, MI. Among his many accomplishments, Bishop Povish helped found Saint Paul's Seminary in Saginaw, MI. There he taught Latin, history, and religion and, from 1960 to 1966, served as dean of the college. He then went on to train over 400 lay catechists as diocesan director of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. In 1970 Pope Paul VI named him bishop and assigned him to Crookston, MN, until 1975. Luckily for Lansing, Bishop Povish then was named to current position as bishop of that city. Since then he has enriched the spiritual life of his community in many ways. He established the Bishop's Council on Alcoholism and has written extensively on that subject. He has reached out to the less fortunate and shown his deep faith by teaching others the ways of Jesus Christ. Mr. President, it is an honor to stand before my colleagues on behalf of the citizens of Michigan to congratulate Bishop Povish on his 45 years of selfless dedication to the Catholic Church and to the Lansing community. May God bless Bishop Povish and allow him to continue his service to those in need of faith, hope, and charity, especially in my hometown of Lansing, MI.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Reid. The purpose of the amendment is basically sound--to protect Social Security from budget cuts. Most of us support this. However, in my view, the Reid amendment will likely fail to protect Social Security as well as the intent of the balanced budget amendment--to eliminate billions of dollars of annual deficits. Right now, we fund Social Security and run up billions of dollars of debt. What the American people want is to protect Social Security from cuts and to put an end to deficits. That is what we propose. The American people are saying that $1.5 trillion in taxpayer dollars is enough. Spending 19 percent of national income on Government is enough. They want us to make it work. But this amendment will have as its long-term effect funded Social Security and billions of dollars in annual budget deficits. This is true because although Social Security will have the political clout to remain a funding priority, the Social Security trust fund will begin to run operating deficits in the year 2013 and will be completely exhausted in the year 2029. Thereafter, Social Security will run large annual budget deficits. While I am confident the Government will continue to make these transfer payments, I am equally certain we will not pay these bills if Social Security is not contained within the balanced budget amendment. Furthermore, in the short term, this amendment will produce cuts in all other spending programs which will make the cuts opponents of the balanced budget amendment have described as draconian, seem trivial. For instance, many Senators who support the Reid amendment have warned that in order to balance the budget by 2002--hold harmless national defense, Social Security, and interest on the debt, and pay for the Contract With America's tax cuts, all other Government spending programs would have to be cut by 30 percent across the board.The irony is that the Reid amendment would have the practical effect of forcing even deeper cuts in Government programs than those about which Senators on the other side have expressed concern. Here is how this would occur. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the accumulated Social Security trust fund surpluses will total $636 billion from 1996 to 2002. If we were to remove that surplus from the budget, the annual budget deficit will increase accordingly--and the required reductions in spending would be much more than 30 percent if we must balance that portion of the budget not included in the Reid amendment. Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin to give me a rough estimate about how much more spending would have to be cut in all other areas of the budget if we totally remove Social Security from the rest of the budget as this amendment suggests. Dr. Rivlin told the committee that all other Government programs would have to be reduced by 40 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Senate Budget Committee staff, spending would have to be reduced across-the-board spending cuts between 40 and 50 percent. In other words, the amendment will produce massive short-term budget dislocations and no long-term end to the red ink. Accordingly, I will oppose it. Mr. President, the simple fact is that today Social Security will be protected from budget cuts because an overwhelming number of Congressmen and Senators will vote to protect it. It will be protected after the balanced budget amendment is passed because that same group of Congressmen and Senators will vote to protect Social Security in the balanced budget enabling legislation. And in the future, it will be protected. This is because Social Security will always be able to compete effectively as a budget priority, especially as the number of recipients increases as a percentage of the electorate. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Reid amendment because it fails to protect both Social Security and the intent of the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to commend the marchers who came to Washington from all over the country to join in the March for Life here on January 23, 1995, the anniversary of Roe versus Wade. At the time of the march I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet with the pro-life delegation from my home State of Michigan. In my State, the right-to-life orgnaization has long pursued legal channels in attempting to restore the civil rights of the unborn and in helping women with problem pregnancies. Unfortunately, the peaceful and legal efforts of organizations such as Right to Life of Michigan have been obscured by the actions of those who have resorted to violence as a means of expressing their opposition to abortion. In response to these senseless acts of violence, the Michigan right to life orgnaization has launched a series of television commercials calling for an end of all violence at abortion clinics. I rise today to commend Right to Life of Michigan for their leadership on an important issue of the day. I also applaud them for their constructive project as they pursue our common goal of advancing the cause of the pro-life movement, and I further join them in condemning those who would resort to any form of such violence in an attempt to advance their objectives.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that provides a much needed respite for the States from the onerous and inappropriate sanctions of the Clean Air Act. In its bureaucratic fervor to implement regulations and administrative procedures, the EPA has shown a near complete disregard of the States' interests or the actual facts of the situation at hand. This bill prohibits the implementation of these draconian sanctions and will give us time to analyze more fully the Clean Air Act and the method of its implementation. The Clean Air Act is a well-intentioned attempt to resolve the competing interests of ecological preservation and economic growth. But as is usually the case with complex and patronizing Federal attempts to solve local problems from Washington, it misses the mark. Throughout this country communities are revolting against the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act and their edicts that States and localities must implement a series of centralized automobile tailpipe testing procedures. Unfortunately, the EPA has allowed its enforcement bureaucrats concentrate solely on the means of this act rather than the ends. A particularly egregious example of this lock of regulatory good sense occurred in my State of Michigan. Three western Michigan counties were previously found by EPA to exceed the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, which is a product of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds such as petroleum vapors, and oxygenated nitrogen, with summer sun and heat acting as the catalyst. Now I am heartened by EPA Administrator Browner's decision last night to redesignate these counties as in attainment. But I believe it was only the threat of legislative action like this that forced the EPA to revisit its strategy of enforcement. Because of these ozone levels, the EPA previously directed Michigan to implement by July 1995 an ozone reduction plan that would reduce by at least 15 percent the ozone producing volatile organic compound emissions. As part of this reduction plan, the EPA determined that only centralized automobile tailpipe exhaust inspection and maintenance procedures--otherwise known as IM240 tests, because the test takes 240 seconds to administer--are 100 percent effective in reducing emissions. These tests require the local citizens to travel as far as 50 miles to testing facilities, then to another facility to repair the exhaust system determined by this test to be defective, and then back to the first testing facility for another test, possibly to start the whole process again. The EPA unilaterally decided that any State's testing procedure that allows for testing and repair at the same facility is only 50 percent as effective as test-only facility procedures. Their facilities are rife with corruption and therefore pass automobiles which have defective exhaust systems. But the evidence shows otherwise. In Georgia, where both test-and-repair and test-only facilities operate, the two procedures were shown to have nearly identical rates of properly identifying vehicles with faulty exhaust systems, tampered exhaust systems, and that the test-and-repair facilities effectively discovered tampered vehicles. Furthermore, the General Accounting Office reported in 1992 that 25 percent of the vehicles tested by EPA using the IM240 procedures failed an initial emissions test but passed a second, even though no repairs were made to the vehicles. This phenomenon of flipper vehicles, where the same vehicle can have radically differing emission levels at different times, contributes as much as 20 percent of overall tailpipe emissions. As Douglas Lawson of the Desert Research Institute has determined through exhaustive analysis of I&M procedures, ``As long as there are vehicles with emissions variability on the road, an I/M program that relies upon scheduled testing is likely not be very effective.'' Which brings me to the critical point of analysis which EPA consistently missed: how much do test-only facility procedures actually reduce emissions over test- and-repair facility procedures? The answer is ``not much.'' In fact, Mr. Lawson's previous comment is consistently supported by the evidence at hand, including a very comprehensive policy analysis by the Rand Corp. It states: Existing national data, limited as it is, suggest little difference in measures of effectiveness between centralized and decentralized I/M programs. There is no empirical basis to choose between different program types. And, no single component, be it centralized IM240 or remote sensing technology is likely to be the ``silver bullet'' that lowers emission levels for a significant faction of gross polluting vehicles. It goes on to point out: ``The centralized/decentralized debate is less significant than a serious effort to rethink the entire Smog Check system and more generally, all programs to enhance Inspection and Maintenance.'' It is not an issue of test-and-repair facilities versus test-only facilities, but rather an issue of the whole inspection and maintenance process mentality. The EPA nevertheless stuck doggedly by its centralized test-only procedures. When my staff requested a summary of EPA's analysis of this issue, EPA sent 28 pages of data analyzing the differing rates of tampering detection and testing efficiency between centralized and decentralized programs. Only one-half page, however, examined the crucial issue of whether test-only procedures reduced overall emissions. EPA's analysis compared Arizona's emission levels under test-only procedures to Indiana's emission levels with no I&M procedures at all. From the data that Arizona has lower emission levels, the EPA concludes test-only is superior to test-and-repair. These leaps of logic, although convenient for pressing forth undesirable regulations, make for poor public policy. Such serious breaks in logic highlight the EPA's inability to view this issue in its totality. It is apparently paralyzed in its analysis by an overwhelming desire to implement centralized I&M procedures. Assistant EPA Administrator