Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide a $1,000 per child tax credit for America's working families. Mr. President, this legislation builds on the $500 per child tax credit passed in 1997. The passage of the $500 per child tax credit was the culmination of an effort that began in 1994 with a proposal contained in the ``Contract with America.'' A child tax credit provision also was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which 104th Congress passed, but President Clinton vetoed. Even with the $500 per child tax credit in place, today's total tax burden on families is still far too high. During this era of budget surpluses, we must remember that these surplus funds are tax overpayments that should be returned to the people who overpaid them, and not spent on wasteful government programs. American families will spend the money better. The child tax credit will help hard working families who pay federal income tax and have children to support. Under this proposal, a working family with two children will receive $2,000 in the form of a tax credit to help pay their children's health, education and food expenses. Being a parent is not always easy. It becomes even more difficult if a family has trouble paying for necessities such as food, clothes, education, and health care for their children. This tax credit will help those families. Mr. President, increasing the child tax credit to $1,000 is a statement by our government and our society that all our families and all of our children will not be left behind. Increasing the $500 per child tax credit to $1,000 would provide parents more than 38 million children, including roughly 1.5 million of my constituents in Michigan. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting American families by supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text be printed in the Record and yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide a $1,000 per child tax credit for America's working families. Mr. President, this legislation builds on the $500 per child tax credit passed in 1997. The passage of the $500 per child tax credit was the culmination of an effort that began in 1994 with a proposal contained in the ``Contract with America.'' A child tax credit provision also was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which 104th Congress passed, but President Clinton vetoed. Even with the $500 per child tax credit in place, today's total tax burden on families is still far too high. During this era of budget surpluses, we must remember that these surplus funds are tax overpayments that should be returned to the people who overpaid them, and not spent on wasteful government programs. American families will spend the money better. The child tax credit will help hard working families who pay federal income tax and have children to support. Under this proposal, a working family with two children will receive $2,000 in the form of a tax credit to help pay their children's health, education and food expenses. Being a parent is not always easy. It becomes even more difficult if a family has trouble paying for necessities such as food, clothes, education, and health care for their children. This tax credit will help those families. Mr. President, increasing the child tax credit to $1,000 is a statement by our government and our society that all our families and all of our children will not be left behind. Increasing the $500 per child tax credit to $1,000 would provide parents more than 38 million children, including roughly 1.5 million of my constituents in Michigan. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting American families by supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text be printed in the Record and yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. George Lee ``Sparky'' Anderson, who will be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum in Cooperstown, New York on July 23, 2000. Mr. Anderson spent 26 seasons as a manager in the Major Leagues, 17 of these with the Detroit Tigers. During this time, he was recognized not only as one of the best managers in the game of baseball, but also as one of the best ambassadors for the game of baseball. Mr. Anderson was born on February 22, 1934, in Bridgewater, South Dakota. Upon graduation from high school, he signed with the Brooklyn Dodgers. He spent six years in the minor leagues before being called up to the major leagues by the Philadelphia Phillies in 1959. He was the regular second baseman for the Phillies that year, and was recognized as an intelligent, hustling player. He had a batting average of .218, 0 home runs and 34 runs batted in. He earned the nickname ``manos de oro'' from his teammates: ``the man with the golden hands.'' As it turned out, 1959 was the only year Mr. Anderson spent in the major leagues as a player. He never left the game of baseball, though, and in 1964 he became the manager of a minor league team in Toronto. In 1969, he accepted a coaching position with the San Diego Padres, and prior to the 1970 season the Cincinnati Reds named him as their manager. It quickly became apparent that managing suited Mr. Anderson well. Not only did it provide him with the opportunity to utilize his immense knowledge of the game of baseball, it also highlighted his ability to relate to and motivate players. Hall of Famer Joe Morgan, a member of the Reds during Mr. Anderson's years there and now a wonderful and respected baseball commentator, once said, ``Sparky had a way of making everybody look in the mirror at themselves. As far as I'm concerned, that's the key to being a good manager.'' Under Mr. Anderson's guidance, the Reds became the dominant team of the 1970's. The team became known as The Big Red Machine for its ability to produce runs, led by such great offensive players as Morgan, Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez and Ken Griffey, Sr. Mr. Anderson earned the nickname ``Captain Hook'' for his innovative employment of relief pitchers, which was not the common practice of the time. This combination of offense and strategic wizardry proved to be lethal for opponents. In his first year with the team, the Reds won 102 games and the National League Pennant. From 1972-76, the Reds averaged more than one hundred wins per season, won three more National League pennants, and won back-to-back World Series Championships in 1975 and 1976. After nine years in Cincinnati, Mr. Anderson came to the Detroit Tigers in 1979. The Tigers were struggling at the time, but possessed a core of young, talented players, including Jack Morris, Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell and Lance Parrish. Mr. Anderson molded this group of unique personalities into a team of champions. In 1984, just five years after his arrival, the team started 35-5--still the best 40-game start in the history of Major League Baseball--and never stopped their winning ways, ultimately bringing the Detroit Tigers their first World Series Championship since 1968. Very few people in the City of Detroit have forgotten Kirk Gibson's home run off the San Diego Padres' Goose Gossage in the eighth inning of Game 5, the hit which sewed up the series for the Tigers. Mr. Anderson retired from managing the Tigers in 1995, having led the team to one more pennant win in 1987. Ultimately, in his 26 seasons as a Major League manager, nine with the Reds and 17 with the Tigers, his teams won 2,194 games, placing him third all-time, behind just Connie Mack and John McGraw. He was named Manager of the Year three times, twice in the National League and once in the American League. He is the only manager in the history of the game to win a World Series in both the American and National Leagues; he is the only manager to win 100 games in one season in both leagues; and he is the only manager to have over six hundred career victories in each league. His 34-21 mark in the postseason remains the best winning percentage for a manager in Major League history. During his seventeen years in Detroit, Mr. Anderson became an important member of the community, and not because his position as Manager of the Detroit Tigers. His involvement with many charitable organizations led him to found his own in 1987. The organization is called CATCH, Caring Athletes Team for Children's & Henry Ford Hospitals, but is better known as ``Sparky Anderson's Charity for Children.'' The mission of CATCH is to improve the quality of life of pediatric patients at Children's & Henry Ford Hospitals in the State of Michigan. Since its inception, CATCH has issued grants to Children's Hospital of Michigan and Henry Ford Hospital of Detroit for approximately $1.4 million. In addition, the charitable organization has built an endowment of $4.5 million. When he founded CATCH, Mr. Anderson said ``there is nothing in this world that you will ever do that's better than helping a child.'' The growth of this endowment will allow ``Sparky Anderson's Charity for Children'' to continue helping children long into the future. I thank Mr. Anderson for all that he has done for the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan. He spent his life in baseball quite simply because he loved the game, and he has never stopped believing that he is indebted to the game for the doors it opened for him, and the life it afforded him. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment, then, is having successfully given back to the game of baseball more than it gave to him, because he certainly has done this. He stands out as one of the best ambassadors for baseball in the history of the game, a sports figure who managed to give as much to his community as he did to his team. I know that he is loved and revered in the State of Michigan not only because of the World Series championship he helped bring to the City of Detroit in 1984, but also because of the manner in which he handled himself over the course of his seventeen years there. He became an important part of the Detroit community--his place there transcended wins and losses. I am sure that Mr. Anderson will enjoy this special occasion with his wife, Carol, who has been with him through the entire journey, and their family. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Mr. Sparky Anderson on his induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame this weekend. Though he will enter the Hall wearing a Cincinnati Reds uniform, I know that the Detroit Tigers, the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan will always hold a special place in his heart, just as Sparky continues to hold a special place in the hearts of millions of Michiganians.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing our condolences to Paul Coverdell's wife Nancy and all the members of his family. I think that anybody who has watched the expressions and condolences that have already been offered would recognize immediately the extent to which Senator Coverdell touched all of us in the Senate and the extent to which he was a beloved colleague and friend. Paul's life achievement, in so many different ways, obviously deserves the tributes we are paying today. I wish to comment on some of those achievements. First, Paul Coverdell was one of the really remarkable leaders of our time. He began his political career in the Georgia Legislature and rose up to the leadership position in the Republican Party in the Georgia State Senate. He then came to Washington and made his mark as the Director of the Peace Corps. He was very instrumental in expanding and successfully helping the Peace Corps to transition into a new era. Paul was a leader in his party. He served as chairman of the Georgia Republican Party at a time when there weren't a lot of Republicans in Georgia. But thanks to him, the party grew in strength. That is when I actually first became acquainted with him, because I chaired the Republican Party in Michigan at that time and we met in the context of national party meetings. Then, of course, Paul was elected to this body in 1992. I think everybody here is aware of how effective and how competent and able he was. He moved into the leadership of this Chamber fairly quickly--in, I think, his first term in the Senate. That doesn't happen too often in a place where seniority counts so much. But his observable abilities, talents, and incredible work ethic brought him to the attention of all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. On our side of the aisle, it resulted in him being put in a leadership role early in his career. More than being an effective leader, Paul was a tremendous colleague when it came time to needing some assistance on a project. I can't think of one important piece of legislation that I have worked on in the time I have been in the Senate when Paul Coverdell wasn't helping me in some fashion to get it through. I remember coming here in my very first couple of legislative efforts, on amendments and bills, as a freshman Member who did not know how this place worked and looking to him, who was a slightly more senior Member, for guidance and help; he was always there. He has been there for all of us. That is why I think today is such a tough day. It would not really matter what the issue was, he was somebody who would try to help you. His staff was built by him to be of similar assistance. Of course, for all of us, probably the principal thing we would acknowledge in terms of Paul's attributes was the tremendous friendship he offered to all of us who were his friends. I had a unique relationship with him in the sense that he served as a mentor and friend to me in my first couple of years. When he sought a leadership position, I was proud of the fact that he asked me to place his name in nomination for that. I did so on the second occasion he sought to be in the leadership of our party. When you are asked to nominate somebody for one of these jobs, it obviously means a lot to you and tells you that you are well regarded by that person. I have to say it means an unbelievable amount to me to think that Senator Paul Coverdell thought of me as someone who he would want to play that role in his political career. As I said earlier, the reaction of his colleagues today demonstrates that others share my high opinion of Paul. So many have given statements already, and I know more will follow that will move us all. We have seen people express themselves in ways we never thought we would see. People who are known to come to the Senate floor and wage verbal debates back and forth on serious topics have already come here today and demonstrated, in the most human way, that they were so close to and touched by Paul Coverdell, and that all of the partisanship and the political debate is really second to them in importance to describing the friendship he provided all of us. So as I close we pray for the best for Paul's wife and family. We give thanks for having been able to share his friendship. On a personal level, I say: Goodbye, Paul, we will never forget you. You were a key part of all we have done here, and you will continue to play a role as our memories of you continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment, which I described briefly yesterday, embodies the principles of our legislation, S. 2808, which has been introduced by the Senators I mentioned and myself, to temporarily suspend the Federal gasoline tax for 150 days, while holding harmless the highway trust fund and protecting the Social Security trust fund. America is facing a crisis, and we have to take action now. Yesterday I spoke before the Senate about how, during my travels over the Fourth of July recess, I was struck that people in my State had one thing on their minds, and that was the price of gasoline. It was the most important issue on virtually everybody's mind. It was the second most important issue, and it was the third most important issue. As I talked with the citizens in my State, I asked them to join me in making sure this issue to suspend the Federal gasoline tax received more attention in the Congress. I am proud of how they have already responded. Over the last 10 days, we have had a web site through which people could sign a petition online urging Congress to suspend the gas tax. Literally over 100,000 people have logged on to the site and thousands have already joined this petition drive. On behalf of these thousands of Michigan citizens--and I know there are millions more across the country who are feeling the pinch at the pump--I am here today to fight for relief on behalf of our consumers, our minivan parents, our farmers, and others for a bill that would suspend the Federal gasoline tax for 150 days. Yesterday I told this body how citizens throughout Michigan were demanding quick relief from these high gas prices. People from all walks of life have talked with me about this: Farmers who, according to our Farm Bureau, are likely to see their net family farm income decrease by 35 percent; A minivan mom with seven kids who now has to give up her minivan because it costs her $70 to fill up the tank; Every day men and women who banged on gas cans during a parade in Traverse City, MI, demanding immediate relief from high gas prices; A Southfield, MI, Amoco dealer who lowered prices by 18 cents a gallon for 2 hours in support of this proposal and found himself surrounded by a quarter mile of cars in every direction waiting to buy his cheaper gas. This crisis is very real. If we do not take action now to provide some relief for the economy, we will face some very serious economic consequences soon because so many of the important sectors of our economy are being hurt by these high prices. According to Lundberg Survey, a nationwide survey of gas prices, the city of Detroit suffers under the highest gas prices in the country. These prices are 40 cents a gallon higher than they were at the end of May. That is a 27-percent increase in only 2 months; 63 percent higher than in June of last year. These are unconscionably high gas prices. Yesterday I discussed several factors that contributed to the rising costs of gasoline in the past months: OPEC's decision to lower production levels; lack of a sustainable and long-term energy policy to lower our dependency on foreign oil; regulations which have required the development of reformulated fuels; and a variety of other things, such as pipeline breakdowns. Solving those problems will take a lot of time. The solutions to these issues will not bring down the price overnight or in the short term. People across Michigan want to see gas prices lowered. They want them lowered sooner, not later, and that is what this amendment will do. It is the one thing we can do in the Congress to bring down the price of gasoline and to bring it down immediately. So it is my hope that we will support this amendment today. Let me quickly cover some of its key ingredients, and then I know there are others who want to speak to this issue. First, as I said, it will provide suspension of the Federal gas tax for 150 days. We estimate this will provide real relief for motorists and consumers, averaging over $150 of savings for a typical one-car or one-minivan family. Let me make one thing very clear about what this legislation also will do. It will not threaten the highway trust fund. Yesterday we revised this language again to strengthen even further the elements that will hold the highway trust fund and the roadbuilding money distributed to the States absolutely harmless. I urge my colleagues to examine the legislation to satisfy themselves that that will happen. First, every penny of the gas tax revenue that would have come into the highway trust fund from the collection of gas taxes will be made up with deposits of non-Social Security surplus funds. This will allow us to ensure that the building projects, the road repair projects, in the States will continue unabated and unharmed by this suspension. To make sure everyone understands that this is an ironclad guarantee that the States will not lose one penny of highway funds, we have strengthened the hold harmless provisions even more from that which I detailed yesterday by adding additional language which I will enter into the Record at the end of my comments. In short, this accomplishes two things. It keeps the highway trust fund intact by supplementing any lost revenue with surplus dollars, and it simultaneously gives the average working men and women, the consumers of this country, who are paying too much for gasoline today, a 5-month break in paying the Federal gas tax. That will be 18 cents a gallon in every service station in America. It will make a difference for our consumers. It will make a difference for our farmers. It will make a difference for people in the tourism industry. It will be, I think, a timely action on our part. Back in April of this year, gas prices were 40 to 50 cents a gallon less than they are now. At that time, when we last considered this legislation, we could not pass a proposal that would have lowered the gas taxes. But things have changed. We have seen that that was not a short-lived crisis. We have also seen that OPEC has not responded in a fashion to bring prices more into line with what the American public deserves. For those reasons, I hope our colleagues who voted differently the last go-around will reconsider their vote and join us on this vote today. Let me close by saying that this legislation is a serious attempt to provide relief to the millions of Americans forced to dig deeper into the family budget for gas to take their kids to school or to get to work at any automobile plant in Michigan--in Flint or Sterling Heights. Michigan consumers are rightfully outraged by the high price of gasoline. They need relief and they need it now. If any of my colleagues have any ideas how the highway trust fund hold harmless provisions can be improved and strengthened, I would be more than happy to entertain them and, if necessary, modify this amendment. But the time has come for us to take action and to take it now. In my judgment, this is the only way we can do something that will have an immediate impact on the lives of the working citizens of this country. I hope we will join together to adopt the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time. We have several other speakers who are prepared to address the issue.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I noted I did not have an amendment on the list. I was wondering if I might add an Abraham relevant amendment on the list.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President. I rise to support the American Community Renewal and New Markets Empowerment Amendment offered by Senators Santorum, Lieberman, Kerrey, myself and others. This amendment represents a bipartisan effort designed to address the social and economic ills which are preventing our poorest areas from participating in the current economic boom. I strongly believe that it will go a long way toward bringing the economic growth and sense of community necessary to maintain, safe streets, strong families, and thriving neighborhoods. Under this legislation, 50 new Renewal Communities--one for each state--would be created. Characterized by pervasive poverty, Renewal Communities provide financial incentives to promote economic growth and social health in distressed areas. Incentives include: a zero capital gains rate, increased expensing of equipment costs for small businesses, employment wage credit for hiring Renewal Community Residents and an extension of the Brownfields provision. In addition, our amendment would increase housing opportunities nationwide for poorer families by increasing and indexing for inflation the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and the volume caps on Private Activity Bonds. Since implemented in 1986, thanks to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, in Michigan, 27,000 housing units have gone up. Nationally, the credit is responsible for one million apartments dedicated to low- income tenants at restricted rents. Mr. President, increasing the volume cap on private activity bonds will help finance thousands of single and multi-family mortgages and property improvement loans. The legislation also calls for the establishment of Individual Development Accounts to help the working poor build financial assets. The IDAs in this bill apply