Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of S. 1723. I further ask consent that there be 2 hours of general debate on the bill, equally divided in the usual form. I further ask consent that the following be the only first-degree amendments in order, other than the committee-reported substitute, that the first-degree amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; that with respect to any time limit on the first-degree amendment, any second-degree thereto be limited to the same time limits: Bingaman, relevant; Bumpers, EB5 visas, 90 minutes equally divided; Kennedy, layoffs, 40 minutes equally divided; recruit home, 40 minutes equally divided; whistle-blower protection; Reed of Rhode Island, strike SSIG provision; Reid of Nevada, international child abduction; Wellstone, job training; McCain, relevant; Warner relevant; That upon disposition of all amendments the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage without intervening action or debate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to address the antislamming legislation before us. I believe that this bill, S. 1618, is a bill that we must act on quickly and decisively. I am happy that when the Senate concludes its business today, we will have passed the legislation and for good reason. The problem which this legislation seeks to address described, I guess, by the euphemism ``slamming,'' is one that is a growing concern to people in my State and, I suspect, to almost all the other States represented in this body. In Michigan, during the last year, complaints about this practice, which is the changing of an individual's or customer's long-distance service without their knowledge and approval, has risen from relative obscurity to becoming, next to billing problems, the second largest source of complaints received by Michigan's Public Service Commission. The nature of the complaints are, of course, pretty obvious and have been depicted very well by Chairman McCain and others in the discussion so far today. People find that through no act of their own, or certainly no intentional act of their own, they have had their long- distance service changed usually with negative consequences. In our State, the negative consequences usually fall into two categories, often both happen simultaneously: On the one hand, people find that their service level and quality is diminished; on the other hand, they find that their bills are getting higher. The latter happens for a variety of reasons. First, because frequently the new company, in fact, just simply has higher bills and charges higher rates. In addition, they find it happens because they have found themselves the victim of slamming on several separate occasions during a billing period. They have moved from one company to a second and sometimes to even a third and fourth. Many of the current rate practices engaged in with respect to long-distance rates give people a reduced rate if they stay with a service a certain period of time. However, as a result of slamming, people change from one to a second to a third to even a fourth company during a billing period or a period during which a rate is being determined based on continuity of service. Individuals discover that their long-distance calls that they expect to have been charged at a very low rate are, in fact, being billed at very high rates. For all of these reasons, we need to take action now. I mentioned that in our State, the slamming practice has become the second most widely voiced complaint heard by our Public Service Commission. Our local telephone service carrier, Ameritech, the principal carrier in Michigan, reports that they are receiving complaints. People think somehow they are responsible. Last year alone they received 37,000 such complaints of slamming practices occurring. In order to find out more about this, I went back to Michigan during a recent recess and began meeting with individuals who were themselves the victims of slamming. What I discovered was that, in fact, the practices used by these long-distance companies border on outright fraud, and in some cases, go over the line to actual fraud. People have been called up and asked if they want ``direct billing'' for their long-distance service. They answer yes and find the ``Direct Billing'' is, in fact, the name of a new long-distance service company and that their answer is being used as a basis for the changing of their service. In other cases, people engage in a conversation of someone calling over the telephone, an innocuous conversation, but find the information has been rescripted in such a fashion as to give a basis for changing the long-distance service. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that this practice is wrong. It is hurting consumers across America, and we have an obligation to stop it. I believe the legislation before us now does so. I am glad we were able to pass it so quickly and so overwhelmingly through the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to the vote today where I am confident we will, once again, send a signal that we are not going to tolerate these practices any longer. The additional penalties that are part of this legislation, in my judgment, set us in the right direction. Not only will they send a strong message, but I believe they dramatically deter anyone from engaging in these practices. The procedures in this legislation should hopefully provide those who are victims with a relatively quick resolution of their problems. For these reasons, I rise in support of the legislation. I am a cosponsor and am pleased to be part of it. I thank Senator McCain and his staff for working not only on this legislation but other technology bills that we will be addressing over the next day or so. I close by expressing my support, once again, for S. 1618. I look forward to its passage today and ultimately for its passage through the Congress in general and it being signed into law by the President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to support legislation protecting the 70 million Americans who belong to credit unions from being stripped of their financial security and to allow tens of millions of others, who currently are denied access to a credit union, to become members. One of the most important financial assets our country has, Mr. President, is our extensive system of not-for-profit, community-based credit unions. Credit unions provide unique and valuable services to members, most of whom work for small businesses. Credit unions offer their members lower costs, higher returns, lower loan rates and greater