for Air Mary Nichols said as much before my senior Michigan colleague's hearing on this issue last fall. She stated: . . . anybody who has bothered to buy a car that meets current emissions standards is owed an opportunity to have a good inspection test done to make sure that car is maintaining the emissions that it was designed to meet, because if it is not, it should be getting repaired, and if it is repaired, they are likely to experience better performance and better fuel economy. To the EPA, the only way to create such an opportunity is for the Federal Government to force all car owners to have their cars tested and repaired, so that they can rest assured their cars are operating properly. Once again, members of the Clinton administration are out of touch and are missing the point. We must protect our constituencies and take the action necessary to stop this patronizing and intrusive behavior in the future. As a result of this convoluted logic, States are forced to adopt centralized test-only programs because the EPA halves the emission reduction credits for decentralized test-and-repair programs within the State's emission reduction programs. If they do not adopt these centralized procedures, the EPA will reject their emission reduction plan and place sanctions on the State. These sanctions include the withholding of millions in Federal highway funds and Federal pollution reduction program grants, Federal takeovers of State emission reduction plans, and two-for-one emission offset requirements where no new emission producing facilities can be constructed unless the expected new emissions are offset by two times that level of emissions at other facilities in the area. I assume no facility operates and produces emissions unless it does so at a profit, so I seriously doubt any facility will be shut down to make way for new facilities. These offsets would have effectively halted industrial growth in the area, and all because EPA wrongly wanted cars tested and repaired at separate facilities. This situation may even have seemed reasonable, given the existing law, if these areas were at fault for their allegedly high levels of ozone, but that was not the case. Because the emissions that chemically react to create ozone can travel in the air stream, the ozone levels experienced in one area may be the result of emissions from hundreds of miles away. Such was the case with the three counties in western Michigan. The three western Michigan counties of Kent, Ottawa, and Muskegon were all found by EPA to have ozone levels above the national ambient air quality standard of 120 parts per billion. The ozone contributions from the northern Indiana, northern Illinois, and Wisconsin, however, provided over 98 percent of the ozone that resulted in nonattainment. In fact, even if these three counties were to reduce their emission levels to zero, the ozone levels would actually increase as the overwhelming ozone transport from the West drifted into the region. Furthermore, even though the EPA claimed reducing western Michigan emissions would reduce ozone levels in northern Indiana during that four per cent of the year when winds are from the northeast, such emissions are irrelevant to that area. The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium executive director Stephen Gerritson told my colleague Senator Levin in hearings last fall that western Michigan emissions did not cause ozone nonattainment in northern Indiana. In fact, the area impacted by these very infrequent western Michigan transported emissions is currently in attainment. The regulatory actions of the EPA, in their misguided attempt to solve western Michigan's supposed ozone problem, would have actually made it worse. In light of this action, the Governor of Michigan halted the further implementation of such an unnecessary program last month. In the face of similarly bold exercises of States' rights, the EPA's Administrator reached out to the Governors in what I believe was an attempt to save the Clean Air Act from full congressional review. The EPA knows it is in trouble. When our loyal opposition held control of the Congress, the EPA would brook no complaints from the States that the EPA's tyrannical regulatory measures were unnecessary or ineffective. Instead, the EPA marched forward with an agenda to impinge States' rights, halt economic growth and force the citizenry to abide by their ideas as to what was in the citizenry's collective best interest. We must review the Clean Air Act in it totality. It is based upon bad science, bad procedures, and focuses on the wrong issues. The technology of emission detection, control, and abatement advances exponentially, and any legislation that attempts to protect our environment through invasive command and control techniques favored by anti- industrialist, anti-growth, anti-business forces in the EPA is bound to fail. Such a review, however, will not be quick. The Clean Air Act is the longest, most complex piece of legislation ever passed, and took years to develop. It will take time to develop feasible replacements. Furthermore, as I have stated on this floor before, environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act is one of the most notorious examples of an unfunded mandate. We must establish a window in which we can review this act and EPA action. This bill establishes such a window. Upon its enactment, the EPA will be prohibited, for 2 years, from imposing sanctions under sections 110(m) or 179 of the Clean Air Act, withhold pollution abatement grants section 105, or federalize a State's program under section 110(c). I explained the sanctions and enforcement actions before, but quickly, the section 100(m) and 179 sanctions include the loss of Federal highway funds and two-for-one emission offsets. These moratoria will apply to actions taken in response to a State's failure to submit or implement a pollution reduction plan in response to marginal or moderate ozone nonattainment. It will also prohibit both the EPA and the Highway Administration from taking similarly adverse action, such as withholding Federal highway funds, for failure to implement enhanced automobile inspection and maintenance procedures. The moratoria would exist for 2 years from enactment but would not apply to sanctions already applied. While these moratoria are in effect, we will have the time and liberty to analyze closely the Clean Air Act, and secure the assurances that our States will not be subject to these outrageous sanctions and actions. Last month, a bipartisan group of 33 State environmental directors, working through the National Association of Governors, called for such a moratorium while the States work with the EPA to define a more workable solution. Governor Engler of Michigan has fully supported such a moratorium. Although the EPA rectified the problem for my constituents last night, it still remains for other areas, such as in Virginia, Texas, and Rhode Island. Furthermore, there is no assurance that the EPA could not just as easily reverse this decision and put my constituents back in exactly the same quandary as before. I recommend that my colleagues join with me in preventing such a thing from happening. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to explain to the American people what this debate over the balanced budget amendment is really all about. It is a debate between those in this body who want to maintain the status quo versus those of us who want to implement the change that the American people voted for last November. It is a debate between those who want to preserve the business-as- usual practices of official Washington--more taxes, more spending, and more debt--versus those of us who want to shake up Washington and promote less government and more individual freedom. Mr. President, in March 1994, 17 Senators on the other side of the aisle voted for the balanced budget amendment. Although I was not here, I am told that many of these Senators gave impassioned speeches about the dire economic consequences of high and rising budget deficits-- about the immorality of burdening future generations with massive debt. Today, the projections of future deficits and debt are significantly higher than they were last year. The latest CBO outlook for the budget deficit shows it climbing from $207 billion in fiscal 1996 to $243 billion in fiscal 2000. By fiscal year 2005, the CBO projects Budget deficits are rising. Interest rates are rising. The national debt will increase by over $1 trillion over the next 5 years. But somehow our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted for the balanced budget amendment in March 1994 now feel less compelled to support the amendment today. They now want to attach special conditions; namely, the right-to-know and Social Security exemption amendments to the balanced budget amendment in exchange for their support on final passage. As a new Member of the Senate, I would like to know why our colleagues voted for a balanced budget amendment that did not include a right-to-know provision last year? Why were there no requests for budget details back then? The minority leader was quoted the other day in Congress Daily saying that he may not vote for the balanced budget amendment because he does not ``have sufficient information on it.'' Again, I was not here, but the minority leader and others apparently had sufficient information when they voted for the balanced budget amendment the last March. Why did our colleagues vote last year for a balanced budget amendment that did not include a provision to exempt Social Security? Is Social Security somehow more at risk this year than it was last year? Judging from the cards, letters, and phone calls that I get from Michigan's senior citizens, Social Security is politically as strong as ever. I have no doubt that it will compete very well with other programs in the Federal budget. Mr. President, in truth, the only difference between today and last year is that a new party controls the Congress--and some people do not like it. These amendments are nothing but veiled attempts to torpedo the balanced budget amendment, thereby thwarting the American public's will as demonstrated in the last election. In my judgment, we need the balanced budget amendment now more than ever. Clearly, the budget deficit is once again spiraling out of control. And President Clinton has apparently decided to raise the white flag on the budget deficit. His proposed budget for fiscal 1996 barely puts a dent in the out- year budget deficits. In fact, his budget calls for an increase in Federal spending from $1.5 to $1.9 trillion by the turn of the century. It will produce budget deficits of about $200 billion every single year through the year 2000. Mr. President, according to an article in Saturday's Washington Post, one administration official who participated in drafting the President's budget said that, ``It should be a source of shame.'' With this budget submission, the President has basically decided to walk away from his campaign pledge to cut the budget deficit in half during his first term--and walk away from the public's overwhelming desire to balance the Federal budget. In my view, President Clinton's budget should be the poster child for the balanced budget amendment. Without the constitutional force of a balanced budget amendment, the President is simply not compelled to make some tough choices and submit a balanced budget. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I think this debate is a showdown between the business-as-usual politics of official Washington and the desire for sweeping change that the people voted for last November. It is that simple. Those Senators who oppose the amendment want to maintain the status quo of higher deficits, higher spending, and higher taxes. Those Senators who support the amendment want to shake up the system and force Congress to do what every American family must do--live within its means. education infrastructure and the right-to-know amendment

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during the past year I have repeatedly been approached by citizens of my State of Michigan who have expressed their outrage about the current congressional pension system. Initially, their anger was focused upon what they believed to be an exorbitant level of compensation for Members of Congress. Later in the campaign, another issue also rose; namely, the shroud of secrecy which surrounded congressional pensions themselves. Because of my experience, during the campaign I pledged to introduce or cosponsor legislation which would bring congressional pension plans into general line with the rest of the Federal Government and with the private sector. I also committed myself to eliminating the shroud of secrecy which has surrounded the pension system by pushing for full disclosure. Consequently, I am today announcing my cosponsorship of S. 228, the bill introduced by the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan, which will bring the pension compensation for Members of Congress in line with that currently available to members of the Federal civil service. However, because the Senator from Nevada's legislation does not include language on disclosure, I am also today introducing my own legislation which will require that information regarding Members' pensions be made available to the public. When the issue of congressional pension reform reaches the floor, the Senator from Michigan will offer this disclosure bill as an amendment if similar language is not already contained therein. Mr. President, only when the American people are provided with accurate information can they make informed decisions regarding what level of pension compensation for Members of Congress and their staffs is appropriate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce S. 355 which would require the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make publicly available information relating to the pensions of Members of Congress. Under this legislation, these officers would be required in the course of their semiannual reports to the Congress to clearly set forth information relating to the following: First, the individual pension contributions of Members; Second, an estimate of annuities which they would receive based on the earliest possible date they would be eligible to receive annuity payments by reason of retirement; and Third, any other information necessary to enable the public to accurately compute the Federal retirement benefits of each Member based on various assumptions of years of service and age of separation from service by reason of retirement. The purpose of this legislation is simply to afford citizens their rightful opportunity of learning how public funds are being utilized. The taxpayers are not only entitled to know the various forms of compensation being paid to their elected officials, they are also entitled to make decisions about the reasonableness of such compensation. My bill, S. 355, would make this information conveniently available to the public. The public does not begrudge Members of Congress reasonable pensions. Before that assessment can intelligently be made, however, the public needs to have better access to information than they currently have.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, recently the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, on which I serve, held 3 days of hearings on reforming the Federal Government's system of job training programs. Over the course of the hearings, the committee heard testimony from a wide array of interested parties: Clients of training programs; experts from academia and think tanks; businessmen, organized labor, and the General Accounting Office. Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson appeared and testified about the laboratory the various States provide, where some of the most innovative reform ideas are already at work. In addition, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and OMB Director Alice Rivlin presented the administration's perspective on what shape reform of the system should take. However, this Senator thought the most interesting testimony came from the last panel to appear on the hearing's final day. Chairman Kassebaum wished to supplement the testimony of the usual array of witnesses with perhaps less conventional viewpoints. She selected individuals from around the country who have personally been involved in starting and administering innovative, community-based training and education programs. One of the individuals she invited to participate was Father Bill Cunningham, the executive director of the Focus: Hope Program in Detroit, MI. Focus: Hope and Father Cunningham are certainly not strangers to the Labor Committee. Just last September, Father Cunningham appeared before the Labor Committee to testify about the Focus: Hope Program and its work in educating and training people. It is a testament to his dedication and success that Father Cunningham would be invited to testify by both Democrats and Republicans when each had control of the Labor Committee. Mr. President, Focus: Hope is often described as unorthodox in its methodology. It is certainly unorthodox in one respect: Unlike the vast majority of Federal job training programs, Focus: Hope actually works. It produces real and lasting results; of course, that might seem unorthodox in this town, which sometimes appears immune to outrage over wasted tax dollars and obsolete or ineffectual social programs. Let me offer a glimpse of the mindset which makes ``Focus: Hope so unique and--I believe--so successful. An article appearing in the March 1994 issue of ``Ward's Auto World'' noted that father Cunningham saw Focus: Hope's mission this way: Focus: Hope remains at its core a civil rights organization, but [father Cunningham] cites [their] machinist training effort as simply a new approach. Father Cunningham says of 200 machine shops that hired graduates from the [Focus: Hope] machinists institute, all except two were hiring their first African-American or woman. We could have been suing them, he shrugs. Mr. President, while some groups are obsessed with talking about expanding opportunities, Father Cunningham's approach is a breath of fresh air. He believes the best method for truly empowering people is to educate them, teach them a marketable skill, develop in them responsibility, motivation, and maturity--not simply to file a lawsuit on their behalf. For the benefit of any of my colleagues who are not familiar with father Cunningham's work, let me offer a few quotes from his testimony: I would emphasize advanced job skills representing new technologies, future technologies. In that vein, I would require that defense and commerce