this concept nationally, giving all families the opportunity to buy a home, further their education or start up a new business. The amendment also includes the faith-based treatment and charitable choice provisions will continue the work started in the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. Religious-based organizations will be able to compete on equal grounds with non-religious organizations. This will allow them to provide drug and alcohol treatment and other welfare-related services without compromising the religious nature of their treatment or organization. The creation of privately managed, for-profit companies and the New Markets tax credit will provide the financial security necessary to bring investment to communities which would otherwise be considered too high-risk. Finally, Mr. President, this amendment includes the New Millennium Classrooms Act, which would help address the issue of the digital divide, providing tax incentives to companies to increase the amount of computer and related technology donations to qualified recipients in designated poor areas. To increase the amount of technology donated to schools, libraries, senior centers and vocational education centers in economically disadvantaged areas, the New Millennium Classrooms Act would expand the parameters of the current tax deduction and add a tax credit. Introduced as the New Millennium Classrooms Act in March, 1999, this legislation has the support of 32 cosponsors and most recently passed as an amendment to the Affordable Education Act, on a vote of 96-2. Despite the recent gains made in increasing the level of computers and technology in schools, unacceptable disparities still exist. Schools with greater numbers of poor and minority students simply do not have the same access to the Internet and computer technology as wealthier schools and schools with lower minority enrollment. If our poorer communities are to truly experience a complete and long-term economic rejuvenation, their residents must have access and instruction in information technologies. Many Americans--particularly those with less income and education-- are still missing out on the digital age. More and more, everyday activities migrate to the Internet. Unless we act now, the gap in opportunities available to those on the other side of the digital divide will continue to increase. I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment to provide real hope and opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Fitzgerald, Hutchison, and Grams.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the cosponsors of this amendment and I are not alone in our support for the suspension of the gas tax. A number of taxpayer groups also believe suspending the tax is good policy, and have endorsed such a suspension. Among these groups are the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Let me read from the NFIB letter that states: For a small company that consumes 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel in a month, the increase in prices in the past year will cost that company an additional $40,000 per month. By suspending the gas tax for 150 days, we could save that small business over $60,000! I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letters of support from each of these organizations to highlight the board based support for this suspension.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In light of the time situation, I ask unanimous consent to be granted 10 minutes of our leader's time to continue this debate.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the debate we have had today. The bottom line remains the same: People in America are paying too much for gasoline. Congress must do something about it. I have heard an array of objections raised by people as to why this can't be done. Given the actions this Congress regularly takes on appropriations legislation, on budget legislation, on tax legislation, moving gigantic packages in short periods of time when we do our omnibus spending bills, the notion that this legislation somehow doesn't accomplish the mission of protecting the highway fund from diminution is, to me, an inaccurate statement. The road projects will continue. The legislation ensures that the money will be there. We are aware that we have on-budget surpluses, not touching Social Security, adequate to meet the cost of suspending the gas tax. I believe those claims just simply are off the mark. This will be a stake through the heart, if this is defeated, of the consumers of America who are paying way too much right now in gasoline prices. They deserve a break. Consumers in my State, for whom I come to the Senate floor and fight every day, deserve that break. We are paying the highest gas prices in America. Whether consumers drive a minivan back and forth to children's activities, or drive a car to their job, regardless of their needs, in Michigan and across America, I find it hard to believe there is anyplace in America today where Members of this body are not hearing from constituents that the price of gasoline is too high. We selected 5 months as the duration of this action for a simple reason. That is what we have been told by the spokesperson at the Department of Energy and in this administration is the approximate duration of time it will take for the various efforts they are engaged in to try to bring down the price of gasoline. I am happy to modify this amendment to a shorter timeframe if we have assurances from anybody that would, in fact, be an adequate period of time for the supply issues to be addressed. That is not what we have heard. We heard it will take longer. We cannot wait longer in Michigan. We want relief now. The one thing we can do as a body is to suspend the Federal gas tax for 150 days. I believe this is a clear-cut choice. We are here to try to help the men and women, the hard-working families of this country. This is something we can do in a concrete way to help them. It can be done in a fashion that does not undermine the road projects going on. I believe this price, as a result