convenience. They nonetheless provide important benefits to their members and crucial competition in the financial services marketplace. But credit unions have been put in significant danger by a recent Supreme Court decision. That Court ruled that attempts by the National Credit Union Administration during the Reagan Administration to more broadly interpret the 1982 ``common bond'' requirement for membership are beyond the scope of original intent. The Court's interpretation of this requirement could result in over 10 million Americans being forced out of their credit unions. It also means that small businesses with fewer than 500 employees--the engine of economic growth in this country--are barred from offering credit union memberships to their employees. Clearly, in the wake of the Court's ruling, the laws pertaining to credit union membership must be modified. Credit Unions have a proud history of providing important benefits without cost to either businesses or taxpayers. In Michigan alone 4 million people avail themselves of these benefits, and they should be protected against unfair limitations on credit union membership. What is more, the growth of credit unions in America has coincided with a significant expansion of earnings for community bankers, another crucial financial services asset for our people and our economy. As reported by the ABA Banking Journal's Annual Community Banking Earnings Report, the vast majority of community bankers believe that earnings will continue expanding, seeing no threat from credit union expansion. There is no reason, in my view, to see credit union expansion as anything but a significant benefit for our people and our economy. That is why I am supporting legislation authored by Senator D'Amato, modelled after H.R. 1151, legislation that already has passed the House. This legislation will grant credit unions authority to add Select Employee Groups of 3,000 or less to their membership. This legislation also sets a moderate cap on commercial loans in the interest of fairness and consensus. In my opinion, such a requirement was necessary to respond to some of the concerns raised in response to extended membership. The critical issue, Mr. President, is whether we are going to allow credit unions to continue to provide important services at reasonable cost to a vast and growing number of Americans, or impose new regulatory burdens on one of our economy's most important assets. I believe it is crucial that we save credit unions from undue limitations, and that this legislation will achieve that goal without harming any other industry. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of reforms to our Internal Revenue Service. As I'm sure my colleagues are aware, recent Senate Finance Committee Hearings have brought to our attention the harrowing stories of American citizens victimized by over-zealous IRS agents. These agents, often on the flimsiest of evidence, have bent and sometimes broken rules intended to protect citizens from abuse--rules that clearly must be strengthened and more effectively enforced in order to protect Americans' freedom and peace of mind. In my view, Mr. President, the most harrowing stories related during Finance Committee hearings are made all the more troublesome because of clear evidence that they are horrible examples of widespread practices. As one agent testified last fall, ``Abuses by the IRS * * * are indicative of a pervasive disregard of law and regulations designed to achieve production goals for either management or the individual agent.'' The use of quotas and statistics used as performance standards for advancement within the IRS pit agents against taxpayers at great risk to individual liberties and good order. It is time to put an end to the adversarial relationship between the IRS and the taxpayer. And there is only one way to properly accomplish that task: by reforming and restructuring the IRS to make it more service oriented and to ensure that it no longer disregards the fundamental rights of American citizens. I would like today to give special attention to one situation I believe has caused a great deal of undue hardship to many Americans: I mean IRS regulations holding innocent people responsible for the tax liabilities of their ex-spouses. In this regard, Mr. President, I would like to relate one all-too- telling anecdote: Elizabeth Cockrell came to this country from Canada over 10 years ago, when she married an American. Unfortunately, her marriage, to a stockbroker, lasted only 3 years. Since the marriage broke up, she has concentrated on raising her child while holding down a job and strengthening her roots in the community. Imagine Ms. Cockrell's surprise when, 9 years after she and her husband had been divorced, the Internal Revenue Service informed her that she owned it $500,000. It seems Ms. Cockrell's ex-husband had taken some deductions for tax shelters that the IRS had disallowed. This made him initially liable for $100,000. But time had passed and the IRS had been unable to collect from him. So Ms. Cockrell, who had nothing to do with her husband's business and did not help figure out the taxes, was now being hounded for $500,000. Why? Because she signed a joint tax return. And it turns out that even $500,000 is not enough for the IRS. With new interest and penalties, the IRS now wants $650,000. Ms. Cockrell has fought and tried to settle, all to no avail. But she is not alone. Take for example the case of Karen Andreasen. Ironically, Ms. Andreasen was married to a former IRS employee. Imagine her surprise, after their divorce, when she found out that her ex-husband, who had handled all of their financial affairs, had been forging her signature on joint returns. Imagine her shock and dismay when, even though she had no income for the years in question, the IRS came after her for her husband's tax liability. Ms. Andreasen has now been paying off the debt for years, and still has a tax lien on her house. Mr. President, cases like these are all too common. The General Accounting Office estimates that every year 50,000 spouses, 90 percent of them women, are held liable in the same way as Ms. Cockrell and Ms. Andreasen. These women, most of them working moms struggling to make ends meet, for the most part had nothing to do with the income or accounting over which the IRS is pursuing them. And, as of now, they have no legal resource. The Supreme Court just recently dismissed Ms. Cockrell's legal appeal, in which she claimed that innocent spouses should not be held liable for income they did not earn. We cannot let this decision stand. That