Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to honor an outstanding individual, Mother Geraldine Marvel Miller Wright, on the occasion of her birthday on Sunday, February 28, 1999. Mother Geraldine Wright, the wife of one of the nation's most prominent Bishops, the Bishop Earl J. Wright, Sr., the mother of three children, Earl Jr., Michael and Marvie; has learned how to labor in the ministry standing beside her husband and helping him in the work. This task is not new to Mother Wright--her lineage is made up of a host of leaders. Her father was a Bishop, her brother is a Bishop, and she has a brother-in-law who is also a Bishop. Mother Geraldine Wright is an extraordinary example of what one can achieve through tenacity and a giving and loving heart. Through her love for God, family, church, and others, Mother Wright has made an impact in the lives of many hurting people. She untiringly stands by her husband's side, she visits and ministers to the sick, encourages others, helps others, gives to others, prays for others, but most of all, she is a trainer and builder of others. Training individuals to love God and work for the Lord seems to be one very important aspect of her calling. Along with being the First Lady and Director of the Women's Department of Greater Miller Memorial Church of God in Christ and the Davis Memorial Church of God in Christ, Mother Wright is also a District Missionary in the New Creation District of the Second Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Southwest Michigan. She is the Founder of the Geraldine Marvel Miller Wright Institute for Women in the Ministry, which is one of Mother Wright's most outstanding accomplishments. This Institute serves as a catalyst of change in the lives of many young women who have dedicated their lives to the service and calling of the Lord Jesus Christ. Proverbs 31:28-30 sums up Mother Geraldine Wright best. It reads as follows: Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own words praise her in the gates. So let it be known on this day, Sunday, February 28, 1999, that Mother Geraldine Marvel Miller Wright has been a leader of women and has impacted this nation and world, has left an indelible mark on the history of mankind.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise now in conjunction with the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, and with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, to introduce legislation which will repeal the 1993 increase in the tax on Social Security benefits. As my colleagues are aware, senior citizens pay Federal taxes on a portion of their Social Security benefits if they receive additional income from savings or from work. Before 1993, seniors paid taxes on half their Social Security benefits if their combined income, as it is described--which means their adjusted gross income and one-half the amount of the Social Security benefits they receive--exceeded $25,000 for individuals or $32,000 for couples. Soon after coming into office, however, the new administration increased this tax on these middle-income retirees as part of the 1993 tax bill. For individuals now, after that, with combined incomes exceeding $34,000, and couples with combined incomes exceeding $44,000, the tax increase on the percentage of their Social Security benefits subject to taxation went from 50 percent to 85 percent. This provision increased taxes for nearly one-quarter of Social Security recipients. It in large part produced an increase of 7.5 percent in the tax burden on America's seniors, a tax increase that was more than double the 3.5 percent that the rest of that legislation imposed on other Americans. This tax increase is unfair. It penalizes senior citizens, and it penalizes them for exactly the wrong reason--for saving to achieve security in their retirement. It also unfairly punishes seniors who have the capacity and choose to continue to work. We are engaged, as you know, in an important debate here in Congress, the debate over the future of our Social Security system. Republicans have joined with Democrats in pledging to set aside the entire Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 15 years, to shore up that system, to make certain it is available for the senior citizens both of today and tomorrow. At such a time, with dire warnings of impending bankruptcies still ringing in our ears, it seems the last thing the Federal Government should be doing is to discourage people from work and saving for their retirement. Wise Americans have always saved for their retirement. They have sought to be independent in their old age by working hard and by putting aside a portion of their income. Yet the 1993 tax increase proposed by the President and ultimately passed into law by the Congress changed the rules for these wise savers. After plans and investment decisions had already been made, this proposal came in and declared that savings and hard work would be taxed significantly more heavily than they had been before. As we work to shore up Social Security, we must not allow the Federal Government to punish people for working and saving. We must not allow the Federal Government to tell people they might as well not save for retirement, that they must depend solely on Social Security benefits for their well-being once they retire. What is more, we should not forget that the projected Federal budget surplus over the next 10 years alone is slated to reach approximately $2.565 trillion. We have agreed, wisely in my view, to save the bulk of this surplus to shore up Social Security. But surely, at a time when we foresee at least $787 billion in surpluses in addition to those earmarked for Social Security, the Federal Government can afford, in my judgment, to give seniors and those planning for their retirement the kind of tax relief they need to prepare for their futures and to keep our economy strong. That means, in my view, that we must repeal this onerous tax hike for the sake of our seniors and for the sake of our economy as a whole. Discouraging savings has always been a recipe for economic disaster because it reduces the amount of money available for investment in new jobs and a growing economy. Now is the time to reduce the extent to which Washington discourages savings. It is time to repeal this tax hike so we may increase savings, investment, and the financial security of our senior citizens. Mr. President, this legislation has a simple purpose: It repeals the 1993 ill-considered Social Security tax hike returning our seniors to the position they were in prior to 1993. It restores a modicum of fairness to our Byzantine tax structure and to our dealings with senior citizens. It is important legislation for our seniors, for our Social Security system and for the future of our Nation, and I urge my colleagues' strong support. In short, Mr. President, I think we should do everything possible to make it feasible for seniors, both today and especially in the future, to be able to live in retirement in a comfortable way and to not solely depend on the Social Security system. We know the burdens that system will take. By discouraging savings during people's working years, by discouraging people from continuing to work after they reach retirement age, we are actually, I think, undermining our chances of providing the kind of long-term income security that Americans deserve in their old age. For that reason, we should, in my judgment, repeal this tax hike. We should make that a priority this year, and we should then couple that action with other action aimed at shoring up the Social Security system so it not only works for today's seniors, but for the seniors of our future as well.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Abraham pertaining to the introduction of S. 482 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise now in conjunction with the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, and with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, to introduce legislation which will repeal the 1993 increase in the tax on Social Security benefits. As my colleagues are aware, senior citizens pay Federal taxes on a portion of their Social Security benefits if they receive additional income from savings or from work. Before 1993, seniors paid taxes on half their Social Security benefits if their combined income, as it is described--which means their adjusted gross income and one-half the amount of the Social Security benefits they receive--exceeded $25,000 for individuals or $32,000 for couples. Soon after coming into office, however, the new administration increased this tax on these middle-income retirees as part of the 1993 tax bill. For individuals now, after that, with combined incomes exceeding $34,000, and couples with combined incomes exceeding $44,000, the tax increase on the percentage of their Social Security benefits subject to taxation went from 50 percent to 85 percent. This provision increased taxes for nearly one-quarter of Social Security recipients. It in large part produced an increase of 7.5 percent in the tax burden on America's seniors, a tax increase that was more than double the 3.5 percent that the rest of that legislation imposed on other Americans. This tax increase is unfair. It penalizes senior citizens, and it penalizes them for exactly the wrong reason--for saving to achieve security in their retirement. It also unfairly punishes seniors who have the capacity and choose to continue to work. We are engaged, as you know, in an important debate here in Congress, the debate over the future of our Social Security system. Republicans have joined with Democrats in pledging to set aside the entire Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 15 years, to shore up that system, to make certain it is available for the senior citizens both of today and tomorrow. At such a time, with dire warnings of impending bankruptcies still ringing in our ears, it seems the last thing the Federal Government should be doing is to discourage people from work and saving for their retirement. Wise Americans have always saved for their retirement. They have sought to be independent in their old age by working hard and by putting aside a portion of their income. Yet the 1993 tax increase proposed by the President and ultimately passed into law by the Congress changed the rules for these wise savers. After plans and investment decisions had already been made, this proposal came in and declared that savings and hard work would be taxed significantly more heavily than they had been before. As we work to shore up Social Security, we must not allow the Federal Government to punish people for working and saving. We must not allow the Federal Government to tell people they might as well not save for retirement, that they must depend solely on Social Security benefits for their well-being once they retire. What is more, we should not forget that the projected Federal budget surplus over the next 10 years alone is slated to reach approximately $2.565 trillion. We have agreed, wisely in my view, to save the bulk of this surplus to shore up Social Security. But surely, at a time when we foresee at least $787 billion in surpluses in addition to those earmarked for Social Security, the Federal Government can afford, in my judgment, to give seniors and those planning for their retirement the kind of tax relief they need to prepare for their futures and to keep our economy strong. That means, in my view, that we must repeal this onerous tax hike for the sake of our seniors and for the sake of our economy as a whole. Discouraging savings has always been a recipe for economic disaster because it reduces the amount of money available for investment in new jobs and a growing economy. Now is the time to reduce the extent to which Washington discourages savings. It is time to repeal this tax hike so we may increase savings, investment, and the financial security of our senior citizens. Mr. President, this legislation has a simple purpose: It repeals the 1993 ill-considered Social Security tax hike returning our seniors to the position they were in prior to 1993. It restores a modicum of fairness to our Byzantine tax structure and to our dealings with senior citizens. It is important legislation for our seniors, for our Social Security system and for the future of our Nation, and I urge my colleagues' strong support. In short, Mr. President, I think we should do everything possible to make it feasible for seniors, both today and especially in the future, to be able to live in retirement in a comfortable way and to not solely depend on the Social Security system. We know the burdens that system will take. By discouraging savings during people's working years, by discouraging people from continuing to work after they reach retirement age, we are actually, I think, undermining our chances of providing the kind of long-term income security that Americans deserve in their old age. For that reason, we should, in my judgment, repeal this tax hike. We should make that a priority this year, and we should then couple that action with other action aimed at shoring up the Social Security system so it not only works for today's seniors, but for the seniors of our future as well.