Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Would the Senator from Missouri like additional time?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time remains on each side. We want to reserve some time for the Senator from New Mexico to close on our side, and I wanted to know how much that would be because we do want to make a closing argument.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I gather the Senator from New Jersey does not choose to yield time at this point.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need. We find ourselves once again on the Senate floor. As I said to the Senator from New Jersey, some years back there was a movie called ``Groundhog Day'' in which the main character in the movie kept waking up each day in the same exact setting in which he found himself the previous day. Somehow that movie's theme seems to be playing itself out in this debate about the lockbox. We are once again to have a cloture vote to simply try to obtain the opportunity to have a vote on the amendment which was offered by myself, along with Senator Domenici and Senator Ashcroft, to the underlying legislation. We have previously tried to accomplish this without success. It is very frustrating because if we obtain cloture today, we would get this vote, but this legislation would then be open to further amendment by any Senator who wished to change its composition. So I start the debate by pointing out to all my colleagues that all we are asking for is a chance to have a vote on one amendment. Now, this past 4 days we have been debating the Patients' Bill of Rights. I remember back a few weeks ago the entire Senate was virtually shut down so a group of Senators who wanted to have that issue considered could have the entire issue considered and a full range of amendments brought up and voted on, and we did that. Here all we are asking for is a chance to have a vote on one amendment to a broader bill. I hope we will get the chance to do so. The reason for that is very simple. Across my State, and I think across this country, Americans continue to want to see their Social Security dollars protected. They want to make sure every single dollar they send to Washington in their payroll taxes for Social Security is preserved and not spent on other programs or used for tax cuts or for any other purpose but for their Social Security protection. They want to make sure today's beneficiaries are protected. They want to make sure future beneficiaries are protected. So do the advocates of this amendment. It is not just one side that advocates this, as far as I can tell, because just in the last few weeks we have heard from the White House that the President, too, shares our view that we ought to have a Social Security lockbox. It does not seem to me very clear why, as a result of that, we cannot have a vote on this proposal. If others have additions or deletions or counterproposals, they will have their chance because the underlying bill will still be subject to further amendment. But those of us who think this is the right approach want to have a chance to have this approach ultimately debated and be voted on. We have been trying and trying without success. I hope today we can continue down the path we started just a few days ago when we ultimately obtained cloture on the motion to proceed. As I open this debate, I implore Members on both sides of the aisle to give those of us who are advocating this amendment a chance to have a vote on it. If you have your own ideas, bring those, too, and once we have voted on this amendment, we will vote on yours. But let us at least get the ball rolling. If everybody is as strongly for a lockbox as they profess, then let us have a chance to start the debate, and let us start with this amendment which was the first one offered. Mr. President, at this point I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time does the majority have?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico such time as he consumes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. The Senator from Missouri is yielded whatever time he needs.

Mr. ABRAHAM. We are not.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That will be fine, back and forth.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin debate on cloture to the Social Security lockbox legislation for 1 hour, with a vote to occur at approximately 10:30 a.m. For the information of all Senators, that vote will be the only rollcall vote during today's session of the Senate. Following the vote, Senator Coverdell will be recognized for 1 hour of morning business. Senators Kerrey and Breaux will be in control of the second hour. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the ``Veterans' Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act.'' By establishing the National Veterans Business Development Corporation, this bill will provide significant assistance to entrepreneurial veterans. Additionally, this legislation works to aid veterans through networking, supervision, microloans and loans, disaster assistance, and data collection programs. This bill provides assistance to many veterans who have the skills, talent and motivation to successfully own and operate small businesses but may not have the right connections or the ability to hire consultants. This bill is a means by which the federal government can help veterans help themselves. Veterans have fought and sacrificed to protect the United States and the freedoms Americans cherish. Veterans' programs such as this provide us, in a small way, the capability to repay those veterans for their extraordinary contributions to our nation. These veterans have already given so much to our country and many of them want to contribute even more by starting small businesses. I believe we owe it to them to do everything we can to help them in these endeavors. Accordingly, I am proud to join The American Legion, the Disabled