is why I support a provision in this legislation that would say clearly a person can only be held liable for the income that he or she has earned and failed to properly report. Under this provision, every American would remain liable for his or her own taxes. No tax cheats would be let off the hook. But innocent parties, men and especially women who had no part in filing any false claims with the IRS beyond signing their name to a joint return, would no longer be held liable. No longer would ex-wives be made to pay for the mistakes and/or misdeeds of their ex-husbands. No longer would the IRS be allowed to victimize innocent people merely on account of a former marriage. There are hundreds of thousands of women out there just like Elizabeth Cockrell and Karen Andreasen. They deserve our support and protection against an over-reaching IRS. This is a crucial provision, in my view Mr. President. But it is only one of a number of provisions that must be taken to stop the IRS from pushing its agents to pursue cases to the detriment of American's fundamental rights. It is my hope that all of my colleagues will see the necessity of protecting the people from federal employees who are hired to provide a needed service to the public, but who have been given no license to intimidate or violate their rights. This legislation is an important step in our attempt to bring the IRS under control. However, I think it is crucial to note that we will not be able to put an end to our problems with the IRS unless we reform and simplify the tax code. Only by making the code simpler, flatter and more fair can we reduce the role of the IRS in the taxpaying process. We must keep in mind, in my view, that many of our current problems are the predictable results of decades of bad tax policy, and that it is up to us to reverse these policies as soon as possible. Mr. President, a recent USA Today poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe the IRS ``frequently abuses its powers.'' Fully 95 percent believe the tax code isn't working and must be changed. And who can blame them? The current tax code is 5.5 million words long, it includes 480 tax forms, and 280 publications explaining those forms. By instituting fundamental tax reform, establishing one low marginal rate with fewer loopholes, by designing a tax form the size of a postcard, we can eliminate the huge IRS bureaucracy and many of the headaches people experience in filing their taxes every year. Once we take the necessary steps toward IRS reform included in this bill, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to move on to fundamental reform of our tax code in the name of fairness, of efficiency, and of the rights of the people of the United States.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. Con. Res. 94, which encourages religious tolerance toward Muslims in America. I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, in co-sponsoring this legislation. S. Con Res. 94 calls upon Congress to lead the effort in condemning anti-Muslim intolerance and discrimination. Many may ask why a resolution such as this needs to be introduced in Congress. The answer is, unfortunately, that some Muslims in America have been subjected to discrimination and harassment based simply upon their religious beliefs. This, Mr. President, is inimical to the protections of our Constitution, and to our long-held, fundamental beliefs concerning religious tolerance and pluralism. It is important to note that Islam is one of the three great monotheistic religions based upon the teachings of Abraham. The American Muslim community, numbering close to 5 million, is a vibrant part of our nation. The many mosques, Islamic schools and centers across America serve to remind us all that Islam has contributed to advancements in the fields of mathematics, science, medicine, law, philosophy, art and literature. Furthermore, many Americans of the Muslim faith are leaders in their communities, and successes in their professions. It is my sincere hope that our colleagues will join us in taking a stand against anti-Muslim intolerance and discrimination by co- sponsoring this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor First Lieutenant Joseph Van Oosterhout, Post Commander of the Michigan State Police. He is retiring from the State Police after 23 years and 9 months of dedicated service. First Lieutenant Van Oosterhout joined the Michigan State Police after serving in the United States Navy during the Vietnam War from 1967 to 1971. After serving in the military, he attended Western Michigan University where he worked towards the Bachelor's Degree he later earned while with the State Police. He was enlisted in the Michigan State Police in 1974, first stationed at the Benton Harbor Post and later to the Detroit Post and White Pigeon Post. In 1982, Van Oosterhout was promoted to Sergeant in the Traffic Services Division in Lansing. In 1987, he was assigned as Assistant Post Commander at the Ypsilanti Post. In 1992, he was promoted to Post Commander at the Iron Mountain Post. Also in 1992, he was transferred to the Negaunee Post as Post Commander where he has served ever since. Throughout his career, First Lieutenant Van Oosterhout has received a great deal of recognition for his excellent service. In 1988, he was recognized as being the police officer in Michigan who had contributed most to traffic safety. He received one Departmental Award for breaking a crime ring and another for making a drug bust that had ties to several states. Van Oosterhout, husband to Becky and father to Leah, Sarah, Joe and Andrew, will be remembered for his excellent service and dedication to the Department of State Police, friendly demeanor and concern for those he worked with. I extend my warmest congratulations to him on his retirement.