Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. It is my understanding, Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has one additional speaker who will not be coming for a bit. I think what we will do is the following: I will speak briefly in response to the last comments that were made, and I believe the Senator from Maine wishes to speak, and then we have some additional speakers who will be here, I am told, around 11:30. We will proceed and try to reduce the discrepancies in time between the two sides. I want to focus this discussion on the amendment before the Senate, but I cannot ignore some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker, the Senator from South Carolina, who was pointing to these budgets and somehow reaching a conclusion based on his experience, that these budgets that are not in balance somehow are primarily the responsibility of Republican Presidents. Mr. President, I was not here during all these Congresses. In fact, the last budget is the only one where I was present. The Senator from South Carolina was here during all these Congresses when these deficits were accumulated, and I think he knows, as we all know, that the Congress of the United States, specifically the House of Representatives, during this period of time was controlled by the Democratic Party. And, as we all know, all spending bills are required, by the Constitution, to originate in the House. This is not a case of trying to blame each side. We are here today trying to solve a problem. Indeed, it may be that a lot of the spending that took place was during the 1980's, but the problems were created during the 1960's. The spending kept escalating because the programs were established in a way so that there was no choice but to see the spending programs increased. I do not believe there were a lot of calls for pulling in that spending from either side, but particularly from the Democratic side. The other thing I wish to comment on is the issue of what took place in the 1980's, and the implication has been frequently made here on the floor that somehow the deficits were created because tax revenues to the Federal Government were starved because we let more people keep more of what they earned during the 1980's. It is true, Mr. President, that tax rates were reduced in the early 1980's. It is also true that after those tax cuts, the economy soared in ways that we could only hope to see continue into the future. It is also the case, Mr. President, that revenues to the Federal Government from the income taxes and other taxes increased dramatically during the 1980's, as well, increased substantially beyond what had been the case in the beginning of that decade. What increased faster than tax revenues to Washington and what resulted in the deficits that we saw was Federal spending. Federal spending increased, I believe, something in the vicinity of 69 percent. It was not one party's fault. It was not one part of the Government. It was across the board. Whether it was defense spending, discretionary domestic spending, or spending on mandatory entitlement programs, spending went up faster than tax revenues to Washington went up. So the problem in the 1980's wasn't that we let people keep more of what they earned and somehow punished Washington; it is that we could not tighten the belt at the Federal level, reduce the growth of Federal spending in order to keep the deficits under control. We all are suffering today, as I said in my initial comments. The people suffering the most are families who are paying higher interest rates because of this deficit--2 percent higher rates--which produces higher prices, higher costs to finance the purchase of a new home or a new car, to finance student loans. Wage earners and those who create jobs suffer because of the higher interest rates and crowding out of markets. The Federal Government needs to borrow more. The children suffer because, to the extent that this debt falls on the responsibility of children in America and will continue to fall on them, much more of their working lives will be committed to paying taxes to finance just the interest on this deficit. So, Mr. President, we have to address the problem now. We can't, today, get into exclusively a question of who is in charge of the Congress and who was the President during all these deficits. The visual we have today for the American people to see is the fact that, without a constitutional amendment, for nearly 30 years we have not been able to balance the budget. In fact, you can go all the way back to 1960 before you find a budget that was balanced without using the Social Security surplus. That is what we ought to address, and that is what I hope to see us accomplish today. So, as I said earlier, there are a lot of issues involved in the amendment before us. I have raised questions as to how it could possibly be financed because, as I said, without, to my knowledge, any specific additional protections of the benefits of Social Security from the amendment, we will add a burden of some $706 billion between 2002 and 2007, a burden of either additional taxes or reductions in spending on programs like education and law enforcement, which will have to be met to effectuate this amendment. I have not heard from any side a proposal to deal with that $706 billion. I don't believe it is going to be feasible because I don't think we are going to see an alternative proposal today. And because of the absence of that alternative, I cannot support this amendment. I know other Senators here wish to speak. So, at this time, I yield to the Senator from Maine such time as she may need.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, could I inquire as to how much time is left?

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. I have been told we have some other people who have indicated they are coming, and I would like to find out if that is true before I relinquish any other time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. What I propose is that Senator Feinstein have up to 12 noon to finish her statement or add whatever she would like. I believe we will have another speaker or speakers here by then, and I have additional comments to fill the remainder of our time between what would then be 12 and 12:30. As I understand it, we have 30 minutes, approximately, left then?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I think we would be in a position, until the hour of 12 noon, to grant that request.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, February 25, at 10 a.m. for a nomination hearing on David J. Barram, to be Administrator, General Services Administration.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 25, 1997, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1998 for the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again on the matter of corporate average fuel economy standards. Recently, a number of colleagues from both sides of the aisle joined with me to introduce Senate bill 286, legislation to freeze CAFE standards at current levels unless changed by Congress. There are a host of reasons why this legislation should be adopted, Mr. President. Chief among these: CAFE standards should be frozen so that we may put a stop to the highly inappropriate practice of allowing unelected bureaucrats to set far-reaching policies that have significant effects on the safety and economic well-being of the American people. I believe that such responsibility should lie with this legislature, the body entrusted by our Constitution with the duty to determine whether any proposed policy change is in the best interests of the American people. Mr. President, in today's Washington Times commentary section, Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, outlines several serious problems with increased CAFE standards. Mr. Bartlett's article illustrates clearly the need for Congress to regain control of CAFE standards and I ask that this article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Times, Feb. 24, 1997] Hidden Costs of the CAFE Caper (By Bruce Bartlett) In 1975, at the height of the energy crisis, Congress passed legislation mandating auto manufacturers to meet corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Each auto company was expected to ensure that the average fuel efficiency for all its new car sales would be at least 18 mpg by 1978. The standard was raised in steps to 27.5 mpg by 1990, where it remains currently. However, the Clinton administration has signaled a desire to raise the CAFE standard, despite mounting evidence that the whole program has been a failure. The biggest problem with CAFE is that there is virtually no evidence it has reduced aggregate gasoline consumption. It is true that auto fuel efficiency has risen 70 percent since 1973, from 13.3 mpg on average to 22.56 mpg in 1995. However, as the figure indicates, the higher fuel efficiency has simply encouraged people to drive more. The average number of miles driven