play a larger role in establishing national skills priorities * * * We must understand and balance the difference between providing jobs for the people--and everybody's hearts ought to be in that--and keep attention on providing capable and skilled persons for job demands. That is an entirely different picture. The industry was changing so rapidly that the machinist of 1981 was completely inadequate for the machine tools of 1988, the computer and numerically controlled machines. * * * In 1993, the state of the art is already catapulting so rapidly in technology that--well, I will just give you one figure. A lathe in 1981 with 3,000 RPM is replaced by Ingersol, by a machining center, with 60,000 RPM. The universities are still dealing with the engineering code of 1970. So what we are doing is very expensively putting all these kids through college, getting them engineering degrees, and then when they go to work for Ford Motor Co., they have to spend another 6 years training them. Finally, let me highlight one observation that was agreed to by everyone on Father Cunningham's panel. Chairman Kassebaum inquired about the efficacy of requiring people to obtain employment first before receiving a voucher for further job training. It was noted that often the most effective training and education programs are those in which people both work and go to school either for education or to learn a particular skill. On that point, Father Cunningham offered his insight based on his work at Focus: Hope: I am in total agreement with my colleagues up here. The masters program we 40-hour workweek, and that is not work-study. It is not work- study * * *. The work they do and the skills they are developing dictate the knowledge they need to draw down. And if the university cannot provide that knowledge, the university is irrelevant. So the knowledge drawdown assimilates knowledge at, as I said earlier, geometric proportions. So the young people there are learning four and five and six times faster than the normal engineering candidate at a major university, simply because they are seeing the relevance of what they are learning in terms of the demands of the workplace. Mr. President, judging by the testimony provided to the committee during the 3 days of the hearing, Focus: Hope is precisely the type of program we should be attempting to replicate around the country. However, the lesson is not that the Government should dictate that all recipients of Federal dollars exactly mirror Focus: Hope in concept and design, but that the Government seek out programs with a proven track record of success and a proven base of support in their community or region. This Senator believes the best method for accomplishing this is to get the money into the hands of State and local officials who have a better idea as to which programs are working and where our limited resources are best utilized, that certainly has been the experience in my State of Michigan, where our citizens have had tremendous success under the leadership of Gov. John Engler, in forging a statewide partnership to enact real reform in such areas as job training and welfare. Once again, let me congratulate Father Cunningham on his appearance before the Senate's Labor and Human Resources Committee and commend him for his fine work at Focus: Hope. It is individuals like Father Cunningham and organizations like Focus: Hope which have made this country great and stand to make a positive difference in our future. We would be wise to offer them our assistance and follow their example. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I rise today in strong support of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I would like to preface my remarks by extending a compliment to the Senator from Illinois for his extensive work over many years on this issue. Thanks to his leadership, we are already moving in the House and here in the Senate toward adoption of this after many years of debate. In my judgment, the amendment would change the way Congress makes budgetary decisions by severely limiting the option to borrow money. Currently, when faced with demands for more spending, the Congress makes the easy choice to borrow money. Under the balanced budget amendment, Congress would be forced to make the tough choices, to either raise taxes or reduce spending elsewhere, unless it mustered the necessary supermajorities required to deficit spend. With last week's historic vote in the House of Representatives to approve the balanced budget amendment by a bipartisan margin of 300 to 132, the American people sent a clear and powerful message to the Senate: It is time to restore fiscal control of the Federal budget and prevent politicians from increasing Government spending. In my view, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution embodies the spirit of the electorate that voted for a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years last November, down. When I was out on the campaign trail in Michigan in this most recent campaign, I encountered people all over the State. It did not matter where they lived. From Detroit to the Upper Peninsula, from Grand Rapids to Saginaw, north to south, and east to west, they all said the same types of things about the way Congress does business. They were totally perplexed and incapable of understanding why the Congress of the United States could not operate the way they did in their families or the way businesses did in trying to meet a bottom line of staying in the black. I was constantly asked, ``Why is that the case? Can you make a difference?'' The one thing that was a clear note of consistent opinion across the spectrum was that the best and surest way to get the Federal Government under control was by adoption of a balanced budget amendment. The attitude in my State was not one of asking us to come up with a fancier bookkeeping way of handling Federal spending. They did not want me to come down here and say, ``Well, we will have a balanced budget amendment, but we will leave exceptions for this or that program; we will put something off budget and make you feel better about the bottom line.'' They said, ``Why can't you go down and do what we have to do every day in our lives here in Michigan?'' And that is what I came here to do. Now, I have heard some people say in the course of the debate in the Judiciary Committee and already in the Chamber that this is not the way people behave. The families of the people of Michigan do not operate really in the black. They buy a house, and when they buy a house they have a debt. And if you put that debt into consideration, at the end of the year they still have that debt. They just make payments on the debt. And to them balancing the family budget really means that the amount of income they have is equal to the payments they make for the goods and services and the debts they encounter. My response to those people, as I responded in the campaign was, ``But wait a minute. There is a very simple distinction here. Those people are spending their own money and we are spending the taxpayers' money.'' If people choose in their own lives to buy a house, I do not think that is the Federal Government's business. But if the Federal Government and those of us entrusted with the responsibility of spending over $1.5 trillion a year do not keep the public's interests in mind, I think we have made a huge mistake. And so in this campaign I got a clear message. It was a message that I should come here, that I should fight as hard as possible to put this country on a course to bring about a balanced budget as fast as possible and that the surest way to do it was with a balanced budget amendment. And so today I wish to speak about why that is so critical. I believe that requiring a balanced Federal budget should no longer be a question for serious debate. For the past 25 years, the Congress has demonstrated its inability to manage effectively the Nation's purse strings. The national debt now stands in excess of $4.7 trillion. The Federal Government currently owes more than $13,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. One of the major reasons for this explosion in Government spending and debt is that we have abandoned the implicit balanced budget requirements established by the Nation's Founding Fathers. Indeed, the Founding Fathers recognized that persistent Government deficits and the unfettered growth of Government had consequences for the long-term stability of our democracy and threatened our individual freedoms. The reason the Founding Fathers did not include a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution is because they felt it would be superfluous. Balancing the budget and reducing the outstanding debt were considered the highest priorities of Government. I think Thomas Jefferson summarized it best when he said that: The public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared by a republican Government. Because of this implicit balanced budget requirement, Government spending remained low, rarely exceeding 10 percent of our national income, for the first 150 years of this Republic. But starting in the mid 1930's, the rise of Keynesian economics gave politicians an economic rationale to increase Government spending. As a result, fiscal discipline was abandoned. Today, Federal spending as a share of our national income stands at 22 percent. Deficit spending has now become the fiscal norm. The purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to restore fiscal discipline upon the Congress by placing the balanced budget obligation in the supreme law of the land. Absent such an amendment, the Congress has proven itself incapable of making difficult spending decisions, given its free and easy access to deficit spending. The amendment would contribute to a balanced budget by transforming the critical questions asked by Members of Congress who confront spending interests. Instead of asking merely, ``Is this a desirable spending measure or program?'' they will instead have to ask, ``Is this spending measure so desirable that we should either reduce spending for some other spending measure or raise taxes on the people to pay for it?'' The psychology of the budget process will also be transformed. No longer will spending interests be competing against the taxpayer for a portion of an unlimited budget. Rather, they will be competing against each other for a portion of a limited budget. No one doubts that Governors of States with balanced budget requirements will propose balanced budgets because they are obligated to do so. When the Congress is also obligated to do the same, I believe they, too, will propose balanced budgets. The details will inevitably be fought out in the budget process, where they should be. Without a balanced budget amendment, this Nation could be looking at Federal deficits in the trillions of dollars within 15 years. All the opponents of the amendment want to talk about is the cost of reducing spending programs for special interests. But what about the economic costs of running high deficits and high levels of Government spending and taxation on the general public? The weight of economic evidence from around the world strongly suggests that as the size of government increases as a share of national income, the rate of economic growth and job creation declines. I was sent here by people who think it is time to put the welfare of the general public ahead of the special interests. The proposed amendment does not read into the Constitution a mandate for any particular economic policy outcomes. It only restores the historical relationship between levels of public spending and available public resources. National solvency is not, nor should it be, a partisan political principle. It should be a fundamental principle of our Government. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments on the question of judicial enforcement of the balanced budget amendment. There are many provisions of the Constitution that are effective in achieving their purposes, yet which do not require judicial enforcement. For example, the Senate does not introduce revenue bills despite the Court's refusal to involve itself in such political questions. The moral power of the Constitution itself serves as an enforcement mechanism. The balanced budget amendment is largely self-enforcing and self- monitoring. Congress and the President are to establish procedures for compliance. Congress and the President are to monitor the actions of each other, and actions by the Congress and the President will be subject to even more effective monitoring by the public. I would argue that the balanced budget amendment is already working, despite the fact that the Congress has not yet passed it. Indeed, the mere prospect of the congressional approval of the amendment has already forced congressional leaders to seriously consider a 7-year plan to reduce the growth rate of Government spending and balance the budget. Does anyone truly believe that this debate would be occurring in the absence of the debate over the balanced budget amendment? Once the amendment is actually approved by both Houses of Congress, we will be under enormous political pressure to produce a balanced budget plan which achieves balance by the year 2002. As the debate over the balanced budget amendment proceeds in the exempt any special areas of the budget from the balanced budget requirements. In essence these efforts are, in my judgment, nothing more than escape valves designed to alleviate the pressure on lawmakers to spend in different areas of priority than would otherwise take place. These exemptions violate the whole point of having a balanced budget amendment. The Nation believes we already have enough tax revenue to balance the budget. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that tax revenue collected by the Government will naturally increase from the $1.36 trillion in 1995 to $1.88 trillion in the year 2002. I know the people in Michigan, and I think most people across this country would agree, that $1.88 trillion is more than enough to run the Federal Government. Finally, I am a strong supporter of the proposed supermajority requirements to limit tax increases. I think the inclusion of the tax limitation language would help avert the bias in our current system toward higher taxes. Although I am concerned about a balanced budget amendment that does not simultaneously place an explicit limit on taxes, I believe this can be accomplished through other means, not the least among them the wrath of an overtaxed electorate. Further, I believe that to truly limit the tax burden on the American people we must explicitly limit the total size of Government. It is for this reason I strongly support either legislation or a constitutional amendment to limit to a fixed percentage of our national income, except in times of emergency, the spending level of Government. Limiting total spending limits total taxes. In my State of Michigan we have a similar government spending limitation in our State constitution called the Headlee amendment. Under that amendment, the size of State government is limited by holding State tax revenue to the same fraction of personal income that it was when the amendment passed in 1978. A blue ribbon commission appointed by Gov. John Engler to study the Headlee amendment recently concluded that it had been effective in limiting the growth of our State government. This spending limitation proposal offered by Senator Jon Kyl does essentially the same thing as the Headlee amendment. It requires that the Federal Government only grow in size relative to the size of the national income. I think such a spending limitation concept ought to be a key ingredient as we proceed to the subsequent implementing legislation to balance the budget. In conclusion, before we begin the necessary task of limiting the growth rate of Government spending, we ought to be able to assure the American people that any consequent pain will not be for naught, that cuts in spending will finally translate into reduction in the Federal deficit. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would restore a necessary, basic, and broad governing principle for our country; namely, that Government should spend no more than it takes in. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to cosponsor the Lawsuit Reform Act of 1995. Last fall's election was about change. And if ever there was an area in need of change, it is the current state of our legal system. The current system doesn't work. It is arbitrary and imposes excessive costs and long delays. It must be reoriented to bring about the proper objectives of any legal system: swift justice and fair results. Moreover, our litigation explosion is hurting U.S. competitiveness and stifling innovation with the high costs of lawsuits and damage awards in our courts. The costs are estimated to reach $300 billion annually--about 4.5 percent of the Nation's $6.7 trillion gross domestic product. These costs are passed on to consumers, making legal system their enemy rather than their ally. It is time for an overhaul of the system. The McConnell-Abraham Lawsuit Reform Act of 1995 signals the beginning of my efforts to help bring about that overhaul. The McConnell-Abraham Lawsuit Reform Act is principally aimed at one aspect of the litigation problem. Our current system contains insufficient incentives to reward settlements, and insufficient penalties for litigating to the hilt disputes that should be able to be worked out. One cause of this is that as litigation has been exploding, more and more lawyers have sought to maximize their fees at the expense of their clients' best interests. And while the legal profession has made attempts at self-regulation, it has been largely unsuccessful in stopping this trend. The McConnell-Abraham Lawsuit Reform Act of 1995 takes an extremely innovative approach to this problem. It empowers clients in personal injury cases by creating incentives for potential plaintiffs and defendants to get together and settle meritorious cases. It also reduces lawyers' incentives to discourage settlements by barring them from charging contingent fees in cases where recovery is all but certain. And it creates penalties for frivolous litigation, ranging from mandatory sanctions for frivolous filings to a ``loser pays'' rule in certain classes of cases. In short, the McConnell-Abraham Lawsuit Reform Act of 1995 will bring our legal system closer to accomplishing its central purposes: swift and certain redress for the meritorious claimant and penalties for abusive litigation. Therefore I am proud to join the distinguished Senator from Kentucky as an original cosponsor of this excellent piece of legislation.