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate recently voted on an important piece of legislation, the Coverdell A+ Savings Account bill. I believe it is important to clarify my position on several amendments offered to this bill. In general, I believe the best way to ensure effective education policy is to direct as many dollars and resources as possible to the local level. By giving localities the resources and flexibility they need, I am confident that communities and parents will best direct those funds to meet the unique and diverse needs of their children. For this reason, I support the Coverdell A+ Savings Account bill. This legislation, puts resources at the most local level: with parents. Parents will now have the ability to save for and meet the educational needs of their children. Whether it means hiring a tutor for their child, buying a home computer, finding an alternative educational setting, or saving for college, parents will be in the position to take positive steps towards providing a positive educational future for their children. For similar reasons, I supported an amendment offered by Senator Gorton to give states the option of (1) continuing to receive federal education programs under the current funding system; (2) receiving federal education programs as a block grant going directly to the state without federal regulations; or (3) receiving federal education programs in a block grant going directly to the local education agency without federal regulations. By allowing local education agencies to receive federal resources without federal red tape and bureaucracy, we will be putting more power and flexibility in the hands of the people most closely involved with educating children. As a safe-guard to ensure that an appropriate level of federal funding continues, Senator Gorton's amendment insists that if future funding dips below the current level of funding, the programs would be forced back into the current categorical funding. I also supported an amendment offered by Senators Mack and D'Amato which would allow states to use existing block grant funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to fund teacher testing and merit pay programs in the state. I believe this amendment would allow states to develop important programs to help ensure quality teachers in the classroom and to pay those teachers accordingly. Finally, I supported an amendment that was offered by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison which clarified the federal position on same-sex schools. This amendment would allow same-sex classrooms and schools to be eligible to receive federal funding as long as comparable education opportunities are offered for students of both sexes. I believe the federal government must allow states and communities to find creative solutions to meeting the educational needs of their children. Again, I support the philosophy behind the Coverdell bill and the Gorton amendment which places control, resources, and decision making with parents and local communities. Unfortunately, most of the amendments offered by Democrats, while noble ideas, fund their programs by eliminating the education savings accounts and by focusing the programs and power at the federal level. While there were many interesting ideas debated, such as the amendment offered by Senator Levin which would increase the lifetime learning education credit for teachers or the amendment offered by Senator Landrieu to provide incentive grants for Blue Ribbon Schools, each proposal was paid for by defunding the A+ Savings Accounts. For that reason, I could not support these weakening amendments. Senator Glenn offered an amendment which would eliminate the ability of parents to use their tax-free savings to pay for private school tuition or homeschooling expenses. The provision included in the A+ bill is identical to the provision supported by President Clinton and the Democrats in the Balanced Budget Act which allows parents to save $500 a year for college expenses. The Balanced Budget Act, which was signed into law by the President, does not differentiate between private and public colleges. It is inconsistent to subsidize a more limited number of college students and not offer the same benefit in K- 12 education. Senator Mosely-Braun offered an amendment to eliminate the Coverdell A+ Savings accounts and to use the money instead to create a federal school construction program. While I recognize the need for adequate school construction, I believe the Coverdell bill more adequately addresses the needs for school construction through a provision included in the legislation offered by Senator Graham. This provision fosters public private partnerships for school construction and maintains the function of school construction at the local level. The bill provides for $3 billion in tax-exempt bond funding for school construction. I voted against an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy which would forgive a maximum of $8,000 in student loans for teachers entering ``high need areas or subjects'' and would pay for this provision by eliminating the A+ Savings Accounts. I opposed this amendment because the Higher Education Reauthorization Act approved by the Senate Labor Committee contains similar incentives of student loan forgiveness for teachers entering inner-city or rural teaching environments. I opposed an amendment offered by Senator Boxer which would create a new $250 million federal after-school program. While I support after- school mentoring and tutoring programs for children, I believe these programs should be operated at the local level. In addition, the federal government already funds 4 after-school care programs and 19 existing federal programs that provide tutoring and mentoring for students on a one-on-one basis. I am encouraged by the Senate's action on the Coverdell A+ Savings bill and the amendment offered by Senator Gorton. I look forward to additional debate on education issues and new and innovative proposals to place greater control and resources at the local level.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor five men who have been newly elected to the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame. Earvin ``Magic'' Johnson, one of basketball's all time greatest players who began his career with Michigan State University and gained further fame as a Los Angeles Laker; Leonard ``Red'' Kelly, one of the Red Wings greatest players who was recently named one of the 50 greatest players in NHL history; Bob Reynolds, the legendary sports broadcaster at the radio station WJR in Detroit; Isiah Thomas, possibly the greatest Detroit Piston of all time; and George Webster, All American linebacker from Michigan State University. In addition to the inductees, Peter Karmanos, Jr., Chairman of the Compuware Corporation and owner of the Carolina Hurricanes of the National Hockey League will receive the Gerald R. Ford Sports Person of the Year Award. All of these men will be honored at the 44th Annual Induction Dinner of the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame on Wednesday evening, May 20, 1998 at Detroit's Cobo Center. I want to extend my sincerest congratulations to all of these men. I am confident that the event will be a great success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for the purpose of introducing a piece of legislation in conjunction with Senator Allard, who will be soon joining me to speak.