per year has risen 24 percent since 1980, from 9,141 miles to 11,329 in 1995. Thus, even though the average use now uses just 502 gallons of gasoline per year, compared to 771 gallons in 1973, total fuel consumption has continued to rise. Another problem with CAFE is that it has led to a loss of auto jobs in the U.S. The reason is that there are separate CAFE standards for domestic and imported autos. This has encouraged domestic auto companies to increase the percentage of foreign parts used in some of their models in order to reclassify them as foreign-made. For example, in 1989 Ford turned two of its least fuel efficiency cars, the Crown Victoria and the Grand Marquis, into ``imported'' cars by reducing their domestic content from 90 percent to less than 75 percent. This allowed Ford to increase the average fuel economy of its domestically produced cars, where it was having a problem meeting the new CAFE standard, while lowering the average for its imported models, where it had room to spare. Finally, there is growing evidence that CAFE has been detrimental to safety. To increase fuel efficiency, auto companies have had to produce smaller, lighter cars that are less safe than larger, heavier cars. And auto companies have often had to heavily discount these smaller models in order to increase their sales and lower their average corporate fuel economy. Thus a 1989 study estimated that CAFE standards would cost 2,200 to 3,900 lives over the next 10 years. Virtually all economists agree that higher gasoline taxes would do a far better job of reducing gasoline consumption than CAFE--assuming there is any real need to do so. At a minimum, there should be no further increase in CAFE standards.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reduce the salaries of Members of Congress by 10 percent for every year that the budget remains out of balance or Congress fails to enact a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Since the Senate is currently debating a balanced budget to the Constitution, I think it is an appropriate time to renew this legislation. Mr. President, the Federal budget has been out of balance since 1969. If you exclude trust fund surpluses--as some argue we should--then the Federal Government has not had a surplus since the Kennedy administration. Since that time, the on-budget deficit has risen from $4 billion in 1961 to $26 billion in 1971, $74 billion in 1981, and $321 billion in 1991. According to the CBO, despite recent improvements, the deficit will continue to be a problem--over $200 billion per year out into the future. Uninterrupted deficits mean rising debt and debt service costs. The gross debt right now is over $5 trillion. By 2002, it will be over $6 trillion. At that time, as we all have been warned, interest payments on the debt will be the largest single portion of the Federal budget. A child born today faces close to $200,000 in extra taxes over his/her lifetime just to pay interest on the Federal debt. In other words, Mr. President, after 35 years of uninterrupted presence, I think we can call the Federal deficit an institution here in Washington and admit that there's an institutional bias toward operating in the red. The legislation I am reintroducing today would create an institutional bias in the other direction--toward balance. Specifically, the bill provides that the salary of Members of Congress be reduced by 10 percent whenever the Federal Government is unable to balance the budget at the close of a fiscal year. It further provides that such a reduced salary level remain in effect until the Government is successful in achieving a balanced budget. The bill's requirements would sunset, however, upon passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment by both Houses of the Congress. Mr. President, I believe it is a fundamental responsibility of Government to live within its means. Yet, Members of Congress find it tempting to spend more money than they are willing to take from taxpayers. On the one hand, they reap the benefits by pleasing their constituents. On the other hand, they avoid displeasing the taxpayers who have to foot the bill. In the end, it is future generations of taxpayers who will pick up the tab. Last Congress, we came close to reversing this destructive trend. We came within one vote of adopting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and we came within one Presidential veto of instituting a plan to reduce spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget by the year 2002. As we all know, however, close does not count, and the debt we impose upon our children continues to rise. For that reason, I will continue to fight for a balanced budget constitutional amendment and I will continue to work as a member of the Budget Committee to enact a balanced budget plan. Until either of these initiatives is adopted, however, I will continue to propose holding Members collectively responsible for year-end deficits by reducing their pay. Mr. President, as I said last year, the Congressional Fiscal Policy Act of 1997 is not a panacea for our current fiscal problems. However, until such time as a balanced budget amendment is placed into the Constitution, it would effect a small but potentially important step toward more responsible Government.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. In so doing I side with the 87 percent of Americans who oppose the use of tax dollars to pay for the cost of assisting suicide or euthanasia. I find it deeply distressing, Mr. President, that we are in the throes of a legal and public policy debate over whether physicians should be given the power to end the lives of their patients. This controversy raises many troublesome questions concerning the duties of a physician, the nature of the doctor-patient relationship, the possibility of coerced suicide, and the very sanctity of life. Some may find these questions difficult or even impossible to answer. But of one thing I am certain: the government has no right to use public moneys, the tax dollars paid by the American people, to support physician assisted suicide. Whatever their views on the rectitude of allowing doctors to assist their patients in ending their lives, I hope my colleagues will join with me in saying that such a controversial practice, which so many Americans find morally troubling, should not be the object of Federal largesse. I congratulate my friends the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Missouri on their courage and conviction in submitting this bill, and urge my colleagues to join them in its support.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. In so doing I side with the 87 percent of Americans who oppose the use of tax dollars to pay for the cost of assisting suicide or euthanasia. I find it deeply distressing, Mr. President, that we are in the throes of a legal and public policy debate over whether physicians should be given the power to end the lives of their patients. This controversy raises many troublesome questions concerning the duties of a physician, the nature of the doctor-patient relationship, the possibility of coerced suicide, and the very sanctity of life. Some may find these questions difficult or even impossible to answer. But of one thing I am certain: the government has no right to use public moneys, the tax dollars paid by the American people, to support physician assisted suicide. Whatever their views on the rectitude of allowing doctors to assist their patients in ending their lives, I hope my colleagues will join with me in saying that such a controversial practice, which so many Americans find morally troubling, should not be the object of Federal largesse. I congratulate my friends the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Missouri on their courage and conviction in submitting this bill, and urge my colleagues to join them in its support.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague, Senator Santorum, for the article he recently had published in the Washington Times concerning partial birth abortion. All too often, Mr. President, debates over public policy issues degenerate into uncivil attacks on each side's motives. Mr. Santorum's article does an excellent job of showing how this bickering can be avoided even when the issue is as serious and sensitive as abortion. How can we reach common ground on partial birth abortion? By realizing that this procedure has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade or the subsequent decision in Doe versus Bolton. By realizing that partial birth abortion is simply unacceptable. Whatever one's view of abortion, one should recognize this procedure as one that is, as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan phrased it, ``just too close to infanticide.'' We are a civilized society, Mr. President. I hope that our debates over this contentious issue can be made more civil. I also hope that we can reach common ground in banning partial birth abortion. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Santorum's article from the Washington Times be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Times, Jan. 22, 1997] Partial Birth Abortion: The Art of Agreement (By Rick Santorum) A wide spectrum of individuals has coalesced around the recent effort to ban partial birth abortions. These varied individuals and groups have raised their voices in support of a ban both because of the brutality of partial birth abortions and because they recognize that this debate is not about Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. It is not about when a fetus becomes a baby. And it is certainly not about women's health. It is about virtual infanticide, it is about killing a child as he or she is being born, an issue that neither Roe vs. Wade nor the subsequent Doe vs. Bolton addressed. During the Senate debate last year, many traditionally pro- choice legislators voted in support of legislation to ban this particular procedure. Among them was my colleague Sen. Arlen Specter who stated on the floor of the Senate, ``In my legal judgment, the issue is not over a woman's right to choose within the constitutional context of Roe versus Wade . . . The line of the law is drawn, in my legal judgment, when the child is partially out of the womb of the mother. It is no longer abortion; it is infanticide.'' He was joined in these sentiments by other such consistently pro-choice members as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Such coalescence with pro-choice proponents suggests the enormous scope of the tragedy that this procedure represents. This broad coalition further confirms that extraneous considerations, such as the anticipation of a disabled child, or a mother's broadly-defined health concerns, were just that-- extraneous to the debate. And for those who may still be unclear what a partial birth abortion procedure is, it is this: a fully formed baby--in most cases a viable fetus of 23-26 weeks--is pulled from its mother until all but the head is delivered. Then, a scissors is plunged into the base of the skull, a tube is inserted and the child's brains are suctioned out so that the head of the now-dead infant collapses and is delivered. Partial birth abortion is tragic for the infant who loses his or her life in this brutal procedure. It is also a personal tragedy for the families who choose the procedure, as it is for those who perform it--even if they aren't aware of it. But partial birth abortion is also a profound social tragedy. It rips through the moral cohesion of our public life. It cuts into our most deeply held beliefs about the importance of protecting and cherishing vulnerable human life. It fractures our sense that the laws of our country should reflect long-held, commonly accepted moral norms. Yet this kind of tragedy--can be an unexpected catalyst for consensus, for new coalitions and configurations in our public life. The partial birth abortion debate moves us beyond the traditional pro-life/pro-choice lines of confrontation to hollow out a place in the public square where disparate individuals and groups can come together and draw a line that they know should not be crossed. The stark tragedy of partial birth abortion can be the beginning of a significant public discussion, where we define--or redefine--our first principles. Why is such a discussion important? Precisely because it throws into relief the fundamental truths around which a moral consensus is formed in this country. And, as John Courtney Murray reminds us in We Hold These Truths, Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition, a public consensus which finds its expression in the law should be ``an ensemble of substantive truths, a structure of basic knowledge, an order of elementary affirmations . . .'' If we do not have fundamental agreement about first principles, we simply cannot engage one another in civil debate. All we have is the confusion of different factions locked in their own moral universe. If we could agree publicly on just this one point--that partial birth abortion is not something our laws should sanction, and if we could then reveal the consensus--a consensus that I know exists-- against killing an almost-born infant, we would have significantly advanced the discussion about what moral status and dignity we give to life in all its stages. Public agreement, codified by law, on this one prohibition gives us a common point of departure, a common language even, because we agree, albeit in a narrow sense, on the meaning of fundamental terms such as life and death. And it is with this common point of departure and discourse--however narrow--that we gain a degree of coherence and unity in our public life and dialogue. I truly believe that out of the horror and tragedy of partial birth abortions, we can find points of agreement across ideological, political and religious lines which enable us to work toward a life-sustaining culture. So, as hundreds of thousands of faithful and steadfast citizens come together to participate in this year's March for Life let us remember that such a culture, the culture for which we hope and pray daily, might very well be achieved one argument at a time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at the end of the last Congress I expressed my disappointment at the unwillingness of this body and the other Chamber to move legislation that I believe is important to the health care of the people of Michigan. Today I rise along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, to reintroduce our legislation providing a Medicare 50/50 enrollment composition rule waiver for the Wellness Plan of Detroit, MI. The Wellness Plan is a federally certified Medicaid health maintenance organization located in Detroit, MI. It has approximately 150,000 enrollees--roughly 140,000 of whom are Medicaid, while only about 2,000 are Medicare beneficiaries. Since 1993, the Wellness Plan has had a health care prepayment plan contract with Medicare. However, technical changes enacted by Congress effective January 1, 1996, unintentionally prevent the Wellness Plan from enrolling additional Medicare beneficiaries under the HCPP contract. So the Wellness Plan is positioned to become a full Medicare risk contractor, it currently is precluded from doing so due to the 50/50 Medicare enrollment composition rule. Mr. President, it is important to note that even the Health Care Financing Administration has supported the Wellness Plan receiving this plan-specific 50/50 waiver. We also expect a companion bill to be introduced in the other Chamber shortly, and we expect it to be cosponsored by the entire Michigan delegation. Because this legislation is essentially noncontroversial, affects only the State of Michigan, and is supported by the entire State delegation, it is our earnest hope that the Senate will act on this measure as expeditiously as possible. There is no rational justification for preventing the Wellness Plan from enrolling new Medicare beneficiaries into its health plan. If our goal is to allow a wider variety of options and choices of health care plans for our seniors, a good place to start is to allow those Michigan residents who wish to join this particular health maintenance organization to be able to do so. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, for once again supporting and helping me with this effort. I look forward to working with him to see that this measure which has such broad support in Michigan becomes enacted in the very near future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at the end of the last Congress I expressed my disappointment at the unwillingness of this body and the other Chamber to move legislation that I believe is important to the health care of the people of Michigan. Today I rise along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, to reintroduce our legislation providing a Medicare 50/50 enrollment composition rule waiver for the Wellness Plan of Detroit, MI. The Wellness Plan is a federally certified Medicaid health maintenance organization located in Detroit, MI. It has approximately 150,000 enrollees--roughly 140,000 of whom are Medicaid, while only about 2,000 are Medicare beneficiaries. Since 1993, the Wellness Plan has had a health care prepayment plan contract with Medicare. However, technical changes enacted by Congress effective January 1, 1996, unintentionally prevent the Wellness Plan from enrolling additional Medicare beneficiaries under the HCPP contract. So the Wellness Plan is positioned to become a full Medicare risk contractor, it currently is precluded from doing so due to the 50/50 Medicare enrollment composition rule. Mr. President, it is important to note that even the Health Care Financing Administration has supported the Wellness Plan receiving this plan-specific 50/50 waiver. We also expect a companion bill to be introduced in the other Chamber shortly, and we expect it to be cosponsored by the entire Michigan delegation. Because this legislation is essentially noncontroversial, affects only the State of Michigan, and is supported by the entire State delegation, it is our earnest hope that the Senate will act on this measure as expeditiously as possible. There is no rational justification for preventing the Wellness Plan from enrolling new Medicare beneficiaries into its health plan. If our goal is to allow a wider variety of options and choices of health care plans for our seniors, a good place to start is to allow those Michigan residents who wish to join this particular health maintenance organization to be able to do so. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, for once again supporting and helping me with this effort. I look forward to working with him to see that this measure which has such broad support in Michigan becomes enacted in the very near future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this year, I joined Senator Kyl and others in introducing legislation which would eliminate the Federal estate tax. In terms of helping families, encouraging economic growth, and simple tax fairness, eliminating the estate tax is one of the most meaningful steps Congress can take, and I intend to work with Members from both parties to move this legislation through Congress and on to the President's desk. Mr. President, the estate tax was first instituted in 1916 as a means of raising revenue and redistributing wealth. It has largely failed on both accounts. On the other hand, it has had a severe and adverse impact upon millions of families, it has destroyed innumerable family owned businesses, and it has created perverse incentives that encourage parents to spend their savings now, rather than pass them on to their children later. As the National Commission on Economic Growth noted in its report: It makes little sense and is patently unfair to impose extra taxes on people who choose to pass their assets on to their children and grandchildren instead of spending them lavishly on themselves. Families faced with these confiscatory taxes often find themselves forced to sell off farms or businesses, destroying jobs in the process. I believe the Kemp Commission was exactly right. The estate tax is simply devastating to entrepreneurs and farmers. By forcing the sale of many businesses, the tax causes untold hardship and turmoil in families already dealing with the loss of a loved one. It has been estimated that 70 percent of all businesses never make it past the first generation, while 90 percent do not make it past the second generation. I believe the estate tax is responsible for much of this failure. Worse, this destruction of businesses and loss of jobs cannot be justified for budget reasons. The estate tax raises little money for the Federal Government. Historically, the estate tax raises less than 2 percent of total Federal revenues. According to many observers, this amount is less than the cost the estate tax imposes to both government and the economy. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me say that the estate tax is simply unfair. It tells every American that no matter how hard you work or how wisely you manage your affairs, in the end the Federal Government is going to step in and take it away. The estate tax is double and, in some cases triple taxation, it punishes hard work and wealth creation, and it fails to raise the kind of revenue that could possibly justify the damage it causes. It has been destroying businesses and ruining lives for four generations now, and it is my hope we can act in this Congress so it will not afflict yet another generation of Americans.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to Father George Shalhoub, pastor and spiritual leader of St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church in Livonia, MI. Father George will be celebrating 25 years as pastor at St. Mary's on Saturday, February 15, 1997. In addition to his pastoral duties, Father George is a faculty member at Madonna University and is on the board of directors of many Michigan community service organizations. Father George's life has been filled with many wonderful events. Born in Hama, Syria, he came to the United States at the age of 20. He married his lovely wife Nina weeks before his ordination. One week after his ordination, Father George was assigned to St. Mary's, a brandnew parish without land and a church. In the following years, the couple arranged for the purchase of land in Livonia and the construction of the church. The process culminated in the joyous first Sunday of Great Lent in 1976, when Father George celebrated the first divine liturgy in the new building. The church was formally dedicated on May 1, 1977 by the Most Reverend Metropolitan Philip, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. For Father George, devotion to his family has always come hand in hand with his religious dedication. He has been blessed with four wonderful children: Lila Ann, Alex George, Alexa Marie, and Christa Katherine. Despite his busy family and liturgical schedule, Father George managed to find the time to pursue scholastic endeavors as well. He earned a bachelor of science degree in sociology and psychology from Eastern Michigan University; a master of theological studies degree from St. John's Provincial Seminary; and a doctor of ministries in pastoral counseling from the Graduate Theological Foundation in Notre Dame, IN. As Father George's family has grown and prospered, so has his parish community. In 1980, St. Mary's added six Sunday school classes in the fellowship building and a new social hall. The groundbreaking for St. Mary's Cultural Center was presided over by Metropolitan Philip on May 8, 1988. The Cultural Center was completed in 1991, and dedication ceremonies were held later that year, again under Metropolitan Phillip. The success of the 2,000-family parish was made most evident in June 1995, when St. Mary's hosted the 48th annual midwest parish life conference. Father George has always been known as a man with great strength of character. That strength was severely tested on April 5, 1996, when St. Mary's was consumed by fire. The fire could not have come at a worse time--it occurred right in the middle of Holy Week. It was a major blow to the parish, but Father George responded fantastically. He moved services to St. Michael Russian Orthodox Church and immediately began arranging for repairs. Thanks to Father George's hard work and dedication, parishioners were able to return to St. Mary's on October 6, 1996. And the work wasn't limited to restoration. Plans are now underway to build a new chapel and a K through 8 private school. I have had the pleasure of personally knowing Father George for many years. During that time I have sought his spiritual advice and guidance. His pastoral, scholastic, and fatherly attributes are evident in everything he does. The State of Michigan is very lucky to have Father George amongst its citizens, and all Americans should be very proud of his accomplishments. Congratulations, Father George, on 25 years of success, dedication, and love. I would like to conclude by offering my hope that the next 25 years are just as blessed and fruitful as the previous 25 have been.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with Senators Levin and Ashcroft that would freeze the corporate average fuel economy standards--known as CAFE--at current levels unless changed by Congress. Enacted in 1975, CAFE established Federal requirements regulating the average fleet fuel economy of new passenger cars and light trucks. Now there are a number of reasons why the CAFE standards should continue to be frozen at their current level, and there is a great deal of information available which documents CAFE's harmful effects. Rest assured, I'll touch on both these topics in a moment. But there is one overriding reason this legislation needs to be adopted: control of CAFE standards must reside with the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, the control of CAFE standards is too great a responsibility to be entrusted to any entity other than the Congress. CAFE requirements were initiated over 20 years ago in response to an oil crisis that has long since disappeared. New standards would constitute the most tremendous regulation foisted on the automobile industry in over two decades and would require a massive retooling, at great cost, by America's automakers. This is an industry that employs 2.3 million Americans and is estimated to provide 4.4 percent of this Nation's GDP. Should the authority to impose upon this industry a new regulation with questionable goals and dubious results reside with unelected bureaucrats? Should regulators at the Department of Transportation have the authority to change CAFE standards at any time, for any reason and do so without congressional approval? The answer to these questions is clearly no. Such a decision in my view belongs with this legislature, the body entrusted by our Constitution