Veterans Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the many other military and veteran service organizations in support of this bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address provisions included in this amendment on behalf of Senators Ashcroft, Kyl, and myself. These provisions concern external review of denial of coverage. In my view, they will improve the underlying Republican proposal in several important respects. Mr. President, I believe the Republican proposal takes the steps necessary to ensure that every American has access to high quality medical care. In my view, the overriding goal of this legislation is to empower patients and their physicians. By putting medical considerations first, we will protect patients against arbitrary actions by health care bureaucrats. Republicans have put in place an external review procedure which will guarantee a patient's right to appeal adverse decisions by providers and to receive the care he or she deserves. The purpose of an external review is to ensure that an unbiased, medical opinion can be offered when coverage has been denied on the basis of medical necessity and appropriateness or because a treatment is considered experimental. The changes contained in this amendment will guarantee an unbiased, timely and appropriate decision and I believe they will help ensure that the external review process works effectively. In particular, I would like to focus on three changes which resolve issues that were brought to my attention by the Michigan State Medical Society: First, we clarify that appeals which are considered emergencies be made with the expediency necessary for the emergency, but in no case should the emergency decision take longer than 72 hours. This clarifying language ensures that decisions are made in an expedient fashion, especially in case of emergencies. Second, the amendment language clarifies that the independent, external reviewer shall be a physician in the same specialty area dictated by the case in question. This only makes sense, Mr. President, and I appreciate the sponsors willingness to clarify the language in this regard. Third, in the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, the independent external reviewer must take into consideration several factors in making his or her final decision. Some of those factors include: Any evidence-based decision making or clinical practice guidelines used by the group health plan or health insurance issuer; timely evidence or information submitted by the plan, issuer, patient or patient's physician; the patient's medical record; and expert consensus and medical literature. This amendment clarifies that expert consensus includes both generally accepted medical practice and recognized best practice. Senators Kyl and Ashcroft have also included other provisions to tighten the external appeal process which I support. I note my full support for these provisions and ask my colleagues to support them as well.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address the importance of the high-tech industry for working families in America, and in my state in particular, and to set out what I believe should be the high- tech agenda for this body in the coming months. Employment in our high-technology sector is vast and growing. According to the American Electronics Association, about 4,825,000 Americans were employed in the high-tech sector during 1998. That reflects a net increase of 852,000 jobs since 1990. And these jobs pay very well. The average high-tech worker in 1997 made over $53,000 per year--a 19% increase over the levels of 1990. My state of Michigan is playing an important part in the expansion of high-tech industry in America. Ann Arbor has among the largest concentrations of high-technology firms and employees in the nation. The University of Michigan is a leader in this field, and we have integrated cutting edge technology throughout our manufacturing and services sectors. As of 1997, 96,000 Michiganians were employed in high-tech jobs. The total payroll for these Michigan workers reaches $4.5 billion annually, and the average employee makes an impressive $46,761 per year. High-tech is of critical importance to my state. In addition to those who are directly employed in this sector, thousands of others depend on the health of our high-tech industry for their livelihood. Just as an example, 21 percent of Michigan's total exports consist of high-tech goods. Clearly, whether in international trade, automobile manufacturing, mining, financial services, or communications, Michigan's workers depend on a healthy high-tech industry in our state. And the same goes for America, Mr. President. The internet is transforming the way we do business. Electronic or ``E'' commerce between businesses has grown to an estimated $64.8 billion for 1999. 10 million customers shopped for some product using the internet in 1998 alone. International Data Corporation estimates that $31 billion in products will be sold over the Internet in 1999. And 5.3 million households will have access to financial transactions like banking and stock trading by the end of 1999. All this means that our economy, and its ability to provide high paying jobs for American workers, is increasingly wrapped up in high- tech. Indeed, our nation's competitive edge in the global marketplace rests squarely on our expertise in the high-tech sector. We must maintain a healthy high-tech sector if we are to maintain a healthy, growing economy. This is not special pleading for one industry, Mr. President. It is a simple recognition of the fact that computer technology is an integral part of numerous industries important to the workers of this country. That being the case, it is in my view critical that we secure the health and vitality of the high-tech sector through policies that encourage investment and competition. In my view it also is critical that we empower more Americans to take