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I also seek unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Allard's remarks the Senate stand in recess for purposes of conducting the weekly policy luncheons.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to speak for up to 10 minutes, to be followed by Senator Allard for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Abraham and Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 2033 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I just have one or two additional comments to make before yielding the floor. In the process of putting together this legislation which we introduce today, I had the occasion to speak to a number of people in the law enforcement community in our State, as well as individuals who have been touched in some way or another by the crack cocaine epidemic. There are two or three points I would like to enter into the Record at this point, in conjunction with our legislation, that are drawn from some of the comments I have heard. One of them I have already mentioned, and that is the concerns local law enforcement people have that if we change the crack minimum mandatory threshold at the Federal level, it will create a problem in our State, and probably in a lot of other States where there are very tough mandatory minimums for crack dealing, because it will give people who are criminal defendants the option of going into the Federal system to avoid tough State-level penalties. I don't think we want to do that. Second, it was pointed out to me that the 5-gram trigger which currently exists for crack is very appropriate for the simple reason that most drug dealers who at least deal in crack cocaine do so in very small quantities; that there are very, very, very few crack cocaine dealers who are ever dealing in quantities such as 25 grams where they can be found in possession of and dealing at that level. In fact, what happens is that they essentially hide their crack cocaine stash in locations that are very hard to trace to the dealer and carry around quantities in the 5-gram level, which is why the mandatory minimum is, in fact, only appropriate. A third point that was made to me is the fact that by having this tough mandatory minimum in place at the Federal level, as well as in our State, at the State level, we have been very successful, through the safety valve process that exists in the Federal legislation, in getting people at the lower end of the drug chain, the crack dealer at the 5-gram level confronted with the possibility of a very severe prison sentence, to begin cooperating with authorities in exchange for the benefits to be received under the safety valve, to, in fact, begin to allow law enforcement to pursue people further up the drug chain. Increasing the threshold for the crack mandatory minimum, as the administration has proposed and consistent with the sentencing commission's recommendations, will affect very dramatically, it is believed by at least the law enforcement people in my State, the level of cooperation people will have, because in individual transactions they will be dealing below that 25-gram level and, therefore, not confronted with the 5-year mandatory minimum threat, consequently, not nearly in the same position of jeopardy as is the case today. It means, in fact, that we might have less cooperation, less ability to pursue the people who are the drug lords rather than those who are at the dealer level. Finally, again, I want to talk, as I said, about some of the contact we have had with the people who are victims. When we have talked to those people to the extent we have, it doesn't really matter--Senator Allard alluded to the racial disparity and it is a very significant issue that we are trying to address with our bill--but I have not found people, regardless of their race, whose children have been touched by a crack cocaine dealer who don't want to see the person responsible suffer consequences. Their families are suffering consequences, their school yards are suffering consequences, their neighborhoods are suffering consequences. They believe that the people behind it --whether it is the peddler in the school yard or the kingpin selling the powder cocaine--ought to suffer the consequences, as well. The way to do that, in my judgment, Mr. President, and the reason Senator Allard and I are here today, is to make it tougher on the drug kingpins and make it no easier on anybody involved in this heinous activity. We hope our colleagues will join us in this legislation. We think the arguments for it, as we have attempted to lay it here today, should be ones that are persuasive as they have been persuasive to us.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act,'' along with Senator Allard and other Senators whose names I will be submitting in a moment. This legislation will toughen sentences for drug dealers caught peddling powder cocaine. I believe it is crucial, given our continuing struggle in the war on drugs, that we send an unwavering and unambiguous message to all Americans, and our children in particular, that the sale of illegal drugs is dangerous, wrong, and will not be tolerated. As the father of three young children, I am deeply disturbed by recent trends in drug use. Indeed, since 1992 Washington has been losing important ground in the war on drugs. Let me cite just a few of the alarming facts: Over the past five years, the average number of federal drug defendants prosecuted has dropped by almost 1500 cases from the 1992 level. And the average number of drug convictions has gone down by a similar amount since 1993. The drug interdiction budget was cut by 39 percent from 1992 to 1996 and drug surveillance flights were cut in half. The impact on our kids has been serious. In the last six years, the percentage of high school seniors admitting that they had used an illicit drug has risen by more than half. Incredibly, 54 percent of the Class of 97 had used an illicit drug by graduation. For 10th graders during that same time, drug use has doubled. And--perhaps worst of all--nearly 20 percent of our 8th graders use illegal drugs. Faced with this bad news, this year the Administration finally submitted a comprehensive long range National Drug Strategy to Congress. Unfortunately, it took them nearly five years to take this step. And, as the numbers show, our children have been paying the price. What is more, when it comes to one crucial part of the war on drugs-- punishing drug pushers--the Administration wants to move us in the wrong direction. It would make the mandatory minimum prison sentences for crack cocaine dealers 5 times more lenient than they are today. The President would raise, from 5 to 25 grams--that is, from about 50 to about 250 doses--the amount of crack a person could sell before triggering a mandatory 5 year sentence. And he would raise from 50 to 250 grams the amount of crack a person could sell before triggering a mandatory 10 year sentence. This would have the effect of lowering sentences for all those who deal crack--even though just 2 years ago the President vetoed a similar proposal, explaining ``I am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down.'' The President says we need to reduce crack dealer sentences because they are too tough compared to sentences for powder cocaine kingpins. I agree. It doesn't make sense for people who are higher on the drug chain to get lighter sentences than those at the bottom. But going easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school yards and playgrounds--is in my judgment the solution. Crack is a cheap drug and highly addictive. Tough sentences for crack dealers has forced many of them to turn in their superiors in the drug trade, in exchange for leniency. Softening these sentences will remove that incentive and undermine our prosecutors. I might add, in my State of Michigan, if we were to soften these sentences, it would create a considerable disparity between the mandatory minimums under the State law and the mandatory minimums under the Federal law. My prosecutors and local law enforcement officials are very concerned about this because it would, in effect, mean that a lot of drug dealers they are pursuing will begin making deals with and negotiating with Federal prosecutors in order to avoid the tough sanctions the people of Michigan have attempted to put into effect. I believe there's a better way. We must reject President Clinton's proposal to lower sentences for crack dealers. Instead, let's make the sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher. I agree with the Administration's view that the differentiation between crack and powder sentences is too sharp and should be reduced. But I do not agree with its conclusion that therefore we should lower sentences for crack dealers. We can instead accomplish this entirely by increasing sentences for dealing powder cocaine. For the sake of our children, I urge President Clinton to abandon his plans to lower sentences for crack dealers and instead support legislation for tougher sentences on powder dealers. Powder sentences are too low. Powder is the raw material for crack, yet sentences for powder dealers were set before the crack epidemic, without accounting for powder's role in causing it. Moreover, we occasionally see a large powder supplier get a lower sentence than the low-level crack dealer who resold some powder in crack form, simply because the powder dealer took the precaution of selling his product only in powder form. That is a genuine disparity that should be remedied, although without eliminating the differential altogether. That differential should remain, Mr. President, because, as both the President and the Sentencing Commission recognize, crack is more addictive, more available to minors, and more likely to result in violence than is powder cocaine, and hence its sale should continue to be punished more harshly. That is why today I am introducing the Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act. This legislation reduces from 500 to 50 grams the amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of selling before receiving a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence. By so doing it changes the quantity ratio for powder and crack cocaine from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1, the same ratio proposed by the Administration and within the range recommended by the Sentencing Commission. But this legislation reduces that ratio by getting tougher on powder dealers, not by giving a break to crack dealers. We owe it to the thousands upon thousands of families struggling to protect their children from the scourges of drugs and drug violence to stay tough on the criminals who prey on their neighborhoods. At this critical time it would be a catastrophic mistake to let any drug dealer think the cost of doing business is going down. More importantly it will be nearly impossible to succeed in discouraging kids from using drugs if they learn we are lowering sentences for any drug dealers. Protecting our kids means staying tough on those who peddle drugs and sending a clear message to our young people that we will not tolerate crack dealers in our neighborhoods. President Clinton had it right two years ago when he said: We have to send a constant message to our children that drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost your life--and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe. Unfortanately, President Clinton's new plan to reduce sentences for crack dealers does not live up to this obligation. It sends our kids exactly the wrong message and it does not do any favor to anybody except drug pushers. In contract, the legislation I am introducing today is faithful to this obligation. It achieves a reduction in the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing in the right way, through legislation making the sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher. By enacting the Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act we can send our kids the right message. We will not tolerate crack dealers in our neighborhoods, and we will make the sentences on powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher. Success in the drug war depends above all on the efforts of parents, schools, churches, and medical community, local law enforcement officials and community leaders. And they are doing a great job in the drug fight. But the Federal Government must do its part too. Washington has to renew the war on drugs. We must provide needed resources, and we must reinforce the message that drugs aren't acceptable and that drug dealers belong in prison--for a long time. Our kids deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. At this time, I yield to the Senator from Colorado who, under the unanimous consent that we just proposed here, will now take the floor and speak on this subject.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act,'' along with Senator Allard and other Senators whose names I will be submitting in a moment. This legislation will toughen sentences for drug dealers caught peddling powder cocaine. I believe it is crucial, given our continuing struggle in the war on drugs, that we send an unwavering and unambiguous message to all Americans, and our children in particular, that the sale of illegal drugs is dangerous, wrong, and will not be tolerated. As the father of three young children, I am deeply disturbed by recent trends in drug use. Indeed, since 1992 Washington has been losing important ground in the war on drugs. Let me cite just a few of the alarming facts: Over the past five years, the average number of federal drug defendants prosecuted has dropped by almost 1500 cases from the 1992 level. And the average number of drug convictions has gone down by a similar amount since 1993. The drug interdiction budget was cut by 39 percent from 1992 to 1996 and drug surveillance flights were cut in half. The impact on our kids has been serious. In the last six years, the percentage of high school seniors admitting that they had used an illicit drug has risen by more than half. Incredibly, 54 percent of the Class of 97 had used an illicit drug by graduation. For 10th graders during that same time, drug use has doubled. And--perhaps worst of all--nearly 20 percent of our 8th graders use illegal drugs. Faced with this bad news, this year the Administration finally submitted a comprehensive long range National Drug Strategy to Congress. Unfortunately, it took them nearly five years to take this step. And, as the numbers show, our children have been paying the price. What is more, when it comes to one crucial part of the war on drugs-- punishing drug pushers--the Administration wants to move us in the wrong direction. It would make the mandatory minimum prison sentences for crack cocaine dealers 5 times more lenient than they are today. The President would raise, from 5 to 25 grams--that is, from about 50 to about 250 doses--the amount of crack a person could sell before triggering a mandatory 5 year sentence. And he would raise from 50 to 250 grams the amount of crack a person could sell before triggering a mandatory 10 year sentence. This would have the effect of lowering sentences for all those who deal crack--even though just 2 years ago the President vetoed a similar proposal, explaining ``I am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down.'' The President says we need to reduce crack dealer sentences because they are too tough compared to sentences for powder cocaine kingpins. I agree. It doesn't make sense for people who are higher on the drug chain to get lighter sentences than those at the bottom. But going easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school yards and playgrounds--is in my judgment the solution. Crack is a cheap drug and highly addictive. Tough sentences for crack dealers has forced many of them to turn in their superiors in the drug trade, in exchange for leniency. Softening these sentences will remove that incentive and undermine our prosecutors. I might add, in my State of Michigan, if we were to soften these sentences, it would create a considerable disparity between the mandatory minimums under the State law and the mandatory minimums under the Federal law. My prosecutors and local law enforcement officials are very concerned about this because it would, in effect, mean that a lot of drug dealers they are pursuing will begin making deals with and negotiating with Federal prosecutors in order to avoid the tough sanctions the people of Michigan have attempted to put into effect. I believe there's a better way. We must reject President Clinton's proposal to lower sentences for crack dealers. Instead, let's make the sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher. I agree with the Administration's view that the differentiation between crack and powder sentences is too sharp and should be reduced. But I do not agree with its conclusion that therefore we should lower sentences for crack dealers. We can instead accomplish this entirely by increasing sentences for dealing powder cocaine. For the sake of our children, I urge President Clinton to abandon his plans to lower sentences for crack dealers and instead support legislation for tougher sentences on powder dealers. Powder sentences are too low. Powder is the raw material for crack, yet sentences for powder dealers were set before the crack epidemic, without accounting for powder's role in causing it. Moreover, we occasionally see a large powder supplier get a lower sentence than the low-level crack dealer who resold some powder in crack form, simply because the powder dealer took the precaution of selling his product only in powder form. That is a genuine disparity that should be remedied, although without eliminating the differential altogether. That differential should remain, Mr. President, because, as both the President and the Sentencing Commission recognize, crack is more addictive, more available to minors, and more likely to result in violence than is powder cocaine, and hence its sale should continue to be punished more harshly. That is why today I am introducing the Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act. This legislation reduces from 500 to 50 grams the amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of selling before receiving a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence. By so doing it changes the quantity ratio for powder and crack cocaine from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1, the same ratio proposed by the Administration and within the range recommended by the Sentencing Commission. But this legislation reduces that ratio by getting tougher on powder dealers, not by giving a break to crack dealers. We owe it to the thousands upon thousands of families struggling to protect their children from the scourges of drugs and drug violence to stay tough on the criminals who prey on their neighborhoods. At this critical time it would be a catastrophic mistake to let any drug dealer think the cost of doing business is going down. More importantly it will be nearly impossible to succeed in discouraging kids from using drugs if they learn we are lowering sentences for any drug dealers. Protecting our kids means staying tough on those who peddle drugs and sending a clear message to our young people that we will not tolerate crack dealers in our neighborhoods. President Clinton had it right two years ago when he said: We have to send a constant message to our children that drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost your life--and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe. Unfortanately, President Clinton's new plan to reduce sentences for crack dealers does not live up to this obligation. It sends our kids exactly the wrong message and it does not do any favor to anybody except drug pushers. In contract, the legislation I am introducing today is faithful to this obligation. It achieves a reduction in the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing in the right way, through legislation making the sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher. By enacting the Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act we can send our kids the right message. We will not tolerate crack dealers in our neighborhoods, and we will make the sentences on powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher. Success in the drug war depends above all on the efforts of parents, schools, churches, and medical community, local law enforcement officials and community leaders. And they are doing a great job in the drug fight. But the Federal Government must do its part too. Washington has to renew the war on drugs. We must provide needed resources, and we must reinforce the message that drugs aren't acceptable and that drug dealers belong in prison--for a long time. Our kids deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. At this time, I yield to the Senator from Colorado who, under the unanimous consent that we just proposed here, will now take the floor and speak on this subject.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I just have one or two additional comments to make before yielding the floor. In the process of putting together this legislation which we introduce today, I had the occasion to speak to a number of people in the law enforcement community in our State, as well as individuals who have been touched in some way or another by the crack cocaine epidemic. There are two or three points I would like to enter into the Record at this point, in conjunction with our legislation, that are drawn from some of the comments I have heard. One of them I have already mentioned, and that is the concerns local law enforcement people have that if we change the crack minimum mandatory threshold at the Federal level, it will create a problem in our State, and probably in a lot of other States where there are very tough mandatory minimums for crack dealing, because it will give people who are criminal defendants the option of going into the Federal system to avoid tough State-level penalties. I don't think we want to do that. Second, it was pointed out to me that the 5-gram trigger which currently exists for crack is very appropriate for the simple reason that most drug dealers who at least deal in crack cocaine do so in very small quantities; that there are very, very, very few crack cocaine dealers who are ever dealing in quantities such as 25 grams where they can be found in possession of and dealing at that level. In fact, what happens is that they essentially hide their crack cocaine stash in locations that are very hard to trace to the dealer and carry around quantities in the 5-gram level, which is why the mandatory minimum is, in fact, only appropriate. A third point that was made to me is the fact that by having this tough mandatory minimum in place at the Federal level, as well as in our State, at the State level, we have been very successful, through the safety valve process that exists in the Federal legislation, in getting people at the lower end of the drug chain, the crack dealer at the 5-gram level confronted with the possibility of a very severe prison sentence, to begin cooperating with authorities in exchange for the benefits to be received under the safety valve, to, in fact, begin to allow law enforcement to pursue people further up the drug chain. Increasing the threshold for the crack mandatory minimum, as the administration has proposed and consistent with the sentencing commission's recommendations, will affect very dramatically, it is believed by at least the law enforcement people in my State, the level of cooperation people will have, because in individual transactions they will be dealing below that 25-gram level and, therefore, not confronted with the 5-year mandatory minimum threat, consequently, not nearly in the same position of jeopardy as is the case today. It means, in fact, that we might have less cooperation, less ability to pursue the people who are the drug lords rather than those who are at the dealer level. Finally, again, I want to talk, as I said, about some of the contact we have had with the people who are victims. When we have talked to those people to the extent we have, it doesn't really matter--Senator Allard alluded to the racial disparity and it is a very significant issue that we are trying to address with our bill--but I have not found people, regardless of their race, whose children have been touched by a crack cocaine dealer who don't want to see the person responsible suffer consequences. Their families are suffering consequences, their school yards are suffering consequences, their neighborhoods are suffering consequences. They believe that the people behind it --whether it is the peddler in the school yard or the kingpin selling the powder cocaine--ought to suffer the consequences, as well. The way to do that, in my judgment, Mr. President, and the reason Senator Allard and I are here today, is to make it tougher on the drug kingpins and make it no easier on anybody involved in this heinous activity. We hope our colleagues will join us in this legislation. We think the arguments for it, as we have attempted to lay it here today, should be ones that are persuasive as they have been persuasive to us.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 10 a.m. or immediately following the nomination hearing, on pending committee business.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, April 30, 1998 beginning at 9 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, the Public Land Management Act of 1997.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Aviation Subcommittee on the Seante Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 2 p.m. on AIP reauthorization (COMMITTEE PROPOSAL).

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on the nomination of James Loy to be admiral and James Card to be vice admiral of the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on title IV of S. 1693, the Vision 2020 National Park Restoration Act; and S. 624, the National Park Service Concession Policy Reform Act of 1997.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 10 a.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.