with the duty to determine whether any proposed policy change is in the best interests of the American people. The other question we need to ask is why a CAFE increase should be considered at all. When CAFE was instituted, it was part of a larger effort to regulate oil consumption and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Today, however, it is clear that CAFE standards failed to achieve this goal. Domestic manufacturers have increased passenger car fuel economy 108 percent and light truck fuel economy almost 60 percent since the mid-1970's. Rather than decreasing during this time, however, oil imports have increased. In 1974 the United States imported 35 percent of its oil--last year this country imported between 45 and 50 percent of its oil. Now, with CAFE's obvious failure to reduce oil imports, CAFE proponents cite the threat of potential global warming as the major rationale for increasing these standards further. Mr. President, the argument that CAFE standards will prevent or reduce global warming is as weak as the argument that CAFE would reduce this country's reliance on foreign oil. According to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, cars and light trucks subject to CAFE standards account for only one and 1\1/2\ percent of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon, as has been discussed, would result in minuscule reductions in emissions--less than one-half of 1 percent. There can be no doubt, Mr. President, that CAFE standards have failed to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil or significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So what have they succeeded in doing? They have succeeded in putting domestic automobile manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage and putting American families at risk of severe injury and even death. First, on competitiveness. CAFE standards apply to the average fuel consumption standards for a company's fleet of cars--that is, the fuel economy for all cars sold in one model year is averaged together to determine the fleet average. Due to the high price of gasoline in Japan, the Japanese have traditionally engineered smaller cars. Consequently their automobile fleets come in below the CAFE standards, thus allowing them to make larger, less fuel-efficient cars and still fall within the CAFE limits for their fleet. According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``the CAFE system operated to the benefit of the Japanese manufacturers, and at the expense of the domestic manufacturers.'' This system continues to this day. Despite this inequity, the Department of Transportation continues to push for increased CAFE standards, and in 1994 issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making that suggested setting light truck CAFE standards for up to 9 years at levels up to 40 percent higher than they are today. Compounding their potential harm to our light truck industry, these CAFE supporters fail to consider the differences between cars and trucks. Many of the fuel efficient technologies used to make cars more efficient, such as front wheel drive and increased aerodynamics, cannot be used for trucks. Trucks are designed specifically for hauling capacity, off-road use and durability. Only one or two very small trucks currently provide the level of fuel efficiency sought by CAFE proponents, and they account for less than 1 percent of light truck sales. The Department of Transportation's CAFE-mandated changes would negatively affect American manufacturers by reducing the segment of the light-duty truck market--the full-size trucks consumers desire--in which they predominate. But, important as competitiveness is to our workers and consumers, there is a more important reason to freeze CAFE standards: it will save lives. Why? Because higher CAFE standards will force automobile manufacturers to downsize cars and trucks, and smaller vehicles are more dangerous. Automobile experts estimate that almost 50 percent of the fuel economy gains made since the mid-1970's are attributable to reductions in vehicle size and weight. And what was the cost? In 1991, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that vehicle downsizing since the mid-1970's was responsible for an additional 2,000 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries on America's highways every year. Other studies have reached the same, logical conclusion. To illustrate the relationship between size and safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studied the occupant death rates of 11 car models that had been downsized since 1977. It found that death rates were higher for 10 of the 11 vehicle types after downsizing. More recently, the institute has determined that, even when equipped with airbags, smaller cars are still less safe than larger cars. The National Academy of Sciences also understands that emissions controls result in less protection in the event of an accident. According to the Academy, ``safety and fuel economy are linked because one of the most direct methods of increasing gas mileage is reducing size and weight.'' And what would happen if the new, increased CAFE standards are adopted? A study by the Harvard Injury Control Center estimates that an increase to proposed CAFE levels would result in downsizing that would produce an additional 1,650 deaths and 8,500 serious injuries on our highways every year. This is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. President, what I find most troubling about efforts to increase CAFE standards is that they are simply unnecessary. American automobile manufacturers are constantly striving to improve their current product and develop innovative new ways to power cars and trucks. And these efforts are beginning to show results. In recent weeks, Chrysler has announced breakthroughs in fuel-cell technology. By converting gasoline into hydrogen, Chrysler's new engine will increase fuel efficiency and reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, all three auto makers are working to develop a gas turbine engine that will combine better efficiency, low emissions and quiet performance. These technological advances are the result of open competition, not Government mandate. This kind of innovation is only produced in a free market. Thus, rather than shackling American manufacturers with costly, outdated regulations, we should be encouraging them to develop new technologies to take the automobile industry into the 21st century. Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, ``the CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful reconsideration.'' This bill is a modest step in that direction. It will permit Congress to carefully consider and debate any increases to CAFE standards rather than allow the administration to change the standards, at any time and for any reason without congressional approval, as is currently the case. Specifically, this bill will freeze CAFE standards at 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars and 20.7 miles per gallon for light-duty trucks. The transportation appropriations conference report we passed last year included a 1-year freeze on CAFE standards. This bill would make that freeze permanent unless changed by Congress. CAFE standards did not reduce our country's reliance on foreign oil, and they are not saving the planet from ozone depletion. CAFE standards are hurting American manufacturers and putting American families at increased risk of injury or death. All this when the automobile industry has shown itself capable of producing the technological advances necessary for increased efficiency on its own. Congress should fulfill its responsibility as our Nation's law-making body by protecting the American people from this instance of excessive and counterproductive bureaucratic rule making. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with Senators Levin and Ashcroft that would freeze the corporate average fuel economy standards--known as CAFE--at current levels unless changed by Congress. Enacted in 1975, CAFE established Federal requirements regulating the average fleet fuel economy of new passenger cars and light trucks. Now there are a number of reasons why the CAFE standards should continue to be frozen at their current level, and there is a great deal of information available which documents CAFE's harmful effects. Rest assured, I'll touch on both these topics in a moment. But there is one overriding reason this legislation needs to be adopted: control of CAFE standards must reside with the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, the control of CAFE standards is too great a responsibility to be entrusted to any entity other than the Congress. CAFE requirements were initiated over 20 years ago in response to an oil crisis that has long since disappeared. New standards would constitute the most tremendous regulation foisted on the automobile industry in over two decades and would require a massive retooling, at great cost, by America's automakers. This is an industry that employs 2.3 million Americans and is estimated to provide 4.4 percent of this Nation's GDP. Should the authority to impose upon this industry a new regulation with questionable goals and dubious results reside with unelected bureaucrats? Should regulators at the Department of Transportation have the authority to change CAFE standards at any time, for any reason and do so without congressional approval? The answer to these questions is clearly no. Such a decision in my view belongs with this legislature, the body entrusted by our Constitution with the duty to determine whether any proposed policy change is in the best interests of the American people. The other question we need to ask is why a CAFE increase should be considered at all. When CAFE was instituted, it was part of a larger effort to regulate oil consumption and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Today, however, it is clear that CAFE standards failed to achieve this goal. Domestic manufacturers have increased passenger car fuel economy 108 percent and light truck fuel economy almost 60 percent since the mid-1970's. Rather than decreasing during this time, however, oil imports have increased. In 1974 the United States imported 35 percent of its oil--last year this country imported between 45 and 50 percent of its oil. Now, with CAFE's obvious failure to reduce oil imports, CAFE proponents cite the threat of potential global warming as the major rationale for increasing these standards further. Mr. President, the argument that CAFE standards will prevent or reduce global warming is as weak as the argument that CAFE would reduce this country's reliance on foreign oil. According to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, cars and light trucks subject to CAFE standards account for only one and 1\1/2\ percent of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon, as has been discussed, would result in minuscule reductions in emissions--less than one-half of 1 percent. There can be no doubt, Mr. President, that CAFE standards have failed to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil or significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So what have they succeeded in doing? They have succeeded in putting domestic automobile manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage and putting American families at risk of severe injury and even death. First, on competitiveness. CAFE standards apply to the average fuel consumption standards for a company's fleet of cars--that is, the fuel economy for all cars sold in one model year is averaged together to determine the fleet average. Due to the high price of gasoline in Japan, the Japanese have traditionally engineered smaller cars. Consequently their automobile fleets come in below the CAFE standards, thus allowing them to make larger, less fuel-efficient cars and still fall within the CAFE limits for their fleet. According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``the CAFE system operated to the benefit of the Japanese manufacturers, and at the expense of the domestic manufacturers.'' This system continues to this day. Despite this inequity, the Department of Transportation continues to push for increased CAFE standards, and in 1994 issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making that suggested setting light truck CAFE standards for up to 9 years at levels up to 40 percent higher than they are today. Compounding their potential harm to our light truck industry, these CAFE supporters fail to consider the differences between cars and trucks. Many of the fuel efficient technologies used to make cars more efficient, such as front wheel drive and increased aerodynamics, cannot be used for trucks. Trucks are designed specifically for hauling capacity, off-road use and durability. Only one or two very small trucks currently provide the level of fuel efficiency sought by CAFE proponents, and they account for less than 1 percent of light truck sales. The Department of Transportation's CAFE-mandated changes would negatively affect American manufacturers by reducing the segment of the light-duty truck market--the full-size trucks consumers desire--in which they predominate. But, important as competitiveness is to our workers and consumers, there is a more important reason to freeze CAFE standards: it will save lives. Why? Because higher CAFE standards will force automobile manufacturers to downsize cars and trucks, and smaller vehicles are more dangerous. Automobile experts estimate that almost 50 percent of the fuel economy gains made since the mid-1970's are attributable to reductions in vehicle size and weight. And what was the cost? In 1991, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that vehicle downsizing since the mid-1970's was responsible for an additional 2,000 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries on America's highways every year. Other studies have reached the same, logical conclusion. To illustrate the relationship between size and safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studied the occupant death rates of 11 car models that had been downsized since 1977. It found that death rates were higher for 10 of the 11 vehicle types after downsizing. More recently, the institute has determined that, even when equipped with airbags, smaller cars are still less safe than larger cars. The National Academy of Sciences also understands that emissions controls result in less protection in the event of an accident. According to the Academy, ``safety and fuel economy are linked because one of the most direct methods of increasing gas mileage is reducing size and weight.'' And what would happen if the new, increased CAFE standards are adopted? A study by the Harvard Injury Control Center estimates that an increase to proposed CAFE levels would result in downsizing that would produce an additional 1,650 deaths and 8,500 serious injuries on our highways every year. This is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. President, what I find most troubling about efforts to increase CAFE standards is that they are simply unnecessary. American automobile manufacturers are constantly striving to improve their current product and develop innovative new ways to power cars and trucks. And these efforts are beginning to show results. In recent weeks, Chrysler has announced breakthroughs in fuel-cell technology. By converting gasoline into hydrogen, Chrysler's new engine will increase fuel efficiency and reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, all three auto makers are working to develop a gas turbine engine that will combine better efficiency, low emissions and quiet performance. These technological advances are the result of open competition, not Government mandate. This kind of innovation is only produced in a free market. Thus, rather than shackling American manufacturers with costly, outdated regulations, we should be encouraging them to develop new technologies to take the automobile industry into the 21st century. Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, ``the CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has defects that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful reconsideration.'' This bill is a modest step in that direction. It will permit Congress to carefully consider and debate any increases to CAFE standards rather than allow the administration to change the standards, at any time and for any reason without congressional approval, as is currently the case. Specifically, this bill will freeze CAFE standards at 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars and 20.7 miles per gallon for light-duty trucks. The transportation appropriations conference report we passed last year included a 1-year freeze on CAFE standards. This bill would make that freeze permanent unless changed by Congress. CAFE standards did not reduce our country's reliance on foreign oil, and they are not saving the planet from ozone depletion. CAFE standards are hurting American manufacturers and putting American families at increased risk of injury or death. All this when the automobile industry has shown itself capable of producing the technological advances necessary for increased efficiency on its own. Congress should fulfill its responsibility as our Nation's law-making body by protecting the American people from this instance of excessive and counterproductive bureaucratic rule making. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to give some opening remarks with respect to the resolution on the balanced budget that is now before us. I suspect during the course of the next several weeks in the debate that is ahead, I will probably be here several more times to discuss various aspects of this resolution as well as some of the amendments which are going to be offered. But today I thought I would just make some initial comments regarding what I consider to be the need, the necessity really, for this amendment, both why we need a balanced budget, why we need to have a balanced budget amendment, and why we need to do it now. First of all, I think it should be clear to all Americans why we need a balanced budget, although it certainly has not been the case that the Congress or the President, over the last many, many years, has responded to the public's demands. The first reason is simple. We have gone literally a generation without balancing the budget. Just a few minutes ago, all of these budgets were presented to us, reflecting the many years in which we have failed to balance the budget. This is as close to balancing the budget as we have come today, piling these documents on top of each other and making sure they do not fall over, but that is as close to balancing the budget as we have been in a quarter of a century. These years of deficits have to come to an end. We need a balanced budget also because a failure to balance the budget has hurt the economy. To the extent that Government borrows, it means less capital is available for private citizens to borrow. That means that our economy cannot grow as fast as we would like it. It has especially meant that families in America have suffered. Families have suffered to the extent that the Federal Government's encroachment in capital markets means higher interest rates, higher interest rates on new home purchases, on new automobile loans, on student loans, on the variety of other things which average, hardworking American families must seek financing. It has also hurt our families in the sense we are passing on to our children what is obviously a mountain of debt. Kids in America today, as one of the earlier speakers, the Senator from Idaho, indicated, inherit immediately upon their birth, an enormous responsibility for debts built up by past Congresses. A child born in America today--and I have a 5-month-old child so I suspect it applies to him--is immediately responsible for paying over his or her lifetime something in the vicinity of $180,000 in taxes simply to pay his or her share of this debt. That is certainly not the kind of legacy that was passed on to my generation. It is not the legacy I intend to pass on to my children's generation. Therefore, it is essential that we balance the budget and we do so immediately so we do not continue to hurt our families, our businesses, and especially our children. The next question is why we need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Indeed it is true, as many have said, that simply an action by Congress and the President would bring about a balanced budget. But, as we have seen just in the last 2 years, saying it and doing it are very different things. We reached an impasse in Washington in 1995. I don't think it's an impasse that was unique to the 104th Congress or President Clinton. I think it is the kind of impasse that is likely to be reached on almost any occasion in which the Congress of the United States is controlled by one political party and the executive branch is controlled by someone from the other party. The impasse was over spending priorities. But, even though everyone on all sides of the issue said they wanted a balanced budget, we did not get a balanced budget because of that impasse. The absence of a constitutional requirement that we balance the budget, that outlays not exceed revenues to the Federal Government, meant that the impasse continued in spite of the rhetoric on all sides, in spite of all of the balanced budget proposals that flowed from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and on Capitol Hill. Despite all of that, we never got to the balanced budget. It is my view that, without an amendment, without a constitutional requirement that the Congress and the President bring about a balanced budget, impasses such as the one that existed during the winter of 1995 will occur again. Another reason I believe we need an amendment is because we do not know what the future will bring, and we need to have a permanent safeguard against the kinds of deficits that have plagued the Nation over the past quarter of a century. Yes, today, today in America, talking about balancing the budget, advocating a balanced budget, is politically popular and what the American people are demanding. But, as we have seen for a quarter of a century, something that is simply politically popular may not get done. We have no idea what future Congresses will think about this issue. If we provide this sort of loophole that a failure to pass this amendment provides, we will be right where we have been for the last 25 years. Yes, it is possible we all might get together and in this Congress, even though the parties that control the Congress and the White House are different, we might finally reach a balanced budget for the year 2002. But what about the year 2003, or 2005, or 2010? What is the safeguard the American people deserve, to guarantee that in those years the same atmosphere that will bring about a balanced budget maybe in 1 year, will continue? I think the only safeguard will be an amendment to the Constitution. The last issue is why now? I think the crisis we confront today is one of the strongest arguments that we could have for balancing the budget. But the crises that fiscally will afflict this country in another 15 or 20 years are an even stronger argument for this amendment at this time. As we know, projections with respect to a variety of Federal spending programs, particularly the Federal entitlement programs, suggest that as the baby boom generation members age and ultimately become consumers of entitlements rather than providers of revenue to the Federal Government, such programs as Medicare and retirement programs will begin to run even greater costs than they do at this time. What we need to do is get our fiscal house in order today so that when those greater demands on the Federal Government begin to occur, we have the resources necessary to ensure they are honored. A constitutional amendment that prohibits us from running the deficits that are reflected in this stack of budgets before me will assist us in getting our fiscal house in order. In summary, the average family in my State of Michigan has interests rates that are unnecessarily high due to the deficits we have run and due to the borrowing of the Federal Government. Because of that, the average family in my State does not have as much to spend on its priorities as it deserves. That family's parents should have more income to spend on their children and their priorities and send less dollars to Washington and less dollars on interest payments than they do at this time. We need a balanced budget to help that working family in Michigan. America's long-term security also is at stake. America deserves to have fiscal integrity so that as we move forward into the 21st century, this debt does not bind us down, this debt does not undermine our economic security, this debt does not hold America back as we try to compete in the global economy, this ever-more competitive global economy, in the years ahead. For all these reasons, I think action is required now. I think a balanced budget is a necessity, and I think the only way to achieve it is with an amendment to the Constitution that not only brings about a balanced budget in the year 2002, but assures we will continue balancing the budget into the next century and into the future of our Nation. For those reasons, Madam President, I support the balanced budget amendment. I look forward to continuing this debate as we move forward into the next few weeks and hope that by the time we reach a final vote on this issue, two-thirds of our colleagues will join together to finally change the direction here in Washington, in America and, most importantly, end the unbroken series of Federal deficit represented by this stack of budgets standing next to me. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 10, the Violent And Repeat Offender Act of 1997, introduced recently by my good friend, the Senator from Utah, who I know developed this legislation in close cooperation with the majority leader and my new colleagues on the Committee, the Senators from Missouri and Alabama. While I do not necessarily agree with every provision of this legislation, I believe overall it makes great improvements over our general framework for handling juvenile crime, and I am therefore pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. This legislation is urgently needed. Over the past decade, the rate of homicide committed by teenagers, ages 14-17, has more than doubled. Crimes of violence committed by juveniles have increased by almost 100 percent. In 1994 alone, the number of violent crimes committed by juveniles increased by almost 10 percent. Drug use among teens--a significant factor in violent crime--is on the rise again, after nearly a decade of steady decreases. We have reached the point that 35 percent of all violent crime is committed by offenders less than 20 years of age. Today's teenaged criminal is far more likely to be a murderer than was his counterpart 20 years ago. These trends are expected to continue well into the 21th century. Meanwhile, our current approach to juvenile crime is anachronistic and based on faulty premises. It assumes that we should be following a treatment and rehabilitation model for all juvenile crimes--whether what is involved is petty larceny or murder--and it then tries to leverage Federal dollars that we make available to the States to impose this model on their juvenile justice systems. For instance, the existing Juvenile Justice Act requires that States that receive money under the act look to alternatives to incarceration for all juvenile offenses without regard to the offense committed by the juvenile. This bill corrects that by substantially revising both the Federal Government's approach to juvenile crimes that fall under its jurisdiction and the terms on which we make Federal dollars available to the States. At the Federal level, S. 10 will permit juveniles 14 years olds or older who are charged with murder, crimes of violence, or serious drug offenses to be prosecuted and sentenced as adults. Federal courts will be required to consider prior offenses in sentencing juveniles, just as they would with adult offenders. Juveniles sentenced to Federal prisons will no longer be automatically released on their 21st birthdays, but will serve their full sentences. The bill also attacks violent juvenile crime by enhancing penalties relating to the paraphernalia of violence. Federal penalties are increased for these offenses: illegally transferring a hand gun to a minor; possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; and use of body armor during the commission of a felony. Finally, this bill authorizes new Federal funding for various valuable State juvenile justice programs while relieving them from burdensome, outdated, unnecessary and in some instances harmful requirements for obtaining funds previously authorized for this purpose. The bill will fund fingerprinting and DNA testing for juvenile offenders, expanded record-keeping, and workable prevention programs. It will also release the States from harmful Federal mandates, permitting greater innovation and flexibility in State juvenile justice systems. While the bill continues to ensure that juvenile and adult offenders are not in actual contact in jail or prison together, it eliminates many other requirements that presently accompany acceptance of Federal juvenile grants such as the obligation to avoid if at all possible incarcerating any young offender including a murderer. The new conditions on grants established in S. 10 are designed to assure that recipient States' juvenile systems are not based on the notion--unfortunately previously foisted on the States by the Federal courts and the Congress--that all young offenders are eager to be rehabilitated. Rather, they take the realistic view that recipients' juvenile systems should respect the rights of juvenile offenders and the special considerations that may be appropriate for dealing with them in some instances, but that they must principally be designed to protect the public safety and be adequate to do so. Thus, for example, the bill requires that recipient States permit prosecution of juveniles 14 and older as adults in cases of murder, rape, or other crimes of violence. The juvenile justice reforms in this legislation are long overdue. I urge the Senate to act quickly in passing the Violent And Repeat Offender Act of 1997.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senate bill S. 1, the Safe and Affordable Schools Act. I do so because I am convinced that we owe our children the opportunity to learn in a safe environment and that our children should not find the door to higher education closed to them by high costs. This legislation will help children from low income families escape unsafe schools and at the same time help parents and their children better afford higher education. We have a crisis in our schools, Mr. President. According to one recent study, 2,000 acts of violence are committed every hour in our classrooms. The study also found that high percentages of students have changed their daily routine because of personal safety concerns, and that most students say they could obtain marijuana within a day if they wished. Drugs and violence have no place in our schools alongside math and history. To address this problem, the Safe and Affordable Schools Act authorizes $50 million for fiscal year 1998 school choice pilot programs. These moneys may be used to develop, establish, and operate programs to protect children who have been victims of, or witnesses to, violence in our elementary and secondary schools. To encourage local safety measures, the act gives priority to programs providing for suspension, delay, or restriction of driving privileges for minors found to be using drugs. Mr. President, poor kids in this country should have the same right to attend a safe school as their more well-off counterparts. That is why school choice programs are essential. This bill provides funding for pilot programs and also for broader school choice vouchers to give parents in our less affluent areas a chance to send their children to good schools. Unfortunately, Mr. President, too many kids who graduate from high school find the doors to higher education closed to them by sky-high costs. Public college and university tuition alone has risen 234 percent over the last 15 years. This has put too tight a squeeze on students and their parents as they seek the opportunities only higher education can provide in our country. To make higher education more affordable for students in college and for parents saving for their children's education, this legislation provides a number of rational, cost-effective tax incentives. To begin with, Mr. President, this bill establishes the Bob Dole education investment account. Parents would be able to contribute $1,000 per year to this account, and would be eligible to establish an account for each child. The savings will be significant. If a parent puts aside $1,000 at the time a child is born, and contributes $1,000 every year until the child is 18, the investment account would contain $34,000 to pay college costs. And this legislation offers further help to parents and students. It excludes from taxation educational assistance provided by employers. It also excludes any prepaid higher education disbursement from the State. In addition, the bill would make student loan interest deductible, up to a maximum of $2,500 per year. Finally, the bill would exclude from gross income any moneys received through Federal work study programs. These provisions will make higher education more affordable. They will keep the doors of opportunity open for all Americans. Combined with school choice measures, they will go a long way toward establishing the equality of opportunity for which our country always has been known. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that would increase penalties for distribution of powder cocaine. It would do this by applying existing mandatory minimum sentences of 5 and 10 years for this crime to a larger class of powder cocaine dealers. Specifically, under current law, a dealer has to distribute 500 grams of powder to qualify for the 5-year minimum, and 5,000 grams to qualify for the 10-year minimum. My bill would lower the trigger quantities to 100 grams and 1,000 grams, respectively. As many of you will recall, last Congress, the Sentencing Commission proposed a dramatic lowering of penalties for distribution of crack. That proposal would have taken effect automatically had Congress not stepped in to prevent it from doing so it by adopting legislation I introduced to block it. The principal argument the Commission advanced for its proposal was that current law's sharp differentiation between sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine distribution is wrong. Therefore, the Commission argued, we should equalize these penalties by lowering penalties for crack cocaine. As is clear from the fact that I sponsored legislation to prevent its recommendation from taking effect, I did not agree with the Commission's view that crack and powder penalties should be equalized. I also did not think that dramatically lowering crack penalties was a good idea for anyone--least of all for inner-city residents where crack is most freely available and where parents need the most help in protecting their kids from those peddling this poisonous drug. At the same time, it also seemed to me that the Commission's report made some valid criticisms of the current disparity in the sentences. It just seemed to me that it drew the wrong conclusion from its criticisms, and that the answer to the problems it identified was not to lower crack sentences but to raise powder sentences. That is why, at the same time I introduced my legislