Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. This bill will lend a helping hand to local coalitions that are leading the fight against substance abuse. Few would argue that substance abuse, particularly among our youth, is a growing problem in communities across our Nation. Drug use among teens has increased sharply in recent years. There is reason to believe, however, that local coalitions, reflecting a broad cross- section of the communities they serve, can do much to combat drug use among youths as well as adults. The Drug Free Communities Act would lend important assistance to these coalitions. Specifically, the bill would authorize grants of up to $100,000 to local coalitions whose principal mission is the reduction of substance abuse. To be eligible for a grant, a coalition must include representatives from the religious, business, law enforcement, education, parental, and health care communities, as well as local government officials, in the geographic region served by the coalition. To enhance coalition accountability--and thus to direct resources to the most successful coalitions--a participating coalition would be required to conduct an initial benchmark survey of drug use in its community, followed by biennal surveys. No new funding would be needed for the bill, as grant moneys would be drawn from the existing budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In short, Mr. President, this bill recognizes that the efforts of local leaders are indispensable in the war on drugs. I am proud to support those efforts, and look forward to passage of this bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Coverdell and Senator McConnell, in introducing the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. I commend Senators Coverdell and McConnell for their leadership in encouraging and supporting the voluntarism that is so important to communities in Michigan and across this country. This long overdue legislation will provide volunteers and nonprofit organizations with desperately needed relief from abusive lawsuits brought based on the activities of volunteers. Those are precisely the activities that we should be protecting and encouraging. Last Congress, I spoke on the floor many times concerning the need for litigation reform and describing the litigation abuses that plague our small businesses, our consumers, our schools, and others. I came to Congress as a freshman Senator intending to press for lawsuit reforms, and I did. I supported the securities litigation reform legislation, which Congress successfully enacted over the President's veto, and I also supported the product liability reform bill, which the President unfortunately killed with his veto. I also introduced legislation with Senator McConnell to provide broader relief in all civil cases, and offered floor amendments that would do the same. I continue to support broader civil justice reforms and I particularly look forward to considering product liability reform legislation both in the Commerce Committee and on the floor. But I believe that our voluntary, nonprofit organizations urgently need protection from current lawsuit abuses. I encourage my colleagues to consider the problems facing our community groups and their volunteers, and to support this legislation. I hope that in this instance President Clinton will support this litigation reform bill, recognize the value of volunteers and nonprofit groups, and give them the protection they need to keep doing their good deeds. Nonprofit organizations hold our Nation together. In them we learn to care for our neighbors. They are key to our survival as a nation and we must protect them with systemic reforms. America has a vast interstate network of 114,000 operating nonprofit organizations, ranging from schools to hospitals to clinics to food programs. This network's revenues totaled $388 billion in 1990. Meanwhile, revenues for the 19,000 support institutions, which raise money to fund operating organizations came to $29 billion. And total revenues for religious congregations were $48 billion. That's $465 billion worth of nonprofit activity we enjoyed in 1990 alone, Mr. President. Nonprofit organizations rely heavily on volunteers, and Americans gladly comply. According to a 1993 report from the Independent Sector, a national coalition of 800 organizations, Americans donated 9.7 billion hours of their time to nonprofit organizations that year. This volunteer time produced the equivalent of 5.7 million full time volunteers, worth an estimated $112 billion. Unfortunately voluntarism is declining nationwide. According to the Independent Sector report, the percentage of Americans volunteering dropped from 54 percent in 1989 to 51 percent in 1991 and 48 percent in 1993. Americans also are giving less money. The average household's charitable donation dropped from $978 in 1989 to $880 in 1993. The decline of giving and volunteering spells danger for our voluntary organizations, for the people who depend on them, and for the social trust that is based on the spirit of association. But why is voluntarism on the decline? Obviously there are a number of relevant factors, not least among them the need so many people today feel to work ever-harder and ever-longer to bear our growing tax burden. But one major reason for the decline is America's litigation explosion. Nonprofit organizations are forced to spend an increasing amount of time and resources preparing for, avoiding, and/or fighting lawsuits. Thus litigation has rendered our nonprofit organizations less effective at helping people, and allowed Americans to retreat more into their private lives, and away from the public, social activity that binds us together as a people. The litigation costs facing voluntary associations are many. John Graham, on behalf of the American Society of Association Executives [ASAE], gave testimony last year arguing that liability insurance premiums for associations have increased an average 155 percent in recent years. Some of our most revered nonprofit institutions have been put at risk by increased liability costs. Dr. Creightin Hale of Little League Baseball reports that the liability rate for a league increased from $75 to $795 in just 5 years. Many leagues cannot afford this added expense, on top of increasing costs for helmets and other equipment. These leagues operate without insurance or disband altogether, often leaving children with no organized sports in their neighborhood. What kind of suits add to insurance costs? ASAE reports that one New Jersey umpire was forced by a court to pay a catcher $24,000. Why? Because the catcher was hit in the eye by a softball while playing without a mask. The catcher complained that the umpire should have lent him his. Organizations that try to escape sky-rocketing insurance costs must self-insure, and Andrea Marisi of the Red Cross will describe self-insurance costs only as ``huge.'' The result? Obviously, we have fewer funds available for providing services than would otherwise be the case.'' Outside insurance generally comes with significant deductibles. Charles Kolb of the United Way points out that insurance deductibles for his organization fall into the range of $25,000-30,000. When, as has been the case in recent years, the organization is subjected to three or four lawsuits per year, $100,000 or more must be diverted from charitable programs. And there are even more costs. Mr. Kolb reports that the costs in lost time and money spent on discovery, for example going through files for hours on end to establish who did what when, can run into the thousands of dollars. Further, as the Boy Scouts' William Cople puts it: ``We bear increased costs from risk management programs of many kinds--[including] those to prevent accidents. We have higher legal bills as well. But even more of a problem is the need to find pro-bono help to quell possible lawsuits. The Scouts must spend scarce time, and use up scarce human capital in preventing suits. For example, 5 years ago the General Counsel's office, a pro-bono operation, committed less than 100 hours per year on issues relating to lawsuits. Last year we devoted about 750 hours to that duty.'' The Boy Scouts must do less good so that they can defend themselves from lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits also increase costs by discouraging voluntarism. Dottie Lewis of the Southwest Officials Association, which provides officials for scholastic games, observes, ``Some of our people got to the point where they were just afraid to work because of the threat of lawsuits.'' What makes this fear worse is the knowledge that one need do no harm in order to be liable. Take for example Powell versus Boy Scouts of America. While on an outing with the Sea Explorers, a scouting unit in the Boy Scouts' Cascade Pacific Council, a youth suffered a tragic, paralyzing injury in a rough game of touch football. Several adults had volunteered to supervise the outing, but none observed the game. The youth filed a personal injury lawsuit against two of the adult volunteers. The jury found the volunteers liable for some $7 million, which Oregon law reduced to about $4 million--far more than the volunteers could possibly pay. What is more, as Cople points out, ``the jury seemingly held the volunteers to a standard of care requiring them constantly to supervise the youth entrusted to their charge, even for activities which under other circumstances may routinely be permitted without such meticulous oversight.'' One child's tragedy led a jury to impose an unreasonable standard of care on individuals who, after all, had volunteered their time and effort for an outing, not a football game. No one can provide the meticulous oversight demanded by the jury. Thus volunteers are left at the mercy of events, and juries, beyond their control. Such unreasonable standards of care also penalize our nonprofit organizations. Len Krugel of the Michigan Salvation Army reports that regulations and onerous legal standards often keep his organization from giving troubled youths a second chance. Because the organization is held responsible for essentially all actions by its employees and volunteers, it can take no risks in hiring. Thus the Salvation Army can neither hire nor accept voluntary services from any individual with any drug conviction, including a 0.3 reading on a breathalyzer test for alcohol consumption. As Mr. Krugel observes, ``If we can't give these kids a second chance, who can?'' Then there is the problem of joint and several liability, in which one defendant is made to pay for all damages even though responsible for only a small portion. Such findings are a severe burden on the United Way, a national organization that sponsors numerous local nonprofit groups. Although it cannot control local operations, the United Way often finds itself a defendant in suits arising from injuries caused by the local entity. Such holdings result from juries' desire to find someone with the funds necessary to pay for an innocent party's injuries. But this search for the deep pocket leads to what Ms. Marisi calls a ``chilling effect'' on Red Cross relations with other nonprofits. The Red Cross is now less willing to cooperate with smaller, more innovative local agencies that might make it more effective. Thus nonprofits forbear from doing good because they cannot afford the insurance, they cannot afford the loss of volunteers, they cannot afford the risk of frivolous lawsuits. The Volunteer Protection Act will address the danger to our nonprofit sector, Mr. President. It will not solve all the problems facing our volunteers and nonprofits, but it will provide voluntary organizations with critical protection against improper litigation, at the same time that it recognizes the ability of the States to take additional or even alternative protections in some cases. By setting the standard for the protection of volunteers outright, this bill provides much-needed lawsuit relief immediately to volunteers and nonprofits wherever they may be. Let me briefly describe what this bill does. The bill protects volunteers from liability unless they cause harm through action that constitutes reckless misconduct, gross negligence, willful or criminal misconduct, or is in conscious, flagrant disregard for the rights and safety of the individual harmed. This ensures that where volunteers truly exceed the bounds of appropriate conduct they will be liable. But in the many ridiculous cases I have discussed-- where no real wrongdoing occurred--the volunteer will not be forced to face and defend a lawsuit. In lawsuits based on the actions of a volunteer, the bill limits the punitive damages that can be awarded. It is unfortunate that charities and volunteers have punitive damages awarded against them in the first place, but they do--Congressman John Porter reports that in August of 1990 a Chicago jury awarded $12 million to a boy who was injured in a car crash. The ``negligent'' party? The estate of the volunteer who gave his life attempting to save the boy. Under this bill, punitive damages in cases involving the actions of a volunteer could be awarded against a volunteer, nonprofit organization, or government entity only upon a showing by the claimant that the volunteer's action represented willful or criminal misconduct, or showed a conscious, flagrant disregard for the rights and safety of the individual harmed. This should ensure that punitive damages, which are intended only to punish a defendant and are not intended to compensate an injured person, will only be available in situations where punishment really is called for because of the egregious conduct of the defendant. The bill also protects volunteers from excessive liability that they might face through joint and several liability. Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, a plaintiff can obtain full damages from a defendant who is only slightly at fault. I have spoken many times before about the unfairness that may result from the application of this legal doctrine. The injustice that results to volunteers and nonprofits is often even more acute, because they lack the resources to bear unfair judgments. This bill strikes a balance by providing that, in cases based on the actions of a volunteer, any defendant that is a volunteer, nonprofit organization, or government entity will be jointly and severally responsible for the full share of economic damages but will only be responsible for noneconomic damages in proportion to the harm that that defendant caused. That is a fair approach. Finally, I would like to speak for a moment about how this legislation preserves important principles of federalism and respects the role of the States. First, the bill does not preempt State legislation that provides greater protections to volunteers. In this way, it sets up outer protections from which all volunteers will benefit and permits States to do more. Second, the bill includes an opt-out provision that permits States, in cases involving only parties from that State, to affirmatively elect to opt out of the protections provided in the Volunteer Protection Act. A State can do so by enacting a statute specifically providing for that. I suspect that no States will elect to do so, but I feel that, as a matter of principle, it is important to include that provision. In short, these reforms can help create a system in which plaintiffs sue only when they have good reason--and only those who are responsible for their damages--and in which only those who are responsible must pay. Such reforms will create an atmosphere in which our fear of one another will be lessened, and our ability to join associations in which we learn to care for one another will be significantly greater. And that, Mr. President, will make for a better America. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. This bill will lend a helping hand to local coalitions that are leading the fight against substance abuse. Few would argue that substance abuse, particularly among our youth, is a growing problem in communities across our Nation. Drug use among teens has increased sharply in recent years. There is reason to believe, however, that local coalitions, reflecting a broad cross- section of the communities they serve, can do much to combat drug use among youths as well as adults. The Drug Free Communities Act would lend important assistance to these coalitions. Specifically, the bill would authorize grants of up to $100,000 to local coalitions whose principal mission is the reduction of substance abuse. To be eligible for a grant, a coalition must include representatives from the religious, business, law enforcement, education, parental, and health care communities, as well as local government officials, in the geographic region served by the coalition. To enhance coalition accountability--and thus to direct resources to the most successful coalitions--a participating coalition would be required to conduct an initial benchmark survey of drug use in its community, followed by biennal surveys. No new funding would be needed for the bill, as grant moneys would be drawn from the existing budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In short, Mr. President, this bill recognizes that the efforts of local leaders are indispensable in the war on drugs. I am proud to support those efforts, and look forward to passage of this bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1997. I have long supported restitution for crime victims, and have long been convinced that justice requires us to devise effective mechanisms through which victims can enforce restitution orders and make criminals pay for their crimes. I was very pleased when we enacted mandatory victim restitution legislation last Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I supported that legislation and very much appreciated the efforts of my colleagues, particularly Senators Hatch, Biden, Nickles, Grassley, and McCain, to ensure that victim restitution provisions were included in the antiterrorism legislation. Those victim restitution provisions--brought together as the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996--will significantly advance the cause of justice for victims in Federal criminal cases. The act requires Federal courts, when sentencing criminal defendants, to order these defendants to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes. It also establishes a single set of procedures for the issuance of restitution orders in Federal criminal cases to provide uniformity in the Federal system. Inclusion of mandatory victim restitution provisions in the Federal criminal code was long overdue, and I am pleased that Congress was able to accomplish that last year. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that victims can actually collect those restitution payments and to provide victims with effective means to pursue whatever restitution payments are owed to them. Even if a defendant may not have the resources to pay off a restitution order fully, victims should still be entitled to go after whatever resources a defendant does have and to collect whatever they can. We should not effectively tell victims that it is not worth going after whatever payments they might get. That is what could happen under the current system, in which victims have to rely on Government attorneys--who may be busy with many other matters--to pursue restitution payments. Instead, we should give victims themselves the tools they need so that they can get what is rightfully theirs. The victim restitution provisions enacted last Congress consolidated the procedures for the collection of unpaid restitution with existing procedures for the collection of unpaid fines. Unless more steps are taken to make enforcement of restitution orders more effective for victims, we risk allowing mandatory restitution to be mandatory in name only, with criminals able to evade ever paying their restitution and victims left without the ability to take action to enforce restitution orders. Last Congress, I introduced the Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1995. Many components of my legislation were also included in the victim restitution legislation enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The legislation I introduce today is similar to the legislation I introduced last Congress as Senate bill 1504, and is designed to build on what are now current provisions of law. All in all, I hope to ensure that restitution payments from criminals to victims become a reality, and that victims have a greater degree of control in going after criminals to obtain restitution payments. Under my legislation, restitution orders would be enforceable as a civil debt, payable immediately. Most restitution is now collected entirely through the criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as directed by the probation officer, which means restitution payments cannot begin until the prisoner is released. This bill makes restitution orders payable immediately, as a civil debt, speeding recovery and impeding attempts by criminals to avoid repayment. This provision will not impose criminal penalties on those unable to pay, but will simply allow civil collection against those who have assets. This will provide victims with new means of collecting restitution payments. If the debt is payable immediately, all normal civil collection procedures, including the Federal Debt Collection Act, can be used to collect the debt. The bill explicitly gives victims access to other civil procedures already in place for the collection of debts. This lightens the burden of collecting debt on our Federal courts and prosecutors. My bill further provides that Federal courts will continue to have jurisdiction over criminal restitution judgments for 5 years, not including time that the defendant is incarcerated. The court is presently permitted to resentence or take several other actions against a criminal who willfully refuses to make restitution payments; the court may do so until the termination of the term of parole. Courts should have the ability to do more over a longer period of time, and to select those means that are more likely to prove successful. Under my bill, during the extended period, Federal courts will be permitted, where the defendant knowingly fails to make restitution payments, to modify the terms or conditions of a defendant's parole, extend the defendant's probation or supervised release, hold the defendant in contempt, increase the defendant's original sentence, or revoke probation or supervised release. My legislation will also give the courts power to impose presentence restraints on defendants' uses of their assets in appropriate cases. This will prevent well-heeled defendants from dissipating assets prior to sentencing. Without such provisions, mandatory victim restitution provisions may well be useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases in which a defendant has the means to pay full restitution at once, if the court has no capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill- gotten gains or other assets prior to the sentencing phase, there may be nothing left for the victim by the time the restitution order is entered. The provisions permitting presentence restraints are similar to other provisions that already exist in the law for private civil actions and asset forfeiture cases, and they provide adequate protections for defendants. They require a court hearing, for example, and place the burden on the Government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that presentence restraints are warranted. In short, I want to make criminals pay and to give victims the tools with which to make them pay. In enacting mandatory victim restitution legislation last Congress, we demonstrated our willingness to make some crimes subject to this process. I believe we must take additional steps to make those mandatorily issued orders easily enforceable. This legislation is supported by the National Victim Center and by the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask unanimous consent to have placed in the Record letters of support from those victims' rights organizations. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, which will empower victims to collect on the debts that they are owed by criminals and which will improve the enforceability of restitution orders. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1997. I have long supported restitution for crime victims, and have long been convinced that justice requires us to devise effective mechanisms through which victims can enforce restitution orders and make criminals pay for their crimes. I was very pleased when we enacted mandatory victim restitution legislation last Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I supported that legislation and very much appreciated the efforts of my colleagues, particularly Senators Hatch, Biden, Nickles, Grassley, and McCain, to ensure that victim restitution provisions were included in the antiterrorism legislation. Those victim restitution provisions--brought together as the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996--will significantly advance the cause of justice for victims in Federal criminal cases. The act requires Federal courts, when sentencing criminal defendants, to order these defendants to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes. It also establishes a single set of procedures for the issuance of restitution orders in Federal criminal cases to provide uniformity in the Federal system. Inclusion of mandatory victim restitution provisions in the Federal criminal code was long overdue, and I am pleased that Congress was able to accomplish that last year. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that victims can actually collect those restitution payments and to provide victims with effective means to pursue whatever restitution payments are owed to them. Even if a defendant may not have the resources to pay off a restitution order fully, victims should still be entitled to go after whatever resources a defendant does have and to collect whatever they can. We should not effectively tell victims that it is not worth going after whatever payments they might get. That is what could happen under the current system, in which victims have to rely on Government attorneys--who may be busy with many other matters--to pursue restitution payments. Instead, we should give victims themselves the tools they need so that they can get what is rightfully theirs. The victim restitution provisions enacted last Congress consolidated the procedures for the collection of unpaid restitution with existing procedures for the collection of unpaid fines. Unless more steps are taken to make enforcement of restitution orders more effective for victims, we risk allowing mandatory restitution to be mandatory in name only, with criminals able to evade ever paying their restitution and victims left without the ability to take action to enforce restitution orders. Last Congress, I introduced the Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1995. Many components of my legislation were also included in the victim restitution legislation enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The legislation I introduce today is similar to the legislation I introduced last Congress as Senate bill 1504, and is designed to build on what are now current provisions of law. All in all, I hope to ensure that restitution payments from criminals to victims become a reality, and that victims have a greater degree of control in going after criminals to obtain restitution payments. Under my legislation, restitution orders would be enforceable as a civil debt, payable immediately. Most restitution is now collected entirely through the criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as directed by the probation officer, which means restitution payments cannot begin until the prisoner is released. This bill makes restitution orders payable immediately, as a civil debt, speeding recovery and impeding attempts by criminals to avoid repayment. This provision will not impose criminal penalties on those unable to pay, but will simply allow civil collection against those who have assets. This will provide victims with new means of collecting restitution payments. If the debt is payable immediately, all normal civil collection procedures, including the Federal Debt Collection Act, can be used to collect the debt. The bill explicitly gives victims access to other civil procedures already in place for the collection of debts. This lightens the burden of collecting debt on our Federal courts and prosecutors. My bill further provides that Federal courts will continue to have jurisdiction over criminal restitution judgments for 5 years, not including time that the defendant is incarcerated. The court is presently permitted to resentence or take several other actions against a criminal who willfully refuses to make restitution payments; the court may do so until the termination of the term of parole. Courts should have the ability to do more over a longer period of time, and to select those means that are more likely to prove successful. Under my bill, during the extended period, Federal courts will be permitted, where the defendant knowingly fails to make restitution payments, to modify the terms or conditions of a defendant's parole, extend the defendant's probation or supervised release, hold the defendant in contempt, increase the defendant's original sentence, or revoke probation or supervised release. My legislation will also give the courts power to impose presentence restraints on defendants' uses of their assets in appropriate cases. This will prevent well-heeled defendants from dissipating assets prior to sentencing. Without such provisions, mandatory victim restitution provisions may well be useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases in which a defendant has the means to pay full restitution at once, if the court has no capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill- gotten gains or other assets prior to the sentencing phase, there may be nothing left for the victim by the time the restitution order is entered. The provisions permitting presentence restraints are similar to other provisions that already exist in the law for private civil actions and asset forfeiture cases, and they provide adequate protections for defendants. They require a court hearing, for example, and place the burden on the Government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that presentence restraints are warranted. In short, I want to make criminals pay and to give victims the tools with which to make them pay. In enacting mandatory victim restitution legislation last Congress, we demonstrated our willingness to make some crimes subject to this process. I believe we must take additional steps to make those mandatorily issued orders easily enforceable. This legislation is supported by the National Victim Center and by the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask unanimous consent to have placed in the Record letters of support from those victims' rights organizations. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, which will empower victims to collect on the debts that they are owed by criminals and which will improve the enforceability of restitution orders. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my support to the Rural Health Improvement Act of 1997. In my home State of Michigan and across the Nation, this legislation would improve the standard of health care for millions of Americans who live in rural areas. Mr. President, I am very aware of the problems inherent in caring for citizens who live far away from major cities. Too often, these hardworking taxpayers and their children are not given easy access to the quality emergency and primary care services they deserve. There have, however, been two recent efforts that have been extremely successful in providing such care while also controlling costs -- the Montana Medical Assistance Facility demonstration project and the Essential Access Community Hospital and Rural Primary Care Hospital demonstration program. Mr. President, the bill that I endorse today would extend these successful initiatives to all 50 States. It would also ease Federal regulations for small hospitals that wish to be designated as ``critical access'' institutions. The aim of the bill is to allow these facilities greater flexibility in tailoring their services to the needs of patients in their particular communities. In short, I believe this law would improve care and save lives. A study of these programs by the General Accounting Office, in fact, has found that these initiatives actually decreased Medicare costs while maintaining a high standard of care. In my view, Michigan and the rest of the Nation must receive the most affordable high quality care available. I believe this legislation is an important step in that direction. For these reasons, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my support for the commemoration of June 19 as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' This day marks a significant occurrence in American history, a day every American should reflect upon and remember. Mr. President, June 19 is a day when all African-Americans were finally liberated from the bondage of slaveowners. Although President Lincoln signed the revolutionary Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1865, many slaves were still denied their lawful freedom. It was not until June 19, 1865, that all slaveowners officially recognized and abided by the dictates of the Emancipation Proclamation. For too many years, African-Americans were denied basic rights and liberties that today all Americans enjoy. I stand here today, 132 years later, to express my view that this shameful aspect of American history should never be forgotten. For these reasons, I proudly endorse Senate Resolution 11. This significant legislative endeavor reminds every citizen of the unspeakable horrors to which many of our fellow Americans were subjected. It is my hope that every June 19 from this year forward will be celebrated as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It also is my hope that this day will serve as a reminder, of our past and a bridge all of us can use to overcome our differences and unite as Americans. Mr. President, I believe commemoration of ``Juneteenth Independence Day'' warrants support from all members of the U.S. Senate. As a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 11, I urge my colleagues to join me in officially recognizing this important day.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support as a co- sponsor to S. Con. Res 12. This resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the decennial census should collect data on the ancestral backgrounds of all Americans. Ours is a nation of immigrants, of people with many different ethnic origins and backgrounds. People came here from around the world to become a part of a nation of opportunity and freedom. They did not come here to forget who they are and where they came from. The Census Bureau has collected information on ancestry and ethnic composition in the past two decennial censuses. Thus, it collects the only complete information on the ethnic makeup of the United States and provides very useful data pertaining to numbers, household income, and educational status of Americans from numerous backgrounds. This data, in turn, is used by a wide variety of people and organizations in both the public and the private sector--including researchers, businesses, community organizations, ethnic institutions, and policymakers. It is important to note that the ancestry data does not relate in any way to questions of race as defined by civil rights statutes, and therefore is not utilized for preference programs. To make this point crystal clear, I have offered an amendment to S. Con. Res. 12 stating that this data is not intended to be used for racial preference programs. When the Census Bureau approaches Congress for approval of its recommendations for the 2000 Census, I and my colleagues who co- sponsored this resolution hope that the ancestry question will be included in the recommendations and contained on the long form the Census Bureau asks Americans to fill out.