of the suspension of the gas tax, will translate into prices at the pump. We saw it in our State the other day. As soon as the station brought down prices 18 cents, everybody went to that station for gas. In any station, any oil company that does not bring down its prices in accordance with the passage of this legislation will lose business to the stations that do. That is the way of supply and demand. That is the way price will work. It will create the competitive market in which the people who abide by the terms of this legislation quickly benefit because they will be the ones with the customers. It will help the farmers in my State who are right now screaming because of high gasoline prices. It will help the tourism industry in my State which is deeply concerned that the price of gasoline is so high. It will help the automotive industry which is worried that we will once again see a recession caused by a shift from American-made products to foreign imports. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I assure them, look at it yourself; you will see the language is explicit. The highway trust fund moneys will not be diminished if we do this but consumers will gain the benefit with which we sought to protect them in the suspension of this gas tax. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to be granted 5 minutes of leader time to summarize our amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Perhaps I could clarify.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is what I sought to clarify a moment ago. I recognize that the two separate timeframes can be confused, and I will modify my unanimous consent request to request 5 additional minutes off the 90 minutes accorded to the leader on my side for debate on this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated July 13, 2000, from Andrew Quinlan of CapitolWatch to Senator Lott be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yielded the floor, but I will yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. May I respond, then, to his motion--or his point of order?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to waive section 311 of the Budget Act with respect to this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I am a cosponsor of the legislation that it embodies. I believe this is the kind of direction we should pursue to try to revitalize parts of this country which require assistance to be completed on parts of our overall economic progress and growth as a Nation. I am particularly pleased that included in this is our new millenniums classroom component which will make it far easier for schools in this country to gain access to the computer technology they need to make sure that the digital divide, as we call it, is closed, so that opportunities for people to gain the training and skills they need with respect to our new high-tech world will be available to them. I compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Connecticut for their work on this and look forward to working with them to secure its ultimate passage and enactment.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to talk with respect to one of the amendments on that list of 113, one that I had planned to offer, which would basically be an amendment that embodies a bill I introduced, S. 2808, the purpose of which was to temporarily suspend the Federal gasoline tax for 150 days, while holding harmless the highway trust fund and protecting the Social Security trust fund. Obviously, this is not the type of legislation that would normally be brought on an appropriations bill. I have traveled throughout the State of Michigan in recent weeks where we are confronting gasoline prices that are so high that the motorists in our State and people in industries that depend on the purchase of gasoline and other fuels are up in arms at a level I don't believe I can ever remember. Whether you are in the Abraham family, which owns a minivan and pays $50 to fill up the tank, or whether you are a family that has multiple minivans and fills up more than one tank a week, or whether you are a farmer who has many needs in the production of agricultural commodities for the use of motor vehicles and other machines that require oil and fuel, or whether you are in the automotive industry that depends on the purchase of SUVs, light trucks, and other American-made automobiles and motor vehicles, or whether it is the tourism industry that requires reasonably priced gasoline in order to make sure that summer vacation plans are carried out--and tourism is an economic sector that remains strong--regardless of your role in my State, you are very upset because today the price of gasoline in Michigan is almost 75 to 80 cents higher than it was a year ago. In fact, this Monday, a national survey of gasoline prices indicated that in the city of Detroit, in the metropolitan area, we have the highest gasoline prices in America. Something needs to be done about this. We have heard Senator Murkowski and others on the Energy Committee talk about a variety of long-term strategies, ranging from the development of domestic energy, to addressing alternative energy sources, to conservation. We have talked a little bit here about regulations that have increased the cost of fuel development. We have talked about it in the Senate and have heard about issues that range from whether or not the oil companies are in some sort of collusive effort and are gouging the consumers of America. We have heard all of these things. But the bottom line is, taking action in any of those areas will not dramatically change the price of gasoline in the short run. We may, if we develop more domestic energy sources, be in a better position to control production and supply and, as a consequence, price. We may, if we address certain regulations, make it possible to change the price. But none of that is going to happen overnight. In my State and across the Midwest, and really across the entire country, people want action sooner, not later. There is only one thing we can do as a Congress that will bring action sooner rather than later with respect to the price of gasoline, and that is to temporarily suspend the Federal tax on gasoline of 18.4 cents. Overnight, at every filling station in America and every gas station, the price of gasoline would theoretically come down by about 18 cents. Believe me, people will show up to buy that less expensive gasoline. In Michigan, just a few days ago, a gas station, having heard my plea to suspend the Federal gas tax, reduced the price of gasoline for 2 hours at that station in the Detroit metropolitan area by 18.4 cents. There were lines of traffic a quarter mile virtually in every direction to get into that station because people who had been desperate to pay less for gasoline had the chance to do so--for 2 hours at least. Our State's economy and the Nation's economy is being affected by these high fuel costs. Recently, I conducted a hearing in Warren, MI. We heard from people in the Michigan agricultural community who indicated to us that, according to their estimates--and, in fact, we heard from a family farmer himself who said they expect their net family farm income this year to be approximately 35 percent lower than it was projected to be. But we heard from people in the Michigan automotive community who indicated that already they were beginning to see indications of a shift from the purchase of new vehicles made in America to the purchase of imported vehicles. I think many of us remember back when we had energy problems in the 1970s and we saw a shift away from American-manufactured vehicles to foreign imports, and what that did not just to the economy of Michigan or the auto industry but its rippling effect across the entire economy of this country. We heard from others as well. We heard from consumers who came to that hearing and talked about the impact on their families and the sort of things they could no longer afford to do. It is not only people who came to the hearing that I heard from. Last weekend, I was up in Traverse City, MI, to participate in the annual cherry festival. I was confronted by a group calling themselves the ``Traverse City Gas Can Gang.'' When I was walking in the parade, they were imploring me, and virtually all other political figures present at that parade, to do something about the gasoline tax because basically they couldn't afford the price of gasoline. I had a press conference in the city of Alpena, MI, and a lady senior citizen attending the press conference told me she had to walk to the press conference. She was interested in what I had to say about gas prices. She walked because she couldn't afford to pay for gas in order to drive. She was not a young constituent. She was an elderly senior citizen. But I am not the only one confronting these kinds of constituents. These high prices across America are substantially more than they were a year ago. The metro Detroit area currently suffers under the highest gas prices in the country. Even though the price has come down from approximately $2 a gallon, it is still approximately $1.85 a gallon this week. These prices are 40 cents a gallon higher than they were in May of this year. That is a 27-percent increase in 2 months. Of course, it is not in Michigan alone. Across the country people are confronting the same kind of significant increases. In June of 1999 gas prices in my State averaged just over $1.13 a gallon in Detroit, $1.17 a gallon throughout Michigan. One year later, gas prices were averaging $2.14 a gallon in Detroit, and just under $2.08 a gallon in the State of Michigan as a whole. That is almost a 90-percent rate of inflation for gas in the State. As I pointed out, former Soviet Republics don't suffer inflation this aggravated. Even with the recent slight drop in gas prices, it is still 56 percent higher this year than it was 1 year ago. There are a lot of possible explanations. There are a lot of factors that have come into play. This Congress and this Senate have a responsibility to deal with the long-term issues. But we also have a responsibility to provide relief in the short term, if we can. That is what can be accomplished if we were to temporarily suspend the Federal gas taxes. Eighteen cents a gallon would make a big difference to the people in my State. This is not insignificant. It is more than a 10-percent reduction in the price of regular gasoline. For the typical one-car or one-minivan family, that would mean savings of $150 over the next 5 months. For those who are in the trucking industry, of course it would reduce their diesel prices by almost 25 cents a gallon. That would make a huge difference for them in terms of their bottom line as well. My proposal is designed to simultaneously reduce the price at the pump and protect the road-funding dollars that many of our States, including certainly mine, are counting on from Washington. We would replenish any lost revenue to the highway trust fund at the same time we would suspend the gas tax. As you know, we are confronting for this year as well as for the next year record high surpluses of non-Social Security dollars. Our proposed amendment would, in fact, use those non-Social Security surplus dollars to make sure that highway funding remains constant. It is our projection and estimation that over the next 5 months the suspension of the gas tax would reduce the highway trust fund by approximately $6.5 billion. Our amendment would replenish those dollars from the general fund. Indeed, the language of our amendment states specifically that nothing in this subsection may be construed as authorizing a reduction in the apportionments of the highway trust fund to the States as a result of the temporary reduction in rates of tax. In short, the proposal embodied in my legislation and in the amendment I had planned to bring to the Interior bill would suspend the gas tax and make sure the highway funds continue to flow by using non- Social Security surplus dollars. When we initially sought to bring this amendment on the Interior appropriations bill, it was unclear what the Senate schedule would be with respect to other appropriate legislation