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue crucial to the well-being of our troops, and crucial to the defense of our nation. For too long, this administration has ignored the needs of the brave men and women who defend our interests and our shores. This is unfair, and in my view it is unwise. It is unfair that, as our colleague Senator McCain has found, 11,000 military families are currently forced to rely on food stamps to make ends meet. When people put themselves in harm's way for their country, they should not have to go on public assistance to feed their families. It is unwise because it ignores the well-being of our troops. Well- trained, properly motivated troops are the single most important factor in maintaining our national security. Without them we will not be able to achieve and maintain military readiness. We will not be able, as a nation, to fight and win. Under current conditions, Mr. President, we cannot expect to maintain the levels of re-enlistment, expertise and morale we need to maintain an effective military force. Military pay is simply too low. It is not competitive with civilian pay. And this military-civilian pay gap is driving away the people we need to defend our nation. For example, we lost 626 trained pilots in 1997 alone. Overall re- enlistments have been dropping fast. In 1997 fewer than half our troops completing their first tour of duty chose to re-enlist. Mr. President, we cannot fly planes without pilots, just as we cannot deploy ships or tanks or any other military hardware without the soldiers and sailors who make them work. And if we cannot keep well- trained pilots, soldiers and sailors, we will face increased danger to our troops, or weaponry and our interests in any conflict. Mr. President, our men and women in uniform have a history of making do, but we soon will not have enough of them to do the job of defending our nation and our interests in a dangerous world. It is time to give our troops a raise. President Clinton has made a modest proposal on this issue but frankly it is too modest. It is, as they say, a day late and a dollar short. That is why I was happy to join with Senator Warner and 23 other Republicans in introducing the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill Of Rights'' (S. 4). This measure is key to re- establishing the morale, experience and re-enlistment figures we need in our armed forces. This legislation will increase FY 2000 pay by 4.8%. It will further increase pay in those grades where retention is critical. And it will provide a monthly allowance of $180 to all members of the uniformed services eligible for food stamps, eliminating their need to go on public assistance. This legislation also will restore traditional military retirement pay and set up civilian-style thrift savings plans to encourage more men and women to make the military their career. Finally, this legislation will address the increasing trouble our troops face in taking advantage of their GI Bill education benefits. The cost of higher education has skyrocketed, Mr. President, and GI Bill benefits have not kept pace. Thus a growing number of veterans are not making use of their education benefit, even though they have paid $1,200 to get it. To address this situation, S.4 will eliminate the $1,200 contribution requirement. It also will increase the monthly GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 for members who serve at least 3 years, and from $429 to $488 for those serving less than 3 years. We still have the greatest military in the world, Mr. President. I believe that it is time to pay a decent wage and provide decent benefits to the people who keep it that way. This legislation includes a requirement that the Defense Department report annually on the impact of these programs on recruiting and retention, assuring that we can keep track of the needs of our troops. In doing so I am sure they in turn will be better able to see to the needs of their families and of their country. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mary Bucca who is receiving the Outstanding Volunteer Award from the Italian American Cultural Society Senior Group in Warren, Michigan, on March 3, 1999. Mary is a shining example of service above self. She is a Charter Member of the Senior Group which was founded in 1985, and since that time has served as President of the Loggia Yolanda Club, as well as a member of the Seniors Board of Directors, and as a member of the Italian American Cultural Center Board of Directors. In addition, Mary has served as chair and/or committee member of their weekly bingo, dinner dances and many other events. Mary has two children and four grandchildren and will be 80 years young in March of this year. She is known for her tremendous energy and spirit. Through her dedication to family and local community, she has made a tremendous impact by helping others. I want to express my congratulations to Mary Bucca in being awarded the Italian American Cultural Society Senior Group Outstanding Volunteer Award. Most importantly, I would like to thank her for her commitment to helping others. Mary, you truly are an example for others to follow.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my alma mater, Michigan State University, as their basketball program celebrates its centennial season. Over the course of the last century, Spartan basketball has been a tremendous source of pride for the Michigan State student body and its vast alumni network. A splendid representative of the Big Ten conference since 1951, MSU is one of the premier college basketball programs in the nation. MSU basketball has produced 45 NBA draft picks, among them some of the greatest players in the history of the game. The many great teams and coaches that have graced the floor of the Jenison Field House and Breslin Center should be very proud of the tradition of excellence that they have built. The accomplishments of Michigan State's basketball program are tremendous: 15 First-Team All- Americans, seven Big Ten championships, four Big Ten players of the year, 12 NCAA Tournament appearances, and one National Championship. I extend my warmest regards and best wishes to the 1998 National Coach of the Year, Tom Izzo, and all current Spartan players. I also applaud all past coaches, players, and supporters of Spartan Basketball's first one hundred years. I hope the next century is as exciting and successful as the first.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the resolution before the Senate today requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative postage stamp for the 100th anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States will honor our veterans who have so courageously fought in every war, conflict, police action, and military intervention since the Spanish-American War in 1899. Members of the VFW have helped millions of veterans secure the education, disability compensation, pension, and health care benefits that veterans are rightfully entitled to receive as a result of their military service. With over 2 million members the VFW has also been deeply involved in community service projects designed to encourage service in the local community benefiting education, the environment, health services, civic pride, and community betterment. For example, the VFW's Voice of Democracy essay competition provides over $2.7 million in college scholarships annually to promising young students. The VFW's Safety Program conducts programs in home, auto, and bicycle safety, as well as programs dealing with drug awareness and substance abuse. Clearly, the VFW with over 10,000 posts continues to make valuable and significant contributions to our communities across the country. In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the VFW I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to commemorate our veterans for their service.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with 14 of my Colleagues, including the Chairmen of the Senate Small Business, Commerce, Government Affairs and Budget Committees, as well as the Majority Leader, in introducing vital legislation in protecting our nation's businesses from ill-thought government mandates, The Mandates Information Act of 1999. This bill in my view furthers the cause of careful deliberation in this, the greatest deliberative body in the world. It will force Members of Congress to carefully consider all aspects of potential legislation containing mandates affecting consumers, workers, and small businesses. We have been working towards final passage of this bill for quite some time, Mr. President, as we introduced very similar legislation in the last Congress. I wish to thank Chairmen Thompson and Domenici for their tireless leadership in shepherding this through their two Committees last Congress. I am only sorry we did not have sufficient time to bring it to the floor before adjournment. With their support and leadership in this Congress, I believe we can bring it to the floor for quick consideration and move to Conference with the House. And too it is the House that I also wish to extend my thanks and respect. Under the careful leadership of Representatives Portman and Condit, and the very helpful support of the Speaker, the House version of the Mandates Information Act, H.R. 350, easily passed the House on Wednesday with a broad, bipartisan majority of 274 to 194. Their conscientious sponsorship of the bill allowed it to quickly pass through Committee, and to avoid being watered down by unneeded amendments. I offer my thanks and respect for their efforts. Mr. President, this is not a new idea, but one that builds upon the important work of the 104th Congress when we passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That legislation required the Congressional Budget Office to make two key estimates with respect to any bill reported out of committee: First, whether the bill contains intergovernmental mandates with an annual cost of $50 million or more; and, second, whether the bill contains private sector mandates with an annual cost of $100 million or more. The 1995 act also established a point of order against bills meeting the $50 million cost threshold for intergovernmental mandates. Although the point of order can be waived by a simple majority vote, it encourages Congress to think carefully before imposing new intergovernmental mandates. The 1995 act did not apply its point of order to private sector mandates. This was understandable, given the bill's focus on intergovernmental mandates. But States and localities are not alone in being affected by Federal mandates. Consumers, workers, and small businesses also are affected when the Federal Government passes along the costs of its policies. This is why the Mandates Information Act of 1997 will apply a point of order to bills meeting the $100 million cost threshold for private sector mandates, while also directing the CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of committee. These reforms are necessary in my view, Mr. President, because the 1995 Act, while effective in its chosen sphere of intergovernmental mandates, does not contain the necessary mechanisms to force Congress to think seriously about the wisdom of proposed mandates on the private sector. This leaves our private sector faced with the same dilemma once faced by our States and localities: Congress does not give full consideration to the costs its mandates impose. Focusing almost exclusively on the benefits of unfunded mandates, Congress pays little heed to, and sometimes seems unaware of, the burden that unfunded mandates impose on the very groups they are supposed to help. Unfunded mandate costs by definition do not show up on Congress' balance ledger. But, as President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has written, ``[t]here is no sense in which benefits become `free' just because the government mandates'' them. Congress has merely passed the costs on to someone else. And that ``someone'' is the American people. As economists from Princeton's Alan Krueger to John Holohan, Colin Winterbottom, and Sheila Zedlewski of the Urban Institute agree, the costs of unfunded mandates on the private sector are primarily borne by three groups: consumers, workers, and small businesses. What forms do these costs take? For consumers, mandate costs take the form of higher prices for goods and services, as unfunded mandates drive up the cost of labor. For workers, the costs of unfunded mandates often take the form of significantly lower wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, a range of independent studies indicates that some 88 percent of the cost of private sector mandates are shifted to workers in the form of lower wages. And mandates can cause workers to lose their jobs altogether. Faced with uncontrollable increases in employee costs, our job creators too often find that they can no longer afford to retain their full complement of workers. The Clinton health care mandate, for example, would have resulted in a net loss of between 200,000-500,000 jobs, according to a study conducted by Professor Krueger. Small businesses and their potential employees also suffer. Mandates typically apply only to businesses with at least a certain number of employees. As a result, small businesses have a powerful incentive not to hire enough new workers to reach the mandate threshold. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ``The point at which a new [mandate] kicks in * * * is the point at which the [Chief Financial Officer] asks `Why grow?' '' That question is asked by small businesses all over the country, but let me cite one example from my State. Hasselbring/Clark is an office equipment supplier in Lansing, MI. Noelle Clark is the firm's treasurer and secretary. Mindful of the raft of mandates whose threshold is 50 employees, Ms. Clark reports that lately ``we have hired a few temps to stay under 49.'' Thus, unfunded mandates not only eliminate jobs, but also prevent jobs from being created. Much as Members of Congress may wish it were not so, mandates have a very real cost. This does not mean that all mandates are bad. But it does mean that Congress should think very carefully about the wisdom of a proposed mandate before imposing it. Such careful thinking, Mr. President, is the goal of the Mandates Information Act of 1999. Just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 protects State and local governments from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed intergovernmental mandates, the Mandates Information Act would protect consumers, workers, and small businesses from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed private sector mandates. It would do so, in essence, by extending the reforms of the 1995 act to private sector mandates. The bill I introduce today would build on the 1995 act's reforms in two ways. First, to give Congress more complete information about the impact of proposed mandates on the private sector, my bill directs CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of Committee. This statement would include analyses of the bill's private sector mandates' effects on the following: First, consumer prices and [the] actual supply of goods and services in consumer markets; second, worker wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and third, the hiring practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees. But providing Congress with more complete information about the impact of proposed private sector mandates will not guarantee that it pays any attention to it. This we know from experience. In 1981, Congress enacted the State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act, sponsored by Senator Sasser. Pursuant to that act, CBO provided Congress with estimates of the cost of intergovernmental mandates in bills reported out of committee. But Congress routinely ignored this information. It did so because the 1981 act had no enforcement mechanism to force Congress to consider the CBO estimates. As Senator Sasser himself explained in introducing a follow-up bill in 1993, ``[t]he problem [with the 1981 act], it has become clear, is that this yellow caution light has no red light to back it up.'' To supply that ``red light,'' Senator Sasser's Mandate Funding Act of 1993 contained a point of order. Of course, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 likewise contained a point of order, which is why it succeeded where Senator Sasser's 1981 act had failed. The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide this red light for proposed private sector mandates. It contains a point of order against any bill whose direct private sector mandates exceed the $100 million threshold set by the 1995 act. Like the 1995 act's point of order against intergovernmental mandates, the 1997 bill's point of order can be waived by a simple majority of Members. Thus it will not stop Congress from passing bills it wants to pass. It is here, Mr. President, that I wish to thank Chairman Thompson and Domenici for the excellent revisions of the mandates language offered during the Government Affairs mark-up of the Mandates Information Act of 1997. We have incorporated those changes in this bill and believe they greatly strengthen the legislation, including making it very clear that the point of order only applies to direct mandates upon the private sector that exceed $100 million. It is that point of order which will serve the vital purpose to ensure Congress does not ignore the information contained in the Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement. It will do so by allowing any Member to focus the attention of the entire House or Senate on the impact statement for a particular bill. The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide Congress with more complete information about proposed mandates' effects on consumers, workers, and small businesses. It will also ensure that Congress actually considers this information before reaching a judgment about whether to impose a new mandate. The result, Mr. President, will be focused, high-quality deliberation on the wisdom of private sector mandates. Because of the success of the 1995 act, Congress is now much more careful to consider the interests of State and local governments in making decisions about unfunded mandates. But Congress must be just as careful to consider the interests of consumers, workers, and small businesses in making such decisions. This bill will ensure that care, helping produce better legislation; legislation that imposes a lighter burden on working Americans. Mr. President, I will include in the Record the following sample of letters from small business groups supporting the bill along with a list of groups that have expressed their support for it. Mr. President, the support for this legislation is broad and deep. It is needed to protect our small businesses against mandates which have not been fully analyzed and which harm these businesses in ways that Congress may never have intended. But, Mr. President, I believe they can best argue for the need for this bill. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation, and to move it through Committee and to the floor as quickly as possible. It is necessary, it is wise, and it is fair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation as well as a section-by-section summary of the bill, a list of groups in support of the bill, letters of support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Survival Committee and the Competitive Enterprise Institute also be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. In light of our time constraints, I would like to focus my remarks today primarily on the one issue--more than any other--that has arisen during our deliberations: namely, whether the President should be convicted if we find he committed the acts alleged in the Articles. I believe this issue is not only central to the case at hand, it is also central to all future evaluations and applications of what we do here. In arguing for the President, White House lawyers have asserted that the threshold for Presidential removal must be very high--and I agree. At the same time, however, we must remember that there is an inverse relationship between the level at which we set the removal bar and the degree of Presidential misconduct we will accept. So, then, where do we set the bar? As we know, the Constitution says: The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Now it has been suggested by some that a ``high Crime'' must be a truly heinous crime. But that interpretation is obviously wrong. Treason is certainly among the most heinous crimes. But bribery is not. Taking a bribe, like treason, is however, a uniquely serious act of misconduct by a public official. That suggests a different meaning for ``high Crime,'' one that is linked somehow to the fact that the person committing it holds public office. Alexander Hamilton's comment about the impeachment power, quoted by so many of us here, provides the clue. In Federalist 65, Hamilton says: ``The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the violation of some public trust.'' The President's lawyers invoked this line, but in my view they misread it. They argued that what it means is that a President's conduct must involve misuse of official power if he is to be removed from office. But that is not what the Constitution demands, or what Hamilton's comment, fairly read, suggests. Otherwise, as has been noted, we would have to leave in office a President or a federal judge who committed murder, so long as they did not use any powers of their office in doing so. Rather, as Hamilton's language connotes, and our own precedents in the judicial impeachment cases confirm, the connection the Constitution requires between an official's actions and functions is a more practical one: the official's conduct must demonstrate that he or she cannot be trusted with the powers of the office in question. This rule certainly encompasses official acts demonstrating unfitness for the office in question--but it also reaches beyond such acts. In my view, we need not determine the outer limits of this principle to decide the question before us today: whether the President's actions, as alleged in these Articles, constitute a violation of a ``public trust'' as Hamilton uses the term. The answer to that question is plain when we consider the President's conduct in relation to his responsibilities. The President's role and status in our system of government are unique. The Constitution vests the executive power in the President, and in the President alone. That means he is the officer chiefly charged with carrying out our laws. Therefore, far more than any federal judge, he holds the scales of justice in his own hands. In the wrong hands, that power can easily be transformed from the power to carry out the laws, into the power to bend them to one's own ends. The very nature of the Presidency guarantees that its occupant will face daily temptations to twist the laws for personal gain, for party benefit or for the advantage of friends. To combat these temptations, the Constitution spells out--in no uncertain terms--that the President shall ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' and the President's oath of office requires him to swear that he will do so. If he obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses in the Jones case, a federal civil rights case in which he was the defendant, the President violated his oath and failed to perform the bedrock duty of his office. He did not faithfully execute the laws. A President who commits these acts thereby makes clear that he cannot be trusted to exercise the executive power lawfully in the future, to handle impartially such specific Presidential responsibilities as serving as the final arbiter on bringing federal civil or criminal cases or determining the content of federal regulations--especially if, as will often be the case, he has a personal or a political interest in the outcome. Surely retaining a President in office under these circumstances constitutes exactly the type of threat to our government and its institutions so many have said must exist for conviction. That brings the President's alleged conduct squarely within the purview of our impeachment power, whose purpose, as described by Hamilton, is to deal with ``the violation of some public trust.'' Furthermore, if the Articles' allegations are true, how can we leave the executive power in the hands of a President who, through his false grand jury testimony, even attempted to obstruct and subvert the impeachment process itself? For this particular grand jury before which the President testified was not only conducting a criminal investigation; it was also charged, under Congressional statute, with advising the House of Representatives as to whether it had received any substantial and credible information that might constitute grounds for impeachment. The framers placed the impeachment power in our Constitution as the ultimate safeguard to address misuse of the executive power. A President who commits perjury, intending to thwart an investigation that might otherwise lead to his impeachment, has, I believe, committed a quintessential ``high Crime.'' Such conduct of necessity impedes, and could even preclude, Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty to prevent the President from usurping power and engaging in unlawful conduct. To permit such behavior would set an unacceptable precedent, because it could, in the future, allow nullification of the impeachment process itself, rendering it meaningless. Hence, a President who acts to subvert what the Framers viewed as the ultimate Constitutional check on abuse of executive power, most certainly violates the public trust as defined by Hamilton. Throughout this discussion I have analyzed this case as though one or more of the underlying counts in each impeachment Article were established. I recognize that not everyone has reached this conclusion--and I confess that I have spent countless hours attempting to make this determination of guilt or innocence on each Article. However, after listening to and studying the evidence, I have concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that the President committed one or more of the acts alleged under each Article. Time does not permit me to fully explain the basis for my conclusions. But, in my view, that is where the evidence inescapably points. In my opinion, there is no way that the President could have testified as he did in his Jones deposition concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, unless he believed Ms. Lewinsky would validate his false statements if called as a witness. The President may not have explicitly told her to lie, but when he called her on December 17, he did say ``You can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.'' To whom did he intend her to say this? They'd already agreed on the use of these cover stories in non-legal contexts. The only new audience was, clearly, the Jones court, and the President's comments that night were surely aimed at influencing Ms. Lewinsky's potential testimony before that court, if she were to be subpoenaed. That this was the President's intent, is confirmed by his own testimony in the Jones case. What did he say when asked if Ms. Lewinsky had come to see him? He said that Ms. Lewinsky had come to visit Betty Currie and perhaps deliver him papers. In my opinion, there is also no way you can refresh your memory by making assertions you know to be false to another person--as the President twice did to Betty Currie after that deposition. No, the purpose of those statements was to cause her to validate the false testimony he had just given, if she were to be subpoenaed. And finally, if you believe that was the President's intention, then you must conclude he committed material perjury later, in his grand jury testimony, when in response to the question: ``You are saying that your only interest in speaking with Ms. Currie in the days after your deposition was to refresh your own recollection?'' he answered with one word: ``Yes.'' And there is more. Fellow Senators, none of us asked for this task, but we must live with the consequences of our actions, not just on this administration, but on our nation for generations to come. That responsibility cannot be shirked. It has led me to a difficult but inexorable decision. I deeply regret that it is necessary for me to conclude that President William Jefferson Clinton committed obstruction of justice and grand jury perjury as charged in the Articles of Impeachment brought by the House, that these are ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under our Constitution, and that therefore I must vote to convict him on these charges. opinion The President has been impeached on the grounds that he obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses in connection with a federal civil rights suit in which he was the defendant, and that he committed perjury before a grand jury charged with investigating whether his previous conduct warranted prosecution or possible impeachment. It is our duty to determine whether the President did what the Articles of impeachment charge and, if so, whether his actions were ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' that under our Constitution should bar him from further service in his office. In considering these questions, I have done my best to imagine that I was deciding them, not about a President of the opposing political party, with whom I disagree on many issues, but about a President of my own party. I have tried to imagine what I would do if confronted with the same evidence concerning a popular Republican President whose policies I strongly supported. I have tried to decide the case before me just as I would the case of such a President. Let me start with the facts. After a great deal of listening, research and contemplation, I am compelled by the evidence to conclude that the President did engage in the conduct charged in both Articles. In reaching this conclusion, I rely exclusively on those elements of the case that I believe have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because I believe these dictate my conclusion, I do not decide whether in an impeachment trial, the Constitution requires application of this highest of evidentiary standards, which governs in ordinary criminal cases, or whether it would also be proper for me to rely on any of the other conduct charged by the House, much of which I might well find proven under either of the lower civil law standards. Let me briefly outline the basis for my conclusions. I will start with the second Article, because the conduct giving rise to it actually occurred first. In my view the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that, for over eleven months, from December 6, 1997 to November 13, 1998, when the President agreed to pay Paula Jones $850,000 to withdraw her sexual harassment lawsuit, the President engaged in a systematic course of obstructing justice and tampering with witnesses in Ms. Jones's case. There is no room for reasonable doubt that as part of this course of conduct the President made statements to Ms. Monica Lewinsky and Ms. Betty Currie that were intended to cause them to validate, through testimony he thought they could well be called upon to give, the false story he was planning to tell or had already told in his own deposition. These statements to Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie constitute the second and sixth Acts of obstruction and witness tampering charged by the House. There is also no room for reasonable doubt that the President supported efforts to conceal gifts he had given to Ms. Lewinsky after those gifts had been subpoenaed as evidence in that case. That constitutes the third act of obstruction charged by the House. As to the first Article: I am convinced that the House has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the President perjured himself before the grand jury in two instances. First, he stated that his only purpose in talking to Ms. Currie in the days following his Jones deposition was to refresh his own recollection, thereby falsely claiming to the grand jury that he did not intend to tamper with her potential testimony if she were called as a witness in the Jones case. Second, he reaffirmed the veracity of his Jones deposition denial of ``sexual relations'' with Ms. Lewinsky, under the definition of that term approved by the court in that case. This was not merely a ``lie about sex'' to protect his family. By the time of his grand jury appearance, the President had already acknowledged to his family his improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Before the grand jury, the President falsely asserted the truth of his earlier sworn statements for the sole purpose of protecting himself from possible prosecution or impeachment. In light of these conclusions, the final overriding issue is whether the President's actions constitute ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' requiring his removal from office under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. As has been acknowledge on both sides, reasonable people can differ on this question. And indeed it is only on this issue, whether the President must be removed, that Americans are consequentially divided. A decided majority of Americans agree that the President committed the crimes alleged in at least one of the Articles. And in their hearts I believe a significant majority of my colleagues do as well. The public, like us, is in disagreement over what the consequences should be. A clear majority oppose removal, but for a variety of reasons--ranging from a feeling that the President does not deserve to be removed, to a concern not to endanger current economic conditions, to a preference for the President over the Vice President, to the belief that, because the President has less than two years remaining in this term, removing his is not worth the disruption it would cause. These considerations would legitimately play a role in our decision if we were functioning as a legislative body in a parliamentary system deciding whether to retain the current government. But that is not our role here. The Constitution requires the Senate to sit not in an ordinary legislative capacity on this matter, but as a court of impeachment. That is why, at the beginning of a trial on Articles of Impeachment, Article I, section 3 of the Constitution states that Senators must take a special oath to do impartial justice. Accordingly, it is my view that our decision cannot be based on other considerations, but instead must be based on what the Constitution dictates, and taken with a view toward the precedent we will establish regarding what is acceptable Presidential behavior. In arguing for the President, White House lawyers have asserted that the threshold for Presidential removal must be very high--and I agree. At the same time, however, we must remember that there is an inverse relationship between the level at which we set the removal bar and the degree of Presidential misconduct we will accept. So, then, where do we set the bar? What does the Constitution dictate? What precedent should we set for the ages? Let us start with the text of the Constitution, which states simply: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The first interpretation that has been suggested is that a ``high Crime'' must be a truly heinous crime. But that is obviously wrong. Treason is certainly among the most heinous crimes. But bribery is not. Taking a bribe, like treason, is however uniquely serious misconduct by a public official. That suggests a different meaning for ``high Crime,'' one that is linked somehow to the fact that the person committing it holds public office. A comment by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 provides the clue. In Federalist 65, speaking of impeachment, Hamilton says: ``The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the violation of some public trust.'' The President's lawyers invoke this line, but they misread it. They argue that what it means is that to require removal, a President's conduct must involve misuse of official power. But that is not what the Constitution demands, or what Hamilton's comment fairly read suggests. Otherwise we would have to leave in office a President or a federal judge who committed murder, so long as they did not use any powers of their office in doing so. Rather, as Hamilton's language connotes, and our own precedents confirm, the connection the Constitution requires between the official's actions and functions is a more practical one: the official's conduct must demonstrate that he or she cannot be trusted with the powers of the office in question. This rule encompasses official acts demonstrating unfitness for the office in question, but it also reaches beyond such acts. We need not determine the outer limits of its principle to decide the question before us today: whether the President's actions here constitute a violation of a ``public trust'' as Hamilton uses the term. The answers to that question is plain when we consider his conduct in relation to his responsibilities. The President's role and status in our system of government are unique. The Constitution vests the executive power in the President, and in the President alone. That means he is the officer chiefly charged with carrying out our laws. Therefore, far more than any federal judge, he holds the scales of justice in his own hands. In the wrong hands, that power can easily be transformed from the power to carry out the laws into the power to bend them to one's own ends. The very nature of the Presidency guarantees that its occupant will face daily temptations to twist the laws for personal gain, for party benefit or for the advantage of friends in or out of power. To combat these temptations, the Constitution spells out in no uncertain terms that the President shall ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' and his oath of office requires him to swear that he will do so. By obstructing justice and tampering with witnesses in the Jones case, a federal civil rights case in which he was the defendant, the President violated his oath and failed to perform the bedrock duty of his office. He did not faithfully execute the laws. He thereby made clear that he cannot be trusted to exercise the executive power lawfully in the future, to handle impartially such specific Presidential responsibilities as serving as the final arbiter on bringing federal civil or criminal cases or determining the content of federal regulations--especially if, as will often be the case, he has a personal or political interest in the outcome. Surely retaining a President in office under these circumstances constitutes the type of threat to our government and its institutions so many have said must exist for conviction. That brings his conduct squarely within the purview of our impeachment power, whose purpose, as described by Hamilton, is to deal with ``the violation of some public trust.'' Obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and grand jury perjury are serious federal crimes. How do we explain to others who commit them, many out of motives surely as understandable as the President's, that while the President stays in the White House, his Department of Justice is trying to send them to prison? How can we expect ordinary citizens to accept that the President can remain in office after lying repeatedly under oath in court proceedings, but that it is still their duty to tell the truth? Finally, how can we leave the executive power in the hands of a President who, through his false grand jury testimony, has even attempted to obstruct and subvert the impeachment process itself? For the particular grand jury before which the President testified falsely was not only conducting a criminal investigation; it was also charged, under Congressional statute, with advising the House of Representatives whether it had received any substantial and credible information that might constitute grounds for impeachment. The framers placed the impeachment power in our Constitution as the ultimate safeguard to address misuse of the executive power. A President who commits perjury, intending to thwart an investigation that might otherwise lead to his impeachment, has committed a quintessential ``high Crime.'' This crime impeded, and could have even precluded, Congress from fulfilling its duty to prevent the President from usurping power and engaging in unlawful conduct. To permit such behavior could, in effect, allow nullification of the impeachment process itself, rendering it meaningless. Hence, a President who acts to subvert what the Framers viewed as the ultimate Constitutional check on abuse of executive power, most certainly violates the public trust as defined by Hamilton. To allow a President to continue in office after committing these acts would place the Presidency above the law and grant the President powers close to those of a monarch. This, in turn, presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law, the birthright of all Americans. Indeed, we Americans take the rule of law so thoroughly for granted that while it has been much invoked in these proceedings, there has been little discussion of what it means or why it matters. Simply put, the rule of law is the guarantee our system makes to all of us that our rights and those of our countrymen will be determined according to rules established in advance. It is the guarantee that there will be no special rules, treatment, and outcomes for some, but that the same rules will be applied, in the same way, to everyone. If America's most powerful citizen may bend the law in his own favor with impunity, we have come dangerously close to trading in the rule of law for the rule of men. That in turn jeopardizes the freedoms we hold dear, for our equality before the law is central to their protection. We are a great nation because, in America, no man--no man--is above the law. Americans broke from Great Britain because the mother country claimed it had a right to rule its colonies without restraint, as it saw fit. Our tradition of chartered rights--rights laid down in laws, which no king, Parliament or other official could breach--culminated in our Constitution. That Constitution, which is itself only a higher law, protects us from tyranny. Once the law becomes an object of convenience rather than awe, that Constitution becomes a dead letter, and with it our freedoms and our way of life. Mr. Chief Justice, my grandparents did not come to this country seeking merely a more convenient, profitable life. They came here seeking the freedoms that were given birth on Bunker Hill and in the Convention at Philadelphia. I know some people mock as self-righteous or feckless the piety many Americans have toward their heritage and toward the Constitution that guards their freedom. But I will never forget that it is not the powerful or those favored by the powerful who need the law's protection. If we set a precedent that allows the President--the chief magistrate and the most powerful man in the world--to render the judicial process subordinate to his own interests, we tell ordinary citizens, like my grandparents, that Americans are no longer really equal in the eyes of the law. We tell them that they may be denied justice. And we thereby forfeit our own heritage of constitutional freedoms. None of us asked for this task, but we must live with the consequences of our actions, not just on this administration, but on our nation for generations to come. That responsibility cannot be shirked. It has led me to a difficult but inexorable decision. I deeply regret that it is necessary for me to conclude that President William Jefferson Clinton committed obstruction of justice and grand jury perjury as charged in the Articles of Impeachment brought by the House, that these are ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under our Constitution, and that therefore I must vote to convict him on these charges.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with 14 of my Colleagues, including the Chairmen of the Senate Small Business, Commerce, Government Affairs and Budget Committees, as well as the Majority Leader, in introducing vital legislation in protecting our nation's businesses from ill-thought government mandates, The Mandates Information Act of 1999. This bill in my view furthers the cause of careful deliberation in this, the greatest deliberative body in the world. It will force Members of Congress to carefully consider all aspects of potential legislation containing mandates affecting consumers, workers, and small businesses. We have been working towards final passage of this bill for quite some time, Mr. President, as we introduced very similar legislation in the last Congress. I wish to thank Chairmen Thompson and Domenici for their tireless leadership in shepherding this through their two Committees last Congress. I am only sorry we did not have sufficient time to bring it to the floor before adjournment. With their support and leadership in this Congress, I believe we can bring it to the floor for quick consideration and move to Conference with the House. And too it is the House that I also wish to extend my thanks and respect. Under the careful leadership of Representatives Portman and Condit, and the very helpful support of the Speaker, the House version of the Mandates Information Act, H.R. 350, easily passed the House on Wednesday with a broad, bipartisan majority of 274 to 194. Their conscientious sponsorship of the bill allowed it to quickly pass through Committee, and to avoid being watered down by unneeded amendments. I offer my thanks and respect for their efforts. Mr. President, this is not a new idea, but one that builds upon the important work of the 104th Congress when we passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That legislation required the Congressional Budget Office to make two key estimates with respect to any bill reported out of committee: First, whether the bill contains intergovernmental mandates with an annual cost of $50 million or more; and, second, whether the bill contains private sector mandates with an annual cost of $100 million or more. The 1995 act also established a point of order against bills meeting the $50 million cost threshold for intergovernmental mandates. Although the point of order can be waived by a simple majority vote, it encourages Congress to think carefully before imposing new intergovernmental mandates. The 1995 act did not apply its point of order to private sector mandates. This was understandable, given the bill's focus on intergovernmental mandates. But States and localities are not alone in being affected by Federal mandates. Consumers, workers, and small businesses also are affected when the Federal Government passes along the costs of its policies. This is why the Mandates Information Act of 1997 will apply a point of order to bills meeting the $100 million cost threshold for private sector mandates, while also directing the CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of committee. These reforms are necessary in my view, Mr. President, because the 1995 Act, while effective in its chosen sphere of intergovernmental mandates, does not contain the necessary mechanisms to force Congress to think seriously about the wisdom of proposed mandates on the private sector. This leaves our private sector faced with the same dilemma once faced by our States and localities: Congress does not give full consideration to the costs its mandates impose. Focusing almost exclusively on the benefits of unfunded mandates, Congress pays little heed to, and sometimes seems unaware of, the burden that unfunded mandates impose on the very groups they are supposed to help. Unfunded mandate costs by definition do not show up on Congress' balance ledger. But, as President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has written, ``[t]here is no sense in which benefits become `free' just because the government mandates'' them. Congress has merely passed the costs on to someone else. And that ``someone'' is the American people. As economists from Princeton's Alan Krueger to John Holohan, Colin Winterbottom, and Sheila Zedlewski of the Urban Institute agree, the costs of unfunded mandates on the private sector are primarily borne by three groups: consumers, workers, and small businesses. What forms do these costs take? For consumers, mandate costs take the form of higher prices for goods and services, as unfunded mandates drive up the cost of labor. For workers, the costs of unfunded mandates often take the form of significantly lower wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, a range of independent studies indicates that some 88 percent of the cost of private sector mandates are shifted to workers in the form of lower wages. And mandates can cause workers to lose their jobs altogether. Faced with uncontrollable increases in employee costs, our job creators too often find that they can no longer afford to retain their full complement of workers. The Clinton health care mandate, for example, would have resulted in a net loss of between 200,000-500,000 jobs, according to a study conducted by Professor Krueger. Small businesses and their potential employees also suffer. Mandates typically apply only to businesses with at least a certain number of employees. As a result, small businesses have a powerful incentive not to hire enough new workers to reach the mandate threshold. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ``The point at which a new [mandate] kicks in * * * is the point at which the [Chief Financial Officer] asks `Why grow?' '' That question is asked by small businesses all over the country, but let me cite one example from my State. Hasselbring/Clark is an office equipment supplier in Lansing, MI. Noelle Clark is the firm's treasurer and secretary. Mindful of the raft of mandates whose threshold is 50 employees, Ms. Clark reports that lately ``we have hired a few temps to stay under 49.'' Thus, unfunded mandates not only eliminate jobs, but also prevent jobs from being created. Much as Members of Congress may wish it were not so, mandates have a very real cost. This does not mean that all mandates are bad. But it does mean that Congress should think very carefully about the wisdom of a proposed mandate before imposing it. Such careful thinking, Mr. President, is the goal of the Mandates Information Act of 1999. Just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 protects State and local governments from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed intergovernmental mandates, the Mandates Information Act would protect consumers, workers, and small businesses from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed private sector mandates. It would do so, in essence, by extending the reforms of the 1995 act to private sector mandates. The bill I introduce today would build on the 1995 act's reforms in two ways. First, to give Congress more complete information about the impact of proposed mandates on the private sector, my bill directs CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of Committee. This statement would include analyses of the bill's private sector mandates' effects on the following: First, consumer prices and [the] actual supply of goods and services in consumer markets; second, worker wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and third, the hiring practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees. But providing Congress with more complete information about the impact of proposed private sector mandates will not guarantee that it pays any attention to it. This we know from experience. In 1981, Congress enacted the State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act, sponsored by Senator Sasser. Pursuant to that act, CBO provided Congress with estimates of the cost of intergovernmental mandates in bills reported out of committee. But Congress routinely ignored this information. It did so because the 1981 act had no enforcement mechanism to force Congress to consider the CBO estimates. As Senator Sasser himself explained in introducing a follow-up bill in 1993, ``[t]he problem [with the 1981 act], it has become clear, is that this yellow caution light has no red light to back it up.'' To supply that ``red light,'' Senator Sasser's Mandate Funding Act of 1993 contained a point of order. Of course, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 likewise contained a point of order, which is why it succeeded where Senator Sasser's 1981 act had failed. The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide this red light for proposed private sector mandates. It contains a point of order against any bill whose direct private sector mandates exceed the $100 million threshold set by the 1995 act. Like the 1995 act's point of order against intergovernmental mandates, the 1997 bill's point of order can be waived by a simple majority of Members. Thus it will not stop Congress from passing bills it wants to pass. It is here, Mr. President, that I wish to thank Chairman Thompson and Domenici for the excellent revisions of the mandates language offered during the Government Affairs mark-up of the Mandates Information Act of 1997. We have incorporated those changes in this bill and believe they greatly strengthen the legislation, including making it very clear that the point of order only applies to direct mandates upon the private sector that exceed $100 million. It is that point of order which will serve the vital purpose to ensure Congress does not ignore the information contained in the Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement. It will do so by allowing any Member to focus the attention of the entire House or Senate on the impact statement for a particular bill. The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide Congress with more complete information about proposed mandates' effects on consumers, workers, and small businesses. It will also ensure that Congress actually considers this information before reaching a judgment about whether to impose a new mandate. The result, Mr. President, will be focused, high-quality deliberation on the wisdom of private sector mandates. Because of the success of the 1995 act, Congress is now much more careful to consider the interests of State and local governments in making decisions about unfunded mandates. But Congress must be just as careful to consider the interests of consumers, workers, and small businesses in making such decisions. This bill will ensure that care, helping produce better legislation; legislation that imposes a lighter burden on working Americans. Mr. President, I will include in the Record the following sample of letters from small business groups supporting the bill along with a list of groups that have expressed their support for it. Mr. President, the support for this legislation is broad and deep. It is needed to protect our small businesses against mandates which have not been fully analyzed and which harm these businesses in ways that Congress may never have intended. But, Mr. President, I believe they can best argue for the need for this bill. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation, and to move it through Committee and to the floor as quickly as possible. It is necessary, it is wise, and it is fair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation as well as a section-by-section summary of the bill, a list of groups in support of the bill, letters of support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Survival Committee and the Competitive Enterprise Institute also be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of Fayanne Kaufman of Farmington Hills, Michigan. In the 72 years before her passing, Mrs. Kaufman touched the lives of her family, her students, and her fellow community members with her passion for life and learning. Mrs. Kaufman responded to life's challenges with strength and optimism. After her husband's untimely death in 1965, she joined the ranks of older Americans pursuing higher education and attained her teaching degree at Wayne State University. In 1968, she began a 30-year career in the Farmington Public Schools, teaching at both the middle and high school levels. A renowned artist in the fields of ceramics and jewelry making, Mrs. Kaufman encouraged her students to develop their talents and helped them receive scholarships at various art and design institutions throughout the United States. In addition, she inspired and worked with troubled students to turn their lives around. Mrs. Kaufman remained active with her alma mater over the years as an alumnus and was honored by the university with the Woman of Wayne State Award. In the past decade, she strengthened her commitment to public service with three bids for the Michigan Board of Education. Most importantly, Mrs. Kaufman was a devoted mother to her three sons. She raised her children to appreciate the importance of education and community service. As her son Jerry said, ``She was amazing and had such a warm sweet spirit.'' Mrs. Kaufman inspired us all to serve our community to the best of our ability and reassured us that we all can have a positive impact on the world around us. I wish to extend best wishes to the entire Kaufman family.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Woodrow Dawson, Jr. of Southfield, Michigan. On December 31, 1998, after 25 years of service, Mr. Dawson retired from Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Glass. His dedication to an industry that is historically and economically significant to our state is highly commendable. It is people like Mr. Dawson who contribute to the great productivity of our nation. In addition to his hard work with Ford, Mr. Dawson is a committed member of his community. He is an elder at St. Paul Church of God in Christ in Detroit, which he has attended for 50 years. Even more importantly, he is a devoted husband to his wife of 31 years and father to four children. I extend my warmest wishes and the best of luck for the future to Mr. Dawson and his family.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a group of very special young women from Calvin College. The Calvin College Women's Cross Country team placed first in the National Championships for Division III. This is the first national championship won by a MIAA (Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association) team in cross country. The following 19 girls who make up the team, have indeed made Calvin College proud: Rashel Bayes, Erinn Boot, Kristi Brown, Lindsay Carrier, Andrea Clark, Allison Cook, Sara Crowe, April DeKorte, Kristie DeYoung, Sarah Gibson, Elisabeth Giessel, Sarah Gritter, Emily Hollender, Elizabeth Kuipers, Kris Lumkes, Amy Mizzone, Lisa Timmer, Candice Vandergriff, and Katherine VanDerSchaaf. I would also like to recognize Nancy Meyer, the coach of the women's cross country team, who was named the national cross country coach of the year. The Calvin Women's Cross Country team has now earned 16 All-American berths in the history of its program and eight top-10 national team finishes. It is my pleasure, once again, to congratulate the Calvin College Women's Cross Country team. It is very encouraging to see these young women strive for such excellence. This team has made Calvin College and the entire state of Michigan very proud.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Walter Adams of East Lansing, Michigan. In the 76 years before his passing, Mr. Adams touched the lives of his family, his students, and his fellow community members with his passion for learning. Mr. Adams is best known for his longtime dedication to Michigan State University as a forty-six-year faculty member, including one year as president of the university. As a lifelong promoter of education, Mr. Adams touched the lives of students and colleagues alike. He never lost his interest, his enthusiasm, and his total commitment to the ideals of education. His students were fortunate to be under the tutelage of an instructor who was knowledgeable, experienced, and committed to improving the knowledge of those he taught. Even after his retirement in 1993, Mr. Adams remained steadfastly loyal to the university. As Americans, we owe a great deal to those individuals who choose to prepare future generations to lead this country. Mr. Adams was not only part of this group, he was one of its finest members. He will be remembered fondly by all those he guided and inspired.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Recognition Act of 1999. This legislation will correct an unfortunate oversight that has left the federal holiday recognizing our great civil rights leader without the full ceremonial status it deserves. This is an injustice to a great leader and one I hope the Senate will act to correct as soon as possible. Mr. President, federal holidays celebrating the birthdays of great Americans have traditionally included celebratory signs of respect. In particular, they have been on the list of days on which the American flag should be flown nationwide. Yet, across this country, in the schools and on the streets that bear the name of Martin Luther King, Jr., that flag has not been flown to commemorate his holiday. Dr. King, minister, civil rights leader, winner of the Nobel Prize for his nonviolent resistance to segregation, has been recognized around the world as a pivotal figure in American history and in the global struggle for civil rights. He was instrumental in putting an end to segregation and to putting issues of racial equality and civil rights into the forefront of American public life. As a nation we have recognized the importance of Dr. King's efforts and of his achievement by instituting celebration of a federal holiday in his honor. It is time to complete that recognition by adding Dr. King's holiday to the list of days on which the American flag should be flown nationwide. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Lansing, Michigan, and its members who are currently celebrating its 150th Anniversary. The congregation can be proud of the founding members' faith and devotion which brought about the organization of this church in 1849. Members of St. Paul's Church met in Michigan's Capitol building for a decade until the continued growth of the congregation required that a separate building be constructed. Further growth necessitated the completion of a newer church in 1873, and again in 1914. As our country begins to rediscover the importance of family and personal values, the building of faith by St. Paul's Episcopal Church is of great significance to us all. I extend my warmest regards and best wishes to all of the members of St. Paul's congregation as they celebrate this great achievement.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the ``States' Rights Protection Act of 1999.'' This legislation will prevent a grave injustice that could do significant damage to our states, and to our federal system. Several years ago, Mr. President, a number of states commenced lawsuits against American tobacco companies. The states sought damages on the basis of a number of claims, including violation of consumer fraud and other State consumer protection laws, antitrust violations and unjust enrichment. Some suits included claims for tobacco-related health care costs incurred by the states, and some did not. Eventually all 50 states became parties in one way or another to anti-tobacco lawsuits. Last November a major settlement was reached, involving 46 states. That settlement included no funds of any kind to be allocated for State medicaid costs. The federal government in Washington did not initiate these suits. The federal government in Washington provided no financial assistance to the states in furtherance of their suits. Yet now, after the states and the tobacco companies have agreed on a financial settlement, the Clinton Administration is seeking to divert a significant portion of that settlement to its own use. The federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has stated that it wants to ``recoup'' some of the states' settlement funds. They claim to have a right to these funds under a Medicaid law which the federal government has traditionally used to recover its share of ``overpayments.'' These overpayments typically arise when providers overbill Medicaid. Mr. President, HCFA's claims cannot stand. The law to which they refer was intended to prevent fraud and other forms of overbilling. It was not intended to allow the federal government to seize huge amounts of money to which it has no proper title. States have obtained a legal right to this money. They gained this right through a properly constructed and affirmed legal settlement of lawsuits filed against product manufacturers, on behalf of all their residents, asserting a consumer protection and various other causes of action. There is no federal medical claim involved. Thus HCFA has no right to these monies, and neither does any agency of the federal government. The Administration's pursuit of monies from this settlement amounts to nothing more or less than a raw assertion of federal power. We must oppose it for the good of our states and for the good of our form of limited, federal government. Ours is a limited government, Mr. President. It is limited in that the Constitution delegates only certain powers to the federal branches and their officials. Our Constitution includes a number of what James Madison called ``auxiliary precautions'' to keep federal officials within their proper bounds, thereby protecting our liberties. But Madison recognized that the primary check on those who would overstep their proper bounds must be the determination of elected officials to see that the Constitution's terms are respected. A federal government that simply steps in to take money from the states is not respecting our Constitution. That federal government is taking us far down a dangerous path toward unrestrained central power. We must see that this does not happen. In addition, Mr. President, as a practical matter it would be a mistake to allow the federal government to commandeer these funds. To begin with, were the federal government in Washington to take these funds from the states under the weak legal pretense put forward by the HCFA, the result would be long, wasteful litigation. That litigation will benefit no one, instead it will poison intergovernmental relations for years to come. Indeed, if the HCFA begins to seize state settlement funds, it will do so by cutting federal Medicaid payments to the states. This will make it much more difficult for states to provide health care for children from low and moderate income families, the disabled and millions of others who depend on Medicaid. The real victims of this money grab will be the weakest members of our society, those least able to take care of themselves. Of course, the Administration claims that it will use the states' money to benefit everyone. It seeks to take $18.9 billion of the states' money over the next five years. No doubt the Administration will find attractive programs on which to spend this money. But the federal government already consumes more than 20 percent of our national income. We do not need yet another federal tax and spend policy. As a nation what we need is more innovative policy making at the state and local level. And that is what these monies will produce, if only we will leave them in their proper place. A number of states already have acted in reliance on the tobacco settlement, putting forward proposals and new programs that will greatly benefit their people. For example, in my state of Michigan, Governor John Engler in his state of the state address a few short weeks ago proposed to endow a Michigan Merit Award Trust Fund with Michigan's share of the tobacco settlement. Under this program, every Michigan high school graduate who masters reading, writing, math and science will receive a Michigan Merit Award--a $2,500 scholarship that can be used for further study at a Michigan school of that student's choice. In addition, all Michigan students who pass the 7th and 8th grade tests in reading, writing, math and science administered by the state will be awarded $500. That means, Mr. President, that any Michigan student successfully completing secondary schooling will receive $3,000 for further education. The young people of Michigan will benefit tremendously from this program, Mr. President. Their motivation to do well in school will be significantly increased, as will their ability to afford and succeed in higher education. We need programs like Michigan's to help kids do well in school and get ahead in life. The federal government should be learning from these kinds of programs and working to show other states how well they can work. It should not be taking money out of the pockets of Michigan's young people to put into the pockets of Washington bureaucrats. We must protect the rights and the people of our states by seeing to it that tobacco settlement money stays where it belongs, and where it will do the most good--in the states. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I wish to join my colleagues in expressing our deep concern at this administration's misleading and potentially damaging budget. Now that we have finally gotten our fiscal house in order, turning huge deficits into significant surpluses, I am troubled, as a lot of our colleagues are, that the administration is seeking to turn the clock back to the bad old days of tax and spend that got us in financial trouble in the first place. I think the Senator from Missouri very effectively outlined some of the inadequacies of this budget. This budget includes $1.7 trillion in new Government spending, with the potential of trillions more, despite the President's agreement to set budget caps. And despite the President's frequent calls to save Social Security first, it does nothing to save this crucial program. Finally, this budget includes no significant tax cut for the hard- working American families who brought us out of the age of deficits and into the present age of surplus. With the $4.5 trillion in anticipated surpluses, this administration could not find--in its budget, or in its heart--the wherewithal to give anything back to the American people, and that, Mr. President, is simply shameful. I know my colleagues and I will be speaking a great deal in the coming weeks about the need for tax cuts, and I know the Presiding Officer will be one of those speaking often about this topic. But today, I want to focus on one particular aspect of the President's budget that would do great damage to our system of Government and to our States, my State of Michigan in particular. Last November, 46 States and the tobacco companies reached a settlement in their long-running litigation. The Federal Government neither initiated nor helped the States financially in these suits. Yet now, the Clinton administration wants to divert $18.9 billion of the settlement to its own uses. The Federal Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, wants to seize this money under legislation allowing it to recoup Medicaid overpayments. But no Medicaid moneys were allocated under the tobacco settlement. This seizure is a raw exercise of Federal power, dangerous to our liberties and our form of Government. In addition, the administration's actions promise costly litigation and first hits those least able to fend for themselves: State Medicaid patients whose funding would be seized by HCFA. Of course, the administration claims that it will use the State's moneys to benefit everybody. Once again, this administration believes it is better able to spend money than are those actually entitled to it; in this case, the States. A number of States already have acted in reliance on the tobacco settlement, putting forward proposals that will greatly benefit their constituents. For example, in my State of Michigan, Governor John Engler has proposed to endow a merit award trust fund with Michigan's share of the settlement, at least a portion of that settlement. Under this program, every Michigan high school graduate who masters reading, writing, math, and science will receive a Michigan merit award, a $2,500 scholarship that can be used for further study at a Michigan school of that student's choice. Another $500 would be available for seventh and eighth grade students who pass their State tests, bringing the total available for higher education in Michigan to $3,000 for students who work hard and learn the basic skills needed to move on to higher education. We need programs like Michigan's to help kids do well in school and get ahead in life. The Federal Government should be learning from these kinds of programs. It should not be taking money out of the pockets of Michigan's young people to put into the pockets of Washington bureaucrats. We must protect the rights and the people of our States by seeing to it the tobacco settlement money stays where it belongs and where it will do the most good--in the States. That, Mr. President, is, in my judgment, one of the many inadequacies in the President's budget. I certainly intend to work very hard here in the months ahead to make sure these tobacco settlement dollars go to the States where the priorities can be set that make the most sense to the people of the States. They are the ones who fought this litigation and won it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, there is a lot about this impeachment process that is new and unfamiliar to all of us. That is all the more reason why we should allow ourselves to be guided by the Constitution and historical precedents in deciding how we proceed. The Constitution's requirement that the Senate ``shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' certainly suggests that the Senate will ordinarily do more than simply look at the record made by the House in deciding whether to send us Articles of impeachment, and that has generally been the Senate's practice. Moreover, the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment is charged with seeking the truth in this trial. If any Senators reasonably believe that hearing witnesses would assist in finding the truth, then I believe both the President and the House should have the opportunity to call witnesses. Based on the record before us and the arguments we have heard, it is clear that at least on some of the House's charges, there are factual issues in dispute that the witnesses whom this motion proposes to subpoena for depositions could help us resolve. It is for this reason, Mr. President, that I support the motion to allow both sides to depose these three witnesses. I do not see why this limited discovery should in any way cause this matter to be drawn out for any extended period of time. Rather, I believe it can be conducted very expeditiously without in any way jeopardizing the Senate's ability to conduct other important legislative business.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the motion offered in the Court of Impeachment to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. To support the motion would undermine the precedents and history of the impeachment process laid out in the Constitution. To my knowledge, the only instances in our history that the Senate has dismissed a Resolution of Impeachment without voting up or down on at least one of the Articles sent over by the House was when the impeached officer resigned before the Senate had the opportunity to act. I do not think we should deviate from our precedents on this occasion. In voting on the motion to dismiss, we are supposed to assume that even if the President did everything the House claims he did, we should still dismiss the Articles. So for purposes of this motion, we have to assume that he committed every act of obstruction of justice and witness tampering the House has claimed and every instance of perjury before the grand jury that the House claims. This would include perjury before a grand jury sitting to help the Congress determine whether the President committed impeachable offenses. Mr. President, I have by no means decided whether President Clinton has done everything the House alleges. But if I am to assume all these allegations are correct, I cannot see how in good conscience I can support the motion to dismiss and permit the President to stay in office.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Roy C. Howes as he celebrates his retirement on January 30, 1999, from the Manistee County Board of Commissioners after forty-five years of service. Mr. Howes possesses a unique dedication to his community evidenced by his remarkable history of achievements. Since his first term as county commissioner in the 1950's, he has witnessed first hand the dramatic changes in county government and has helped prepare Manistee County for the new millennium. Most notably, Mr. Howes drew upon his experience as a forest farmer and timber operator to institute proper forest management techniques leading to increased county revenue. In addition to his position as county commissioner, Mr. Howes served on the Michigan Association of Township Supervisors for almost a decade, as well as the state committee that drafted a new Michigan constitution. It was his desire to help older citizens with social security and income tax issues that prompted his initial interest in politics. Mr. Howes continues his good work today by assisting disabled children and students in need of loans as chairman of the board of directors for the Michigan Rural Rehabilitation Corporation. It is with great admiration that I salute Mr. Howes' contributions to Manistee County and the entire state of Michigan. His work inspires us all to serve to the best of our ability and reassures us that each individual can positively impact his community. I wish Mr. Howes the best of luck for his future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I, along with my colleagues Senators Coverdell, Hutchinson, and Sessions introduced the ``Faith-Based Drug Treatment Enhancement Act.'' The purpose of this legislation is to make successful faith-based drug and alcohol treatment programs eligible for federal substance abuse treatment dollars. It will allow faith-based programs to stand on an equal footing with other treatment programs which receive federal aid, allowing them to compete for federal funds without changing the religious nature of the help they provide. This is important because it is the religious character of the program to which program recipients often point as the reason for their success in overcoming their addiction. Many faith-based treatment centers have astounding treatment success rates, particularly when compared with the single-digit success rates of many government-sponsored secular programs. One faith-based organization, the Mel Trotter Ministry, is located in my state of Michigan. This ministry points to the accountability demanded of addicts entering its faith-based program as a reason for its success. Another contributing factor to Mel Trotter's astounding 70 percent success rate is the program's ability to provide recipients with an incentive to change. The drug addict finds a new life at Mel Trotter Ministries and is finally able to overcome his or her addiction. A similar program in my state, the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries, boasts a 78 percent success rate for its substance abuse programs. One of the program recipients describes his experience at Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries this way: ``I was in and out of jail. During the winter of 1995, I was exposed to arctic cold with a resulting case of frostbite so severe I was threatened with amputation. Released from probation for the sixth time, I found Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries' Oasis shelter on Woodward Avenue and stayed 22 nights. There I found more than a shelter--I found a relationship with God and a new life of service for Him.'' Mel Trotter Ministry and Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries are examples of substance abuse treatment programs with proven success records. These programs and programs like them should be allowed to provide the crucial assistance needed for individuals to overcome their substance abuse once and for all. This legislation builds on the charitable choice provision Senator Ashcroft fought to have included in the historic welfare reform bill. That provision allows faith based charities to contract with government to supply social services without having to give up their religious character. No longer will religious groups have to literally hide the Bibles in order to help people. Where sterile, bureaucratic government run programs fail, faith based programs can succeed, and are succeeding already. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts by supporting this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for The Adoption Promotion Act. This legislation will work to provide important information on adoption to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Mr. President, each year more than a million couples eagerly await the opportunity to adopt a child. Unfortunately, only 50,000 domestic, non-related adoptions occur each year. Couples waiting to adopt are willing and able to provide loving homes. Some of them have for one reason or another found themselves incapable of having children of their own. Others simply wish to share their lives and their homes with another child. Every one of them could nurture and give a good upbringing to whatever youngster is lucky enough to get them as parents. Unfortunately, the would-be parents often must wait several years for the opportunity to adopt a healthy child. For the anxious parents, the waiting seems to last an eternity. There are many reasons for the sharp disparity between the relatively limited number of children available for adoption and the growing number of families anxiously waiting to adopt a child. Crucial is the fact that many women are not provided adequate information about adoption when they are making the important decision of how to deal with an unexpected pregnancy. Too few women are fully informed concerning the adoption option. We know that providing information to women on adoption as a choice can increase the number of adoptions that occur each year and decrease the number of abortions. I believe that this is an important goal. For this reason, I have introduced, along with my colleague, Senator Landrieu, legislation that authorizes an Adoption Promotion program. This program will provide $25 million in grants to be used for adoption promotion activity. It will also require recipients to contribute $25 million of in-kind donations. The total amount going to adoption promotion will, therefore, be $50 million. This amount will allow for a thorough information campaign to take place--reaching women all over the country. The legislation provides for grants to be used for public service announcements on print, radio, TV, and billboards. Grants will also be provided for the development and distribution of brochures regarding adoption through federally funded Title X clinics. These provisions will enable women to have accurate and clear information on adoption as an alternative when at a crucial point in their pregnancies. Further, the campaign will help to raise the level of awareness around the country about the importance of adoption. Mr. President, I believe that each and every one of us, whether pro- life or pro-choice, should be working to reduce the number of abortions that occur each year. Indeed, I have often heard on this floor that abortion should be ``safe, legal and rare.'' I take my colleagues at their word and urge them to join me in this voluntary information program; a program designed to inform women of all their choices regarding any unexpected pregnancy. Too many women in America feel abandoned and helpless in the face of an unexpected pregnancy. The father of the child may have left, the woman's family and friends even may desert her. Even those who stay with her may simply pressure her to end an embarrassing and troublesome situation. Too often, then, our women, in a vulnerable state, are left without full, unbiased information and guidance concerning their options. I think it is crucial in these circumstances that we keep these women fully informed of all their options--including the option of releasing their child into the arms of a welcoming couple, anxious to become loving parents. If we truly are committed to making every child a wanted child, Mr. President, I believe it is our duty to see to it that pregnant women know that there are couples out there who would love to care for their children. It is time for us, as a nation, to make clear our commitment to truly full information for expectant mothers, information that includes the availability of safe, loving homes for their children.