part in the economic improvements made possible by high-tech through proper training and education. Entrepreneurs and workers have made our high-tech sector a success already. That means that Washington's first duty is to do no harm. The federal government must maintain a hands-off policy, refusing to lay extra taxes and regulations on the people creating jobs and wealth through technology. But in one area in particular decisive action is required. We have all heard, Mr. President, about the impending year 2000 or ``Y2K'' computer problem. Because most computers have been programmed to recognize only the last two digits of a given year, for example assuming the number 69 to refer to 1969, the year 2000 will bring with it many potential problems. Computers that have not been re-programmed to register the new century may assume, come next January 1, that we have entered the year 1900. The results may be minor, or they may include computer malfunctions affecting manufacturing, transportation, water supplies and even medical care. Clearly such a result would be in no one's interest. Whether large or small, and whether producers or users of computer systems, all businesses have a stake in making the computer transition to the 21st century as smooth as possible. But, as in so many other areas of our lives, progress in dealing with the Y2K problem is being slowed because companies are afraid that acting at this time will simply expose them to big-budget lawsuits. After all, why get involved in a situation that might expose you to expensive litigation? It was to help prevent these problems that I joined a number of my colleagues to sponsor legislation providing incentives for solving technical issues before failures occur, and by encouraging effective resolution of Y2K problems when they do occur. This legislation, which the administration has finally signed into law, contains several provisions that would encourage parties to avoid litigation in dealing with the Y2K problem. In addition, Mr. President, this legislation contains provisions to prevent unwarranted, profit- seeking lawsuits from exacerbating any Y2K problem, provisions making sure that only real damages are compensated and only truly responsible parties are made defendants in any Y2K lawsuit. Quick action is needed, in my view, to prevent the Y2K problem from becoming a disaster. It is a matter of simple common sense that we establish rational legal rules to encourage cooperation and repair rather than conflict and lawsuits in dealing with Y2K. Indeed, for my part, Mr. President, I have made no secret of my desire to apply common sense rules, encouraging cooperation rather than conflict, to our legal system as a whole. I would view our response to the Y2K problem as really an extension of the idea of common sense legal reform to the high-tech arena. High-technology related commerce, and commerce over the internet in particular, is subject to the same dangers as other forms of commerce. And that means government must make certain that the basic protections needed to make commerce possible are applied to the high-tech sector. In particular, we should keep in mind that commerce is possible only if all parties can be assured that their property will be respected and protected from theft. I have introduced the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act to combat a new form of fraud that is increasing dangers and costs for people doing business on the internet. The culprit is ``cybersquatting,'' a practice whereby individuals reserve internet domain names similar or identical to companies' trademark names. Some of these sites broadcast pornographic images. Others advertise merchandise and services unrelated to the trademarked name. Still others have been purchased solely for the purpose of forcing the trademark owners to purchase them at highly inflated prices. All of them pollute the internet, undermine consumer confidence and dilute the value of valid trademarks. Trademark law is based on the recognition that companies and individuals build a property right in brand names because of the reasonable expectations they raise among consumers. If you order a Compaq or a DEC computer, that should mean that you get a computer made by Compaq or DEC, not one built by a fly-by-night company pirating the name. The same goes for trademarks on the Internet. And if it doesn't, if anyone can just come along and take over a brand name, then commerce will suffer. If anyone who wants to steal your product can do so with impunity, then you won't be in business for long. If anyone who wants to steal company trademarks for use on the internet can do so with impunity, then the internet itself will lose its value as a marketplace and people will stop using it for e-commerce. It's really as simple as that. We must, in my view, extend the basic property rights protections so central to the purpose of government, to the realm of e-commerce. I have argued, Mr. President, that we must extend the basic, structural rules and protections of commerce to the high-tech arena. To be successful this effort requires recognition of the need for reasoned innovation. If they are to continue fulfilling their vital function of protecting commerce, pre-existing rules must be modified at times to meet the challenges of new technologies. Nowhere is this more true than in the instance of electronic signatures. Secure electronic authentication methods, or electronic signatures,'' can allow organizations to enter into contracts without having to drive across town or fly thousands of miles for personal meetings--or wait for papers to make several trips through the mail. They can allow individuals to positively identify the person with whom they are transacting business and to ensure that shared information has not been tampered with. Electronic signatures are highly controlled and are far more secure than manual signatures. They cannot be forged in the