where we might bring this amendment. I am happy to hear this morning that a unanimous consent agreement was entered into which will allow us to take up tomorrow the estate tax--the death tax--legislation that has been discussed over the last day and a half, and that amendments such as this one would be in order at that time. Indeed, I have already been in consultation with our leadership as to securing one of those amendment slots to bring this amendment in the context of the tax bill, which is clearly a more preferable vehicle for us to address these issues. It is my plan to return to the floor tomorrow when that tax bill is before us with one of the amendments to be offered on the Republican side. Before I leave, I wish to make it very clear to my colleagues that this is a serious problem--not only in Michigan but across the country. If we continue to have to pay gas prices of the level we are paying today, even though they have come down slightly in the last couple of weeks, it is going to have a very serious impact on the economy of this country. It is going to hurt our agricultural sector, our tourism sector, our automotive sector, and it will have a rippling effect across America. That means it is not only a problem for somebody who owns a minivan or for somebody who drives a truck; it is going to ultimately be a problem for all of us. I believe over time a lot of this will be alleviated as supply and production increases by Saudi Arabia and others begin to take effect. But I can't wait that long. My constituents can't wait that long. We need to do something sooner, not later. I believe the one thing that makes sense to do, that we can afford to do, that will make a difference immediately, and that will provide the consumers in my State with an opportunity to be able to afford gasoline--or at least more easily afford gasoline--is for us to recognize that we are going to have a huge surplus this year, a projected surplus next year, and that a little bit of that surplus over the next 5 months can be used to protect the highway trust fund and give consumers a break. I believe in doing that. We will do something that will be immensely supported by the people across America who have to fill up their tanks once or twice a week by average working families in this country for whom a rise of 63 percent or 90 percent in the price makes a big difference. I believe it is an action that we should take. The last time we voted on it, there were approximately 43 votes in favor of a gas tax suspension. But that was before these prices crested to the level of today. I believe the Senate should have one more vote on this. I look forward to this debate tomorrow. At this time, I will withdraw from the list my amendment and allow the Senator from Washington to continue with other amendments on this bill. I thank him for his indulgence. I look forward to debating this issue tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during the debate on the Labor-Health & Human Services-Education appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001, Senator Daschle offered an amendment relating to genetic testing and the potential for genetics-based discrimination in the workplace. I was thrilled at the recent announcement of the completion of the human genetic map, and with it, the possibility of the full identification of the more than three billion nucleotide bases that comprise the genome. This knowledge will bring with it limitless possibilities, vastly improving our quality of life and health. Yet with this knowledge comes great responsibility. For all the good this information can do for us, there is also the potential of great harm and misuse. One of the challenges that faces us even now, is to ensure that genetic information about an individual is not used against him or herself. Despite my strong conviction that genetic information must never be used to discriminate against an individual, I was unable to support the amendment offered by Senator Daschle relating to genetic discrimination in the workplace. Senator Daschle's amendment is, in reality, much more than simply a technical amendment to an appropriations bill. It is a 5-page, far- reaching, broadly written, piece of legislation, which would create an entirely new class of discrimination law, creating inequalities and conflicting with existing law. This legislation would usurp the jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and allow genetic discrimination suits to go directly to the court system. This is highly unusual for discrimination suits and would afford this form of discrimination preferential treatment over any other form of discrimination. In addition, this bill comes into direct conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. The ADA already captures genetic discrimination--this has been affirmed by the Secretary of the EEOC and the Supreme Court. If we pass a separate bill that preempts the protections already provided for in the ADA, we could potentially be undermining our support for the people covered by those protections. Just to highlight the possible inequalities--the Daschle amendment would give a genetic marker greater protection than a paraplegic. Given the drastic and over-reaching changes which would be brought about by the Daschle amendment, especially in a new area such as genetic testing, consideration of this legislation must be deliberate and well-informed. Yet, there has not been a single hearing on this legislation. In fact, the amendment language was not available for review until only an hour or so before the vote. I believe it would be wrong and even negligent to pass legislation without knowing exactly how it would affect Americans' lives, now and far into the future. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has already planned the first hearing on this matter in July. I am confident, that with careful deliberation and thorough debate, we will succeed in finding the most effective and appropriate way to ensure that no one will have their genetic-information used against them. I am looking forward to the challenge.