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Medicare Cancer Clinical Trial Act of 1997. This bill will provide important assistance to the national battle against cancer. In so many ways, this disease brutally impacts the lives of millions of Americans and their families. In my State of Michigan, for example, over 50,000 residents were diagnosed with cancer last year alone. Half of all those diagnosed with cancer are Medicare beneficiaries, who also account for 60 percent of all cancer deaths. One of the most effective weapons available in this war on cancer is research. Each year, scientists and medical clinicians provide valuable insights about the causes of various cancers as well as new therapies to treat them. The legislation I endorse today will provide cancer patients with greater access to clinical trials. One of the most important benefits of these particular trials is determining the effects of treatments on persons over the age of 65. Should these experimental therapies prove successful, this legislation will offer Federal agencies information to help them determine whether or not these treatments should be expanded to include all Medicare beneficiaries. In my opinion, Michigan and the rest of the Nation can wait no longer to determine the applicability of these potentially groundbreaking treatments. I believe that America's elderly population should be given every means available to wage a war on cancer in which they can be the victors. In addition, this Nation should have the opportunity to utilize those treatments that are cost-effective and successful in treating the millions of Americans affected by cancer every year. For these reasons, I am very proud to cosponsor this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again on the matter of corporate average fuel economy standards. Last month, 12 Senators, from both sides of the aisle, joined with me to introduce legislation--S. 286--to return to Congress the authority for changing CAFE standards. This issue is attracting an increased amount of attention as Americans begin to understand the consequences of increased fuel economy standards: less consumer choice, more dangerous vehicles, and reduced competitiveness for domestic automobile manufacturers. Perhaps, Mr. President, some of these repercussions could be easier to accept if the supposed benefits of increased CAFE standards were ever realized. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. In the two decades since CAFE standards were first mandated, this Nation's oil imports have grown to account for nearly half our annual consumption and the average number of miles driven by Americans has increased. Mr. President, an excellent editorial in yesterday's Detroit News illustrates the problems associated with increased CAFE standards, and I ask that this article be inserted in the Record immediately following my remarks. The article follows: CAFE Society Vehicle fuel efficiency standards represent regulation at its worst: unelected bureaucrats endangering the public at considerable cost while failing to achieve the promised result. Unfortunately, eliminating the existing standards appears to be politically unfeasible. But Congress should seize the opportunity recently provided by members of the Michigan delegation to halt new, more punishing mileage requirements. The issue has taken on renewed urgency with news that the Big Three will fail to meet this year's fuel economy standards--and thus face stiff penalties that would place them at a competitive disadvantage. Fleet mileage averages have fallen with brisk sales of light trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans, which comprise a whopping 44 percent of the new vehicle market--up from 20 percent in 1980. That consumers prefer less fuel-efficient vehicles proves how the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law has failed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Nonetheless, the Clinton administration favors stricter standards convinced that increased fuel efficiency will somehow save us from environmental apocalypse. Economic catastrophe would likely hit first. Fortunately, Michigan Sen. Spencer Abraham has introduced legislation to freeze mileage standards at current levels, while requiring Congress to approve any future increase. A companion measure has been introduced in the House by Rep. Fred Upton, the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Republican. Both bills warrant swift passage. The current federal standard is 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars and 20.7 for light trucks. Congress required car standards in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. They left light truck levels to be set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The fact is, consumers respond most directly to market signals, not government dictates. Oil is cheap and plentiful. It is no surprise, then, that the top 10 most fuel efficient cars represent less than 1 percent of overall car and light truck sales. If anything, higher fuel efficiency invites more driving, not less. The average American drove about 9,000 miles per year in 1980, but 11,400 in 1995. Absent an oil crisis, the Clinton administration is left to argue for stricter CAFE standards on environmental grounds. But its case is muddy at best--and deceitful at worst. All new cars must meet the same emission standards regardless of CAFE requirements. Tightening CAFE requirements would do nothing to temper global warming. Stricter standards would cost a good many Americans their jobs--and lives. European and Japanese automakers long have catered to more mileage-conscious markets, which has kept their fleet mileage comparatively high. Tightening CAFE standards would require costly re-engineering by the Big Three, paring the profit margins on their best-selling and most profitable products. Meanwhile, the vehicle downsizing required to boost mileage would only increase highway fatalities and injuries. Current standards are responsible for an estimated 3,000 additional highway deaths and innumerable injuries each year. For two years, Michigan lawmakers have withheld funds that would otherwise have enabled regulators to increase CAFE standards. It makes more sense to rescind NHTSA's authority to change CAFE requirements. That done, Michigan's congressional delegation can turn its attention to outright repeal of what ranks among society's most costly and dangerous regulations.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address recent revelations concerning partial birth abortion. I also rise to draw my colleagues' attention to the letter sent to President Clinton by a group of American Roman Catholic leaders and read this past Sunday by Cardinal Adam Maida at the Blessed Sacrament Cathedral in Detroit. That letter urged the President to ensure respect for all human rights--including those of the unborn--and called our attention to the misinformation distributed by some of those defending partial birth abortion. Mr. President, the abortion issue has been a difficult and divisive one for this country. But the unfortunate procedure of partial birth abortion need not be. The vast majority of Americans, even those who do not share my own strongly pro-life convictions, oppose partial birth abortion. This overwhelming opposition helped produce legislation during the last Congress that would have banned that morally troubling procedure. Unfortunately, that legislation was vetoed by President Clinton. Now it turns out that that veto was based in part on inaccurate information. Mr. President, those who sought to defend partial birth abortion did so on the grounds that it was rare, undertaken only in cases of severe fetal deformity and strictly a late-term procedure. These arguments served to make the procedure seem less morally troubling to some in the pro-choice camp. But it turns out that these supposedly mitigating factors do not exist. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, is quoted in the February 26 New York Times as saying that he ``lied through [his] teeth'' in making each of these claims. It turns out, Mr. President, that literally thousands of partial birth abortions are performed in this country every year. It also turns out that the vast majority of these regrettable procedures are undertaken voluntarily--aborting perfectly healthy unborn children. And it turns out that partial birth abortions are being carried out on mothers in their second trimester of pregnancy. I know that abortion is an issue that raises troubling issues for many people. I know that I cannot help but take a strong pro-life position, because of my faith and because of my own personal experiences. My experience, having witnessed the births of my three children and having just had a nephew born 12 weeks premature, tells me that the loss of an unborn life is a great tragedy. My nephew was born during a time in his mother's pregnancy when many unborn children are still subject to partial birth abortion. I know that not everyone shares the pro-life position. But in my view it is clear that any reservations about restricting abortion need not and should not apply to partial birth abortion. The fact that the defenders of this procedure felt it necessary to mislead the public, Members of this body and the President, shows how little support their position really commands. Regardless of where one stands in the broader abortion debate, then, all of us should be able to see partial birth abortion for what it is: an unjustifiable and wholly unnecessary tragedy. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that we will return as quickly as possible to the issue of partial birth abortion. It is also my hope that my colleagues will keep in mind this incident as they consider the factors supposedly mitigating this unfortunate procedure, and vote to end it once and for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Detroit News appear in the Record at this point.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join colleagues on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle in introducing the American Community Renewal Act of 1997. This legislation addresses the social and economic pathologies currently besetting this country. It helps bring back economic growth and the sense of community we need to maintain safe streets, strong families, and vibrant neighborhoods. And it does so be bridging the gap between tax policies designed to stimulate economic growth and social policies designed to strengthen our moral fabric. This bipartisan, bicameral bill has the support of members from diverse States and diverse political perspectives. Here in the Senate, I am joined by Senators Lieberman, DeWine, Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Coats. Meanwhile, Congressmen Watts, Flake, and Talent are introducing a similar bill in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, the tragedy of broken homes, drugs, violence, and welfare dependency is so prevalent that some Americans accept it as normal. But broken families are not normal, and neither is the hopelessness that lies at the root of community decay. We can and must work to renew our distressed communities, both for the sake of the people living there and for all Americans. We spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, yet today's poverty rate is essentially the same as it was in 1966. The problem was not our good intentions. Nor was it that community decay is an unbeatable adversary. Rather, the problem with the war on poverty was that it looked toward Washington rather than to the communities themselves. Mr. President, the Washington knows best approach is a recipe for disaster. Washington can neither end poverty nor give people the habits of hard work, civility, and personal responsibility necessary for community renewal. But Washington can do something. It can remove barriers and free entrepreneurs and community leaders to reconstruct the fundamental institutions, beliefs, and practices upon which any health community must rely. Which leaders are we talking about? People like Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith, who is working with local groups like the Indianapolis Housing Project and Westside Cooperative Organization. Together they are cutting redtape and encouraging community development. They are revitalizing neighborhoods that previously had been written off. In Detroit, Mayor Archer's clean sweep program last year brought together over 20,000 volunteers in and around that city, along with dozens of local community organizations. Their efforts resulted in the removal of over 300,000 bags of trash from our city. Community pride was harnessed, and developed, in this worthwhile endeavor. These are the kinds of cooperative efforts that can revitalize our distressed communities. Such efforts lie behind the American Community Renewal Act of 1997. By replacing barriers with incentives, this legislation aims to increase private investment, strengthen family ties, and effectively fight drugs abuse by reintegrating faith-based institutions into the public life of our distressed areas. Building on the pioneering legislation sponsored by then-Congressman Jack Kemp in the 1970's, it will create 100 community renewal zones with targeted, pro-growth tax and regulatory relief, housing assistance and provisions encouraging savings, education and investment. A community must meet several criteria to qualify. First, its residents must have incomes well below the average while at least a fifth fall below the poverty line. Other measures such as unemployment levels and eligibility for certain Federal assistance programs are also considered. Second, the community must bring to the table its own package of incentives including lower taxes, increased local services, a crime reduction strategy, and fewer economic regulations. Mr. President, part of rejecting the Washington knows best philosophy is acknowledging that not all barriers to economic and social growth come from the Federal Government. This legislation calls on local governments to do their part. In return for these concessions, Mr. President, the community will receive a number of powerful benefits designed to encourage new businesses, job creation, and economic growth. First, we eliminate the capital gains tax for the sale of any renewal property or business held for at lest 5 years, we increase the expensing allowance for small businesses for those who locate in the zone, and we target low-income workers with a 20-percent wage credit if they are hired by a renewal community business. Next, we target additional capital at renewal communities by allowing banks to receive Community Reinvestment Act credit for investments in, or loans to, community groups within the zone. The idea is that these groups would then provide loans to local small businesses and residents. Finally, we target environmental blight by providing tax incentives for cleaning up of old commercial and industrial properties located within the renewal communities. There are tens of thousands of these so-called brownfields across the country, Mr. President, and in many communities they represent the No. 1 obstacle to redevelopment and economic growth. Providing these tax breaks eliminates a barrier to investment in our renewal communities as it helps preserve undeveloped lands inside and outside these communities. For every brownfield that gets cleaned and reused, a greenfield is preserved. Important as they are, however, investment and job creation incentives are not enough. That is why the Community Renewal Act also targets families and organizations. For families living within renewal communities, the bill provides new opportunities for saving, owning a home, and sending their children to the school of their choice. The bill provides renewal zone residents with family development accounts. These super-IRA's will encourage low-income families to save part of their income by making the deposits--up to $2,000 per year-- deductible and the withdrawals tax free if used for purposes like buying a house or meeting educational expenses. The bill also provides for the sale of unoccupied or substandard local HUD homes and housing projects to community development corporations. This provision increases housing opportunities for low- income families, helping them stay together, invest in their homes, and care for their neighborhoods by making them stakeholders in renewal communities. Finally, there is an opportunity scholarship program. This means- tested program allows low-income parents to send their children to the school they think best. Our bill also targets community organizations for assistance. As has been noted previously, for every social problem we face, there is an organization out there that is addressing that problem. This legislation's goal is to stimulate and encourage those organizations in their work. In San Antonio, Pastor Freddie Garcia runs Victory Fellowship. This faith based drug rehabilitation program has saved thousands of addicts in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Victory Fellowship offers addicts a safe haven, a chance to recover, job training, and a chance for addicts to provide for themselves and their families and 13,000 people have been helped there, with a success rate of over 80 percent. But, because Victory Fellowship is faith based, it has not received any Federal help. Also because it is faith based, no one receiving Federal assistance is allowed to go there. Mr. President, the American Community Renewal Act would allow local, faith based substance abuse treatment centers like Pastor Garica's to receive Federal assistance. It does so without endangering the independence of the Victory Fellowship and other centers doing similar work, and it does so without forcing religious doctrine upon those who seek assistance. And, finally, this legislation stimulates charitable giving in all American communities by creating a new charity tax credit for private donations to qualified charities. Mr. President, back in 1986, Congress eliminated the charitable deduction for families who do not itemize. This change in the Tax Code hurt the ability of charities to attract private support. To correct this problem, this new credit would be available to all families, even those who do not itemize. To keep the cost reasonable, we have capped qualified donations for taxpayers who must also personally volunteer at the recipient charity. Nevertheless, we believe this provision will provide taxpayers with a powerful incentive to add their hard-earned money to the war on poverty and drugs. Mr. President, the American Community Renewal Act places its faith in individuals, organizations, and communities all across America to address our social and economic ills. It does so by bridging the gap between economic and social policy, and the gap between traditionally Republican and Democratic solutions. I am glad to have joined hands with my colleagues to move this initiative forward, and I look forward to seeing this legislation enacted into law this Congress. Mr. president, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed summary of the American Community Renewal Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join colleagues on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle in introducing the American Community Renewal Act of 1997. This legislation addresses the social and economic pathologies currently besetting this country. It helps bring back economic growth and the sense of community we need to maintain safe streets, strong families, and vibrant neighborhoods. And it does so be bridging the gap between tax policies designed to stimulate economic growth and social policies designed to strengthen our moral fabric. This bipartisan, bicameral bill has the support of members from diverse States and diverse political perspectives. Here in the Senate, I am joined by Senators Lieberman, DeWine, Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Coats. Meanwhile, Congressmen Watts, Flake, and Talent are introducing a similar bill in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, the tragedy of broken homes, drugs, violence, and welfare dependency is so prevalent that some Americans accept it as normal. But broken families are not normal, and neither is the hopelessness that lies at the root of community decay. We can and must work to renew our distressed communities, both for the sake of the people living there and for all Americans. We spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, yet today's poverty rate is essentially the same as it was in 1966. The problem was not our good intentions. Nor was it that community decay is an unbeatable adversary. Rather, the problem with the war on poverty was that it looked toward Washington rather than to the communities themselves. Mr. President, the Washington knows best approach is a recipe for disaster. Washington can neither end poverty nor give people the habits of hard work, civility, and personal responsibility necessary for community renewal. But Washington can do something. It can remove barriers and free entrepreneurs and community leaders to reconstruct the fundamental institutions, beliefs, and practices upon which any health community must rely. Which leaders are we talking about? People like Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith, who is working with local groups like the Indianapolis Housing Project and Westside Cooperative Organization. Together they are cutting redtape and encouraging community development. They are revitalizing neighborhoods that previously had been written off. In Detroit, Mayor Archer's clean sweep program last year brought together over 20,000 volunteers in and around that city, along with dozens of local community organizations. Their efforts resulted in the removal of over 300,000 bags of trash from our city. Community pride was harnessed, and developed, in this worthwhile endeavor. These are the kinds of cooperative efforts that can revitalize our distressed communities. Such efforts lie behind the American Community Renewal Act of 1997. By replacing barriers with incentives, this legislation aims to increase private investment, strengthen family ties, and effectively fight drugs abuse by reintegrating faith-based institutions into the public life of our distressed areas. Building on the pioneering legislation sponsored by then-Congressman Jack Kemp in the 1970's, it will create 100 community renewal zones with targeted, pro-growth tax and regulatory relief, housing assistance and provisions encouraging savings, education and investment. A community must meet several criteria to qualify. First, its residents must have incomes well below the average while at least a fifth fall below the poverty line. Other measures such as unemployment levels and eligibility for certain Federal assistance programs are also considered. Second, the community must bring to the table its own package of incentives including lower taxes, increased local services, a crime reduction strategy, and fewer economic regulations. Mr. President, part of rejecting the Washington knows best philosophy is acknowledging that not all barriers to economic and social growth come from the Federal Government. This legislation calls on local governments to do their part. In return for these concessions, Mr. President, the community will receive a number of powerful benefits designed to encourage new businesses, job creation, and economic growth. First, we eliminate the capital gains tax for the sale of any renewal property or business held for at lest 5 years, we increase the expensing allowance for small businesses for those who locate in the zone, and we target low-income workers with a 20-percent wage credit if they are hired by a renewal community business. Next, we target additional capital at renewal communities by allowing banks to receive Community Reinvestment Act credit for investments in, or loans to, community groups within the zone. The idea is that these groups would then provide loans to local small businesses and residents. Finally, we target environmental blight by providing tax incentives for cleaning up of old commercial and industrial properties located within the renewal communities. There are tens of thousands of these so-called brownfields across the country, Mr. President, and in many communities they represent the No. 1 obstacle to redevelopment and economic growth. Providing these tax breaks eliminates a barrier to investment in our renewal communities as it helps preserve undeveloped lands inside and outside these communities. For every brownfield that gets cleaned and reused, a greenfield is preserved. Important as they are, however, investment and job creation incentives are not enough. That is why the Community Renewal Act also targets families and organizations. For families living within renewal communities, the bill provides new opportunities for saving, owning a home, and sending their children to the school of their choice. The bill provides renewal zone residents with family development accounts. These super-IRA's will encourage low-income families to save part of their income by making the deposits--up to $2,000 per year-- deductible and the withdrawals tax free if used for purposes like buying a house or meeting educational expenses. The bill also provides for the sale of unoccupied or substandard local HUD homes and housing projects to community development corporations. This provision increases housing opportunities for low- income families, helping them stay together, invest in their homes, and care for their neighborhoods by making them stakeholders in renewal communities. Finally, there is an opportunity scholarship program. This means- tested program allows low-income parents to send their children to the school they think best. Our bill also targets community organizations for assistance. As has been noted previously, for every social problem we face, there is an organization out there that is addressing that problem. This legislation's goal is to stimulate and encourage those organizations in their work. In San Antonio, Pastor Freddie Garcia runs Victory Fellowship. This faith based drug rehabilitation program has saved thousands of addicts in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Victory Fellowship offers addicts a safe haven, a chance to recover, job training, and a chance for addicts to provide for themselves and their families and 13,000 people have been helped there, with a success rate of over 80 percent. But, because Victory Fellowship is faith based, it has not received any Federal help. Also because it is faith based, no one receiving Federal assistance is allowed to go there. Mr. President, the American Community Renewal Act would allow local, faith based substance abuse treatment centers like Pastor Garica's to receive Federal assistance. It does so without endangering the independence of the Victory Fellowship and other centers doing similar work, and it does so without forcing religious doctrine upon those who seek assistance. And, finally, this legislation stimulates charitable giving in all American communities by creating a new charity tax credit for private donations to qualified charities. Mr. President, back in 1986, Congress eliminated the charitable deduction for families who do not itemize. This change in the Tax Code hurt the ability of charities to attract private support. To correct this problem, this new credit would be available to all families, even those who do not itemize. To keep the cost reasonable, we have capped qualified donations for taxpayers who must also personally volunteer at the recipient charity. Nevertheless, we believe this provision will provide taxpayers with a powerful incentive to add their hard-earned money to the war on poverty and drugs. Mr. President, the American Community Renewal Act places its faith in individuals, organizations, and communities all across America to address our social and economic ills. It does so by bridging the gap between economic and social policy, and the gap between traditionally Republican and Democratic solutions. I am glad to have joined hands with my colleagues to move this initiative forward, and I look forward to seeing this legislation enacted into law this Congress. Mr. president, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed summary of the American Community Renewal Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. As I have said on the floor numerous times during the debate, families of this country are hurt to the extent that we don't balance the budget. Interest rates are higher. That means that loans, whether it is for a new car or house, a student, or anyone else, are affected directly by this failure in Washington to balance the budget. Most importantly, children are hurt. We have a newborn baby in our family. He was born 5 months ago. The day he was born, he inherited a responsibility to pay $187,000 in Federal taxes just to pay his share of the interest on this national debt. That isn't just unfair for my son, it is unfair for all the children in this country. Passage of this amendment has to happen. It has to happen now in order to end the red ink and set us on the right course for fiscal integrity in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandates Information Act of 1997. This bill in my view furthers the cause of careful deliberation in this, the greatest deliberative body in the world. It will force Members of Congress to carefully consider all aspects of potential legislation containing mandates affecting consumers, workers, and small businesses. I am proud to say that my colleagues and I aided the cause of careful deliberation during the last Congress. We passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That legislation required the Congressional Budget Office to make two key estimates with respect to any bill reported out of committee: First, whether the bill contains intergovernmental mandates with an annual cost of $50 million or more; and, second, whether the bill contains private sector mandates with an annual cost of $100 million or more. The 1995 act also established a point of order against bills meeting the $50 million cost threshold for intergovernmental mandates. Although the point of order can be waived by a simple majority vote, it encourages Congress to think carefully before imposing new intergovernmental mandates. The 1995 act did not apply its point of order to private sector mandates. This was understandable, given the bill's focus on intergovernmental mandates. But States and localities are not alone in being affected by Federal mandates. Consumers, workers, and small businesses also are affected when the Federal Government passes along the costs of its policies. This is why the Mandates Information Act of 1997 will apply a point of order to bills meeting the $100 million cost threshold for private sector mandates, while also directing the CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of committee. These reforms are necessary in my view, Mr. President, because the 1995 act, while effective in its chosen sphere of intergovernmental mandates, does not contain the necessary mechanisms to force Congress to think seriously about the wisdom of proposed mandates on the private sector. This leaves our private sector faced with the same dilemma once faced by our States and localities: Congress does not give full consideration to the costs its mandates impose. Focusing almost exclusively on the benefits of unfunded mandates, Congress pays little heed to, and sometimes seems unaware of, the burden that unfunded mandates impose on the very groups they are supposed to help. Unfunded mandate costs by definition do not show up on Congress' balance ledger. But, as President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has written, ``[t]here is no sense in which benefits become `free' just because the government mandates'' them. Congress has merely passed the costs on to someone else. And that ``someone'' is the American people. As economists from Princeton's Alan Krueger to John Holohan, Colin Winterbottom, and Sheila Zedlewski of the Urban Institute agree, the costs of unfunded mandates on the private sector are primarily borne by three groups: consumers, workers, and small businesses. What forms do these costs take? For consumers, mandate costs take the form of higher prices for goods and services, as unfunded mandates drive up the cost of labor. For workers, the costs of unfunded mandates often take the form of significantly lower wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, a range of independent studies indicates that some 88 percent of the cost of private sector mandates are shifted to workers in the form of lower wages. And mandates can cause workers to lose their jobs altogether. Faced with uncontrollable increases in employee costs, our job creators too often find that they can no longer afford to retain their full complement of workers. The Clinton health care mandate, for example, would have resulted in a net loss of between 200,000-500,000 jobs, according to a study conducted by Professor Krueger. Small businesses and their potential employees also suffer. Mandates typically apply only to businesses with at least a certain number of employees. As a result, small businesses have a powerful incentive not to hire enough new workers to reach the mandate threshold. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ``The point at which a new [mandate] kicks in * * * is the point at which the [Chief Financial Officer] asks `Why grow?' '' That question is asked by small businesses all over the country, but let me cite one example from my State. Hasselbring/Clark is an office equipment supplier in Lansing, MI. Noelle Clark is the firm's treasurer and secretary. Mindful of the raft of mandates whose threshold is 50 employees, Ms. Clark reports that lately ``we have hired a few temps to stay under 49.'' Thus, unfunded mandates not only eliminate jobs, but also prevent jobs from being created. Much as Members of Congress may wish it were not so, mandates have a very real cost. This does not mean that all mandates are bad. But it does mean that Congress should think very carefully about the wisdom of a proposed mandate before imposing it. Such careful thinking, Mr. President, is the goal of the Mandates Information Act of 1997. Just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 protects State and local governments from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed intergovernmental mandates, the Mandates Information Act would protect consumers, workers, and small businesses from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed private sector mandates. It would do so, in essence, by extending the reforms of the 1995 act to private sector mandates. The bill I introduce today would build on the 1995 act's reforms in two ways. First, to give Congress more complete information about the impact of proposed mandates on the private sector, my bill directs CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of Committee. This statement would include analyses of the bill's private sector mandates' effects on the following: First, consumer prices and [the] actual supply of goods and services in consumer markets; second, worker wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and third, the hiring practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees. But providing Congress with more complete information about the impact of proposed private sector mandates will not guarantee that it pays any attention to it. This we know from experience. In 1981, Congress enacted the State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act, sponsored by Senator Sasser. Pursuant to that act, CBO provided Congress with estimates of the cost of intergovernmental mandates in bills reported out of committee. But Congress routinely ignored this information. It did so because the 1981 act had no enforcement mechanism to force Congress to consider the CBO estimates. As Senator Sasser himself explained in introducing a follow-up bill in 1993, ``[t]he problem [with the 1981 act], it has become clear, is that this yellow caution light has no red light to back it up.'' To supply that ``red light,'' Senator Sasser's Mandate Funding Act of 1993 contained a point of order. Of course, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 likewise contained a point of order, which is why it