same, relatively easy way as manual signatures. Electronic signatures are verifiable and become invalid if any of the data in the electronic document is altered or deleted. They can make e-commerce the safest as well as the most convenient commerce available. We made great strides in this Congress toward expanding the use of electronic signatures with the Abraham Government Paperwork Elimination Act. That legislation requires federal agencies to make versions of their forms available online and to allow people to submit those forms with electronic signatures instead of handwritten ones. It also set up a process by which commercially developed electronic signatures can be used in submitting forms to the government, and federal documents could be stored electronically. By providing individuals and companies with the option of electronic filing and storage, this legislation will reduce the paperwork burden imposed by government on the American people and the American economy. It also will spur electronic innovation. But more must be done, particularly in the area of electronic signatures, to establish a uniform framework within which innovation can be pursued. More than 40 states have adopted rules governing the use of electronic signatures. But no two states have adopted the same approach. This means that, at present, the greatest barrier to the use of electronic signatures is the lack of a consistent and predictable national framework of rules. Individuals and organizations are not willing to rely on electronic signatures when they cannot be sure that they will be held valid. I have joined with my colleagues, Senators McCain and Wyden, to author the Millennium Digital Commerce Act. This legislation, which was recently passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee, will ensure that individuals and organizations in different states are held to their agreements and obligations even if their respective states have different rules concerning electronically signed documents. It provides that electronic records produced in executing a digital contract shall not be denied legal effect solely because they were entered into over the Internet or any other computer network. This will provide uniform treatment of electronic signatures in all the states until such time as they enact uniform legislation on their own. Our bill also lets the parties who enter into a contract determine, through that contract, what technologies and business methods they will use to execute it. This will give those involved in the transaction the power to decide for themselves how to allocate liability and fees as well as registration and certification requirements. In essence, this legislation empowers individuals and companies involved in e-commerce to decide for themselves whether and how to use the new technology of electronic signatures. It will encourage further growth in this area by extending the power of the contracting parties to define the terms of their own agreements. And another piece of legislation, the Electronic Securities Transaction Act will remove a specific barrier in the law that is slowing the growth of online commerce in the area of securities trading. As the law now stands, Mr. President, anyone wishing to do business with an online trading company must request or download application materials and physically sign them, then wait for some form of surface mail system to deliver the forms before conducting any trading. Such rules cause unneeded delays and will be eliminated by this legislation. Control over their agreements is crucial to allowing companies and individuals to conduct commerce in and through the means of high- technology. But we must do more to ensure the continued growth of high- tech commerce. Perhaps most important, we must make certain that companies involved in high-tech can find properly trained people to work for them. During the last session of Congress I sponsored the American Competitiveness Act. This legislation, since signed into law, provides for a limited increase in the number of highly skilled foreign-born workers who can come to this country on temporary worker visas. It also provides for scholarships to students who elect to study in areas important for the high-tech industry, including computers, math and science. In my view we should build on the American Competitiveness Act by extending training and educational assistance to the millions of elementary and secondary school children who can and should become the high-tech workers of tomorrow. It is projected that 60 percent of all jobs will require high-tech computer skills by the year 2000. But 32 percent of our public schools have only one classroom with access to the Internet. The Educational Testing Service reports that, on average, in 1997 there was only one multi-media computer for every 24 students in America. That makes the line to use a school computer five times longer than the Education Department says it should be. Not only do our classrooms have too few computers, the few computers they do have are so old and outdated that they cannot run the most basic of today's software programs and cannot even access the Internet. One of the more common computers in our schools today is the Apple IIc, a model so archaic it is now on display at the Smithsonian. The federal government recently attempted to rectify this situation, with little success. The 21st Century Classrooms Act of 1997 allows businesses to take a deduction for donating computer technology, equipment and software. Unfortunately, that deduction was small and businesses had difficulty qualifying for it. Thus the Detwiler Foundation, a leading clearinghouse for computer-to-school donations, reports that they have not witnessed the anticipated increase in donation activity'' since its enactment. I strongly believe that we must change that. That is why I have joined with Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to offer the