succeeded where Senator Sasser's 1981 act had failed. The Mandates Information Act of 1997 will provide this red light for proposed private sector mandates. It contains a point of order against any bill whose private sector mandates exceed the $100 million threshold set by the 1995 act. Like the 1995 act's point of order against intergovernmental mandates, the 1997 bill's point of order can be waived by a simple majority of Members. Thus it will not stop Congress from passing bills it wants to pass. But the point of order will serve a vital purpose. It will ensure that Congress does not ignore the information contained in the consumer, worker, and small business impact statement. It will do so by allowing any Member to focus the attention of the entire House or Senate on the impact statement for a particular bill. The Mandates Information Act of 1997 will provide Congress with more complete information about proposed mandates' effects on consumers, workers, and small businesses. It will also ensure that Congress actually considers this information before reaching a judgment about whether to impose a new mandate. The result, Mr. President, will be focused, high-quality deliberation on the wisdom of private sector mandates. Because of the success of the 1995 act, Congress is now much more careful to consider the interests of State and local governments in making decisions about unfunded mandates. But Congress must be just as careful to consider the interests of consumers, workers, and small businesses in making such decisions. This bill will ensure that care, helping produce better legislation; legislation that imposes a lighter burden on working Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following sample of letters from small business groups supporting the bill be introduced in the Record, along with a list of groups that have expressed their support for it.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandates Information Act of 1997. This bill in my view furthers the cause of careful deliberation in this, the greatest deliberative body in the world. It will force Members of Congress to carefully consider all aspects of potential legislation containing mandates affecting consumers, workers, and small businesses. I am proud to say that my colleagues and I aided the cause of careful deliberation during the last Congress. We passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That legislation required the Congressional Budget Office to make two key estimates with respect to any bill reported out of committee: First, whether the bill contains intergovernmental mandates with an annual cost of $50 million or more; and, second, whether the bill contains private sector mandates with an annual cost of $100 million or more. The 1995 act also established a point of order against bills meeting the $50 million cost threshold for intergovernmental mandates. Although the point of order can be waived by a simple majority vote, it encourages Congress to think carefully before imposing new intergovernmental mandates. The 1995 act did not apply its point of order to private sector mandates. This was understandable, given the bill's focus on intergovernmental mandates. But States and localities are not alone in being affected by Federal mandates. Consumers, workers, and small businesses also are affected when the Federal Government passes along the costs of its policies. This is why the Mandates Information Act of 1997 will apply a point of order to bills meeting the $100 million cost threshold for private sector mandates, while also directing the CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of committee. These reforms are necessary in my view, Mr. President, because the 1995 act, while effective in its chosen sphere of intergovernmental mandates, does not contain the necessary mechanisms to force Congress to think seriously about the wisdom of proposed mandates on the private sector. This leaves our private sector faced with the same dilemma once faced by our States and localities: Congress does not give full consideration to the costs its mandates impose. Focusing almost exclusively on the benefits of unfunded mandates, Congress pays little heed to, and sometimes seems unaware of, the burden that unfunded mandates impose on the very groups they are supposed to help. Unfunded mandate costs by definition do not show up on Congress' balance ledger. But, as President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has written, ``[t]here is no sense in which benefits become `free' just because the government mandates'' them. Congress has merely passed the costs on to someone else. And that ``someone'' is the American people. As economists from Princeton's Alan Krueger to John Holohan, Colin Winterbottom, and Sheila Zedlewski of the Urban Institute agree, the costs of unfunded mandates on the private sector are primarily borne by three groups: consumers, workers, and small businesses. What forms do these costs take? For consumers, mandate costs take the form of higher prices for goods and services, as unfunded mandates drive up the cost of labor. For workers, the costs of unfunded mandates often take the form of significantly lower wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, a range of independent studies indicates that some 88 percent of the cost of private sector mandates are shifted to workers in the form of lower wages. And mandates can cause workers to lose their jobs altogether. Faced with uncontrollable increases in employee costs, our job creators too often find that they can no longer afford to retain their full complement of workers. The Clinton health care mandate, for example, would have resulted in a net loss of between 200,000-500,000 jobs, according to a study conducted by Professor Krueger. Small businesses and their potential employees also suffer. Mandates typically apply only to businesses with at least a certain number of employees. As a result, small businesses have a powerful incentive not to hire enough new workers to reach the mandate threshold. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ``The point at which a new [mandate] kicks in * * * is the point at which the [Chief Financial Officer] asks `Why grow?' '' That question is asked by small businesses all over the country, but let me cite one example from my State. Hasselbring/Clark is an office equipment supplier in Lansing, MI. Noelle Clark is the firm's treasurer and secretary. Mindful of the raft of mandates whose threshold is 50 employees, Ms. Clark reports that lately ``we have hired a few temps to stay under 49.'' Thus, unfunded mandates not only eliminate jobs, but also prevent jobs from being created. Much as Members of Congress may wish it were not so, mandates have a very real cost. This does not mean that all mandates are bad. But it does mean that Congress should think very carefully about the wisdom of a proposed mandate before imposing it. Such careful thinking, Mr. President, is the goal of the Mandates Information Act of 1997. Just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 protects State and local governments from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed intergovernmental mandates, the Mandates Information Act would protect consumers, workers, and small businesses from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed private sector mandates. It would do so, in essence, by extending the reforms of the 1995 act to private sector mandates. The bill I introduce today would build on the 1995 act's reforms in two ways. First, to give Congress more complete information about the impact of proposed mandates on the private sector, my bill directs CBO to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for any bill reported out of Committee. This statement would include analyses of the bill's private sector mandates' effects on the following: First, consumer prices and [the] actual supply of goods and services in consumer markets; second, worker wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and third, the hiring practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees. But providing Congress with more complete information about the impact of proposed private sector mandates will not guarantee that it pays any attention to it. This we know from experience. In 1981, Congress enacted the State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act, sponsored by Senator Sasser. Pursuant to that act, CBO provided Congress with estimates of the cost of intergovernmental mandates in bills reported out of committee. But Congress routinely ignored this information. It did so because the 1981 act had no enforcement mechanism to force Congress to consider the CBO estimates. As Senator Sasser himself explained in introducing a follow-up bill in 1993, ``[t]he problem [with the 1981 act], it has become clear, is that this yellow caution light has no red light to back it up.'' To supply that ``red light,'' Senator Sasser's Mandate Funding Act of 1993 contained a point of order. Of course, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 likewise contained a point of order, which is why it succeeded where Senator Sasser's 1981 act had failed. The Mandates Information Act of 1997 will provide this red light for proposed private sector mandates. It contains a point of order against any bill whose private sector mandates exceed the $100 million threshold set by the 1995 act. Like the 1995 act's point of order against intergovernmental mandates, the 1997 bill's point of order can be waived by a simple majority of Members. Thus it will not stop Congress from passing bills it wants to pass. But the point of order will serve a vital purpose. It will ensure that Congress does not ignore the information contained in the consumer, worker, and small business impact statement. It will do so by allowing any Member to focus the attention of the entire House or Senate on the impact statement for a particular bill. The Mandates Information Act of 1997 will provide Congress with more complete information about proposed mandates' effects on consumers, workers, and small businesses. It will also ensure that Congress actually considers this information before reaching a judgment about whether to impose a new mandate. The result, Mr. President, will be focused, high-quality deliberation on the wisdom of private sector mandates. Because of the success of the 1995 act, Congress is now much more careful to consider the interests of State and local governments in making decisions about unfunded mandates. But Congress must be just as careful to consider the interests of consumers, workers, and small businesses in making such decisions. This bill will ensure that care, helping produce better legislation; legislation that imposes a lighter burden on working Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following sample of letters from small business groups supporting the bill be introduced in the Record, along with a list of groups that have expressed their support for it.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my best wishes for a full and rapid recovery by Mr. Terry Koehler, a teacher at Lahser High School in Bloomfield Hills, MI. Involved in a very serious skiing accident in mid-February, Mr. Koehler is currently convalescing in Reno, NV. In the meanwhile, the entire Bloomfield Hills community eagerly looks forward to Mr. Koehler's return. A quick glance at his extensive involvement throughout the school district and it is readily apparent why, at present, he is so sorely missed. In addition to his duties teaching math, Mr. Koehler is a coach with Lahser's championship winning boy's and girl's swim teams. He serves in the multiple roles of commissioner, coach, and player in the school's intramural basketball program. He runs the school chess club. And, as a major in the U.S. Army Reserves, Mr. Koehler's civic commitments are hardly limited to just Lahser High School. Exceptional teachers are assets to any community, as are dedicated public servants. When someone exemplifies the finest qualities of both, their presence is all the more valued. Indeed, Terry Koehler is such an individual. I join his countless friends, colleagues, and students in wishing Terry, his wife Diane and the rest of his family strength and courage during this difficult time; and I look forward to the news of his return to good health, to the profession he so honorably serves and to the students whose lives he touches every day.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the amendment before us. We are expecting two more speakers for the remainder of our time. What we may do is yield some time to Senator Chafee to speak on another topic until those speakers arrive. I just want to make a final point with respect to the amendment before us, that I do believe, as I have said twice now in speaking on this amendment, that there are still many unanswered questions, ones which at least I would need to hear answers to before I could feel comfortable voting in support of it. I have raised some of these questions already. How would we address the $706 billion shortfall that this would produce in 2002 to 2007? This $706 billion is more than the total amount of dollars that were involved in the 1993 tax hike and in the budget proposals passed last year by this Congress in terms of reducing the growth of Medicare and discretionary spending. $706 billion is more than all of that put together. No one has come forward and explained where those dollars would come from to effectuate this amendment. The second issue I have asked questions about is why is it just this trust fund? There are others in the Federal Government. We are told the trust fund should be taken off budget, yet the amendment only addresses one of them. If, in fact, we are debating the definition of a balanced budget, we can't have some trust funds qualifying and some trust funds not qualifying. In addition, we haven't had any explanation of what happens if Social Security is cut loose in the process through this amendment, and if it were cut loose and runs out of money, what would be the consequences and how would we address such shortfall if it was not part of a unified budget? There are all of these questions and others before us, Mr. President. As I say, I have listened this morning and have not heard answers to them. There are others I will be raising later in the day. In the absence of those answers, it is clear to me that trying to effectuate this amendment would be a very high-risk proposal, as I said from the outset, with no evidence in the amendment of protecting the benefits of Social Security any more than they are protected if they are part of the unified budget. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I expect to speak more than once on this issue today. I would like to begin, however, by reiterating some of the points I made in previous speeches on the amendment, because I think as we immerse ourselves in the debates on these various subtopics, we often lose sight of why we are here. The reason we are here is because of what that pile of unbalanced budgets reflects--that this country has gone a full generation without once balancing the budget. It has not balanced it using Social Security or excluding it. It has not been balanced at all. Therefore, we have been piling up more and more debt and responsibility, not just on ourselves but, more importantly, on our children. Last week, I was looking at what we call the national debt clock. Some people have questioned the rate at which the clock grows. They ask, ``Whose calculation are you using?'' It doesn't matter. Even the slowest calculation of that debt clock suggests that the deficit is going up to the tune of about $6,374 per second. That is an awful lot of spending beyond our means. What it has done is--and I think most Americans understand, even if not most of us in Washington--it has placed enormous burdens on families of this country, enormous burdens on enterprise in this country, and, most importantly, enormous burdens on the children and future children of America. In terms of its effect on families, this ever rising deficit and the need of a Federal Government to borrow money to meet its payments has forced interest rates up dramatically in this country. Interest rates are estimated to be 2 percent higher because of the deficit. That means the average price of a new home is $37,000 more because we can't balance the budget. A student loan is estimated to be some $2,000 more expensive because we can't balance the budget. A new car, an average- priced new car, is estimated to be $1,000 more expensive because we can't balance the budget. For all of the talk that this could be done if we only had the will and if the White House and the Congress would only get together, the fact is for 28 years we have not reached the finish line. But it is not just families who are paying more. People are paying more in other ways as well. To the extent the Federal Government borrows money, it means there is less capital available to create new businesses, to expand existing businesses, to pay better wages. So our workers are hurt. Our free enterprise system is hurt. Our chronic budget deficits mean lower economic growth, fewer jobs, and lower wages. Finally, at the top of the list of victims of our budget deficits are the children of this country. My family was blessed 5 months ago with a new child. When our son was born, at the very moment that he was born, he automatically inherited responsibility to support the debt previous generations have imposed upon him. Over his lifetime, he will be forced to pay $187,000 in tax payments just to cover the interest on this debt. If we do not try to bring this under control and do it soon rather than later, this burden will only get worse for future generations. So that is why we are here. We should not lose sight of why we are here. Our goal is to come to the finish line on an amendment that has the opportunity and the ability to bring this kind of deficit spending under control. At the moment we are discussing a proposal with respect to Social Security. The distinguished Senator from Utah has referred to this proposal as a risky gimmick, because it has many consequences that have not, to my knowledge, been fleshed out in any debate either in the Judiciary Committee when it was first brought up here or here on the floor. Most importantly, in terms of the risk involved, is the fact that as I read this proposal, the Reid amendment, and I have read it several times, I do not see that additional protection for the benefits of Social Security are provided. After all, that is really what this comes down to. Are the beneficiaries going to be protected. The Reid amendment, in my judgment, doesn't do that at all. It does something else, though, which I think every Member of this Chamber should be aware of and have a responsibility to address. That is, it requires a substantially increased amount of Federal spending to be either reduced or Federal revenues to be generated in order to meet the terms of this amendment. According to calculations of the Congressional Budget Office, during the years 2002 to 2007, if the Reid amendment were adopted and ratified, we would have to come up with an additional $706 billion in either new taxes or spending cuts over and above everything else we will have to do to keep the budget in balance during those years. In addition, the Senate Budget Committee has estimated that we will have to come up with $181 billion more on top of the first $706 billion in order to reach balance in the year 2002. Those $181 billion would have to be found during the years between now and 2002. That is a total of $887 billion beyond all of the other things that we are trying to do to bring spending under control that would have to be saved if this amendment went into effect. I think it is important for people who are advocating this amendment to come to this floor and explain where those dollars are going to come from, because $800 billion on top of all of the other things required here, to me at least, does not seem plausible. Let me put it in perspective. We would be talking about in addition to all of the other reductions in spending, in addition to all of the other taxes the Federal Government currently collects, coming up with a sum of $800 billion. This sum is more than the 1993 tax hike, the largest tax hike in history, plus the reductions in Medicare proposed in last year's budget that was passed by the Congress, plus the reduction in discretionary spending that was in last year's budget passed by the Congress. When the tax increase in 1993 was passed, many of us on the Republican side said that was too much of a tax burden to place on the American people. We argued that it was far too great. It was the largest in history. When Republicans brought to the floor a budget with a discretionary spending cuts and reforms in Medicare last year, we were told by the other side that those were reductions that were too great, that that those savings were unacceptable, and that is why the President refused to go along and sign the various bills that would have effectuated that budget. Now we are talking about doing all of the things required to bring the budget into balance in 2002, and then on top of that, if this amendment went into effect, replicating the process one more time--in fact, more than what we have done--in order to meet the terms of this amendment. I do not believe there is anybody in the Senate who is capable of, or prepared to produce any sort of plan that would even remotely accomplish those objectives. For that reason, Madam President, I cannot support this amendment. I have no idea how it could be effectuated, and I have not heard one Member on either side come forward and explain that to me. Moreover, even if we went through an exercise to accomplish it, why we would be doing it? The terms of the amendment would not in any way protect the benefits of Social Security even if we did raise taxes $800 billion more dollars, or cut spending on programs like education, law enforcement, or infrastructure by $800 billion more. In short, the amendment doesn't accomplish the goals for which it is being proposed, but the pain complying with its requirements would be enormous. So, for those reasons, Madam President, I cannot support this amendment. I would be happy, and will watch the debate today, to see if someone comes to the floor with a proposal of how to bring about these reductions that could give some assurance that they could be accomplished. I hope someone will. But during the debate in committee and in the discussions since --and certainly this has been something discussed very publicly in the last few weeks--no one has offered a plan, or even anything close to a plan, that could accomplish this. While I think and I am confident that advocates of the amendment are sincere in their advocacy, I just do not believe this is an amendment that could ever been effectuated by this Congress, or any future Congress. I do not believe it would be feasible to do it because I do not think, as I say, anyone has brought forth any solution or plan or proposal that would live up to the terms of the amendment. For those reasons, I certainly have no intention of supporting it. But maybe before the end of the day we will hear a response that explains where the spending cuts are going to come from or how the taxes are going to be increased or provide some insight into how this really would protect Social Security benefits later on when the trust fund begins to run a deficit, because as I read the terms of this, it in no way does that, either. So, Madam President, at this time, I yield the floor. I expect later, as the day goes on, that I will be back to speak a little bit more on this. But I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me, if I could, consult in terms of other speakers coming down here.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 10 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1998 and the future years defense program.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A to discuss the impact of estate taxes on farmers.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, to conduct a hearing on S. 318, the Homeowners Protection Act of 1997.