New Millennium Classrooms Act. This legislation will increase the amount of computer technology donated to schools, helping our kids prepare for the high- tech jobs of the future. The earlier tax deduction failed to produce donations because it was too narrowly drawn. It allowed only a limited deduction (one half the fair market value of the computer). It also applied this deduction only to computers less than two years old. And only the original user of the computer could donate it to the school. Under the New Millennium Classrooms Act, however, businesses will be able to choose either the old deduction or a tax credit of up to 30 percent of the computer's fair market value, whichever reduces their taxes most. Businesses donating computers to schools located in empowerment zones, enterprise communities and Indian reservations would be eligible for a 50 percent tax credit because they are bringing computers to those who need them most. In addition, the New Millennium Classrooms Act would eliminate the two year age limit. After all, many computers more than two years old today have Pentium-chip technology and can run programs advanced enough to be extremely useful in the classroom. Finally, the new legislation would let companies that lease computers to other users donate those computers once they are handed in. These provisions will expand the availability of useful computers to our schools. They will allow our classrooms to become real places of high-tech learning, preparing our children for the challenges of the future and providing our economy with the skilled workers we need to keep us prosperous and moving ahead. They are an important part of an overall high-tech agenda that emphasizes expanding opportunities for all Americans. Of course we must do more. We must extend the Research and Development tax credit so important to high-tech innovation. We must extend the 3 year moratorium on any taxing of the internet. We must update our encryption laws so that American companies can compete overseas and provide consumers with state-of-the-art protection for their e-commerce. We must increase high-speed internet access. I will work to support each and every one of these reforms. Mr. President, these are some of the legislative initiatives a number of my colleagues and I are working on to ensure the future of high-tech growth in this country. It is an important agenda because high-tech is an important sector of our economy. I hope members of both houses of Congress and the Administration will recognize the need to support this agenda so that American workers can continue to prosper.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Perhaps the Senator could direct the question to somebody who voted on the other side of that issue yesterday.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In general principle, I believe that these areas in which the Federal Government has not chosen to oversee, where the scope has already been provided to States to address--in my State, very aggressively--that we shouldn't preempt the significant progress that has been made in Michigan. I don't want to come to the floor to wipe out what I consider to be very effective patients' rights laws that my State has passed, which a scope amendment that would cover every single plan in every setting would have done in my State. There may be Members who have States that are in various ways deficient and ineffective. They may want to supersede what they have done. But this Senator chose not to, at least with respect to my State.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Obviously, a number of people have worked in this area of breast cancer treatment. I believe Senator Snowe, who has been the foremost leader on this in the Senate on working on this issue, will probably comment on this as well. We are attempting to work on getting legislation which she has spearheaded in the Senate into this bill. I have no idea what other Senators may come to this floor with, with regard to other forms of cancer or other types of diseases or other types of treatment. They may well come here with such areas that are specialty areas and offer similar amendments. I would defer to them to do that. This is an area we are working on which we think, in fact, is justified in this respect and which is consistent with last year's amendment on reconstructive surgery.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I think I will be finished in that time frame. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the Snowe amendment substantively at this point. As I have a number of times over the past few years, I rise to join her in sponsoring an amendment to address the incidence of breast cancer in this Nation. This year alone, 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Yet, in this Nation of vast medical resources a number of those women are being denied the best health care available. It is time we did something about it. I have made increasing awareness and funding for breast cancer research a central part of my agenda since coming to the US Senate. That is why I have fully supported the efforts of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, the Race for the Cure, and WeCan. This last organization, which stands for ``We Encourage Cancer Awareness Network,'' brings together people we are interested in cancer control and prevention in Michigan, with a focus on breast and cervical cancer. Awarness is important. Breast cancer survival rates are much higher when the disease is diagnosed early. That is why I have participated in a number of campaigns aimed at encouraging women to have regular mammograms. It also is why I fought the National Cancer Institute's short-lived recommendation against all women in their forties getting mammograms. As I said, awareness is critical. But it is not enough. Research also is desperately needed to fight this deadly disease. That is why I have supported Defense Department research in this area and cosponsored an amendment to the Treasury-General Government appropriations bill in 1997 to authorize creation of a new stamp to fund breast cancer research. Like awareness, research is critical. And like awareness, research is not enough. Women must be empowered to make the best use possible of existing research and technologies in fighting breast cancer. And that means putting health care decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, which my colleague and I are offering as an amendment to the underlying bill, would empower women; it would help them take charge of their own medical care during the time of crisis surrounding a breast cancer diagnosis. Our amendment would require all--and I mean every--group health plan to cover inpatient care following a mastectomy, lumpectomy, or lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer. The length of stay would be determined by the physician, in consultation with the patient, and would be based solely on what is necessary and appropriate for that patient. There would be no minimum stay required, and outpatient treatment would also be covered if the patient and her doctor agree that that is the best course. Under current law, insurers may have guidelines recommending that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. But a mastectomy is, in fact, a complicated surgical procedure, one from which significant complications can arise. Under these circumstances, sending a woman home immediately after a mastectomy may not be the right thing to do. The woman may not have the information she needs, or even the care she needs during this critical time. We must see to it that doctors are not pressured by health plans to release mastectomy patients before it is medically appropriate. Women suffer immense emotional trauma from mastectomies. They also suffer from scarring and may suffer from significant and even dangerous complications hours after surgery. It simply is not appropriate, then, to have anyone other than the patient and her physician deciding when it is safe and proper for her to go home. Our amendment does just that. It allows patients and their physicians to make the critical, life-changing decisions concerning how to treat breast cancer. In addition to these provisions, our amendment would help patients diagnosed with cancers of all kinds by empowering them to seek second opinions. Under the language of this amendment, patients diagnosed with any form of cancer by their primary care physician would be able to get a secondary consultation with a specialist. Group health plans would be required to include coverage for these visits. Even if the specialist finds no cancer, the health plan would be required to cover that visit. And members of HMOs will still be covered if they go outside the HMO for their secondary consultation. These provisions will defend a patient's right to a second opinion in addressing a cancer diagnosis. In a nation with the vast health care resources of our country, there simply is no excuse for not allowing patients to seek an independent second opinion when dealing with a cancer diagnosis. This amendment would place these key health care decisions in the hands of patients and their physicians. It will put the priority back on patient care, where it belongs. It is an important element of our ongoing fight against cancer, and breast cancer in particular. I urge my colleagues to lend their support for this important amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I voted yesterday, when we had the issue of medical necessity.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Which standard is that?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will answer with respect to this--would it be on your time?

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is how I voted yesterday.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is how I voted yesterday. So perhaps the Senator should ask somebody who voted against it yesterday.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the newly elected President of the American Osteopathic Association, Dr. Eugene Oliveri. Dr. Oliveri is a prominent leader in the practice of osteopathic medicine. Throughout his career, he has maintained the strongest of commitments to the highest level of medical standards. From his early days as an undergraduate at Brooklyn College in new York, Dr. Oliveri has distinguished himself for his extensive knowledge and tireless support of osteopathy. Dedicated to helping others, Dr. Oliveri took two years off from his personal studies to work in the U.S. Army Medical Corps. Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Oliveri has raised three wonderful children: Gregory, Lisa, and Michelle. Dr. Oliveri serves on numerous professional boards, and is currently practicing at Botsford General Hospital in Farmington Hills, Michigan, as the senior member of the Department of Internal Medicine. He also serves as a director of a fellowship program and chairman of a section of Gastroenterology at Botsford Hospital. Most recently, he has also served as a Vice-Chairman for the American Osteopathic Association. Dr. Oliveri's experience and renowned leadership capabilities make him well suited for this exciting new challenge. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Dr. Oliveri on this tremendous honor. I am confident that the American Osteopathic Association will be well served during his tenure as President.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, within the next several weeks, the Senate will debate an issue of extreme importance to the future of our economy--whether and in what manner to return nearly $800 billion in tax relief to the American people over the next ten years. I strongly support this tax cut. I believe we owe it to the American people, who after all provided the hard work that produced our current surpluses. I also believe that these surpluses provide us with a unique opportunity to reduce and simplify our current onerous, Byzantine tax code. Finally, and most important for my purposes here today, we now have an important opportunity to target and encourage further saving and investment. To keep our economy growing and our budget balanced, we must do more to encourage saving and investment. Therefore, it is my view that part of the tax cut should be crafted following an innovative concept called Individual Development Accounts or IDAs. IDAs are emerging as one of the most promising tools to help low income working families save money, build wealth, and achieve economic independence. This pro-asset building idea is designed to reward the monthly savings of working-poor families who are trying to buy their first home, pay for post-secondary education, or start a small business. The reward or incentive can be provided through the use of tax credits to financial institutions that provide matching contributions to savings deposited by low income people. In this way those savings will accumulate more quickly, building assets and further incentives to save. I believe so strongly in the many benefits that IDAs can provide to low income families that I have cosponsored S. 895, the Savings for Working Families Act written by my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Santorum. Similar to 401(k) plans, IDAs will make it easier for low income families to build the financial assets they need to achieve their economic goals. But availability is not enough. We also must empower the working poor in America to make use of this important economic tool. That is why a second key component of the IDA concept consists of financial education and counseling services to IDA account- holders. These services will allow IDA users to further improve their ability to save and improve their quality of life. Let me briefly outline the four key reasons why I believe the IDA concept is so crucial to a well-crafted tax cut. First, asset building is crucial to the long-term health and well being of low income families. Assets not only provide an economic cushion and enable people to make investments in their futures, they also provide a psychological orientation--toward the future, about one's children, about having a stake in the community--that income alone cannot provide. Put simply, families that fail to save fail to move up the ladder of economic success and well-being. Unfortunately, saving strategies have been ignored in the poverty assistance programs established over the past 35 years. IDAs will fill this critical gap in our social policy. Second, our great Nation needs to address the wealth gap, and bring more people into the financial mainstream. While there has been considerable attention given to the income cap among our citizens, I wonder how many Americans realize that ten percent of the families control two-thirds of our Nation's wealth or that one-half of all American households have less that $1,000 in net financial assets, or that 20 percent of all American households do not have a checking or a savings account? Current Federal tax policy provides more than $300 billion per year in incentives for middle-class and wealthy families to purchase housing, prepare for retirement, and invest in businesses and job creation. Yet, public policies have largely penalized low income people who try to save and build assets and savings incentives in the tax code are beyond their reach. It is time for us to find ways to expand these tax incentives so that they can reach low income families who want to work and save. Third, IDAs are a good national investment, yielding over $5 for every $1 invested. According to the Corporation for Enterprise Development or CFED, the initial investment in IDAs would be multiplied more than five times in the form of new businesses, new jobs, increased earnings, higher tax receipts, and reduced welfare expenditures. And these increases will come from genuinely new asset development. Savings will be produced that could not have been produced by other, more general means, and in areas where there were no savings before. Finally, IDAs have a successful track record we should not ignore. IDAs are working now in our communities and they are having a tremendous effect on families who choose to save for the future. There are already 150 active IDA programs around the country, with at least another 100 in development. Approximately 3,000 people are regularly saving in their IDAs. The CFED has compiled encouraging evidence from their IDA pilot programs showing that poor people, with proper incentives and support will save regularly and acquire productive assets. There are almost 1,000 families participating in CFEDs privately funded IDA demonstration and as of December 31, 1998 these families saved over $165,000, an amount which leveraged another $343,000 in matching funds. IDAs are already a tremendous success. But, unless additional resources can be found to provide the matching contributions so essential for IDAs to succeed, most low income families will never have the opportunity to save and build assets for the future. The major factor in delaying the creation of IDAs in the 100 communities mentioned above is the lack of a funding source that can provide the needed matching contributions. Our tax cut bill will and should provide nearly $800 billion in tax cuts over the next ten years. I believe that, within this bill, we should make a small investment of only $5- $10 billion in IDAs. This would ensure that millions of working, low income families who want to work and save for their first home, provide a post-secondary education for a child, or start a small business could establish their own IDA accounts. I strongly encourage the Senate Finance Committee to look closely at IDAs as a means of helping low income families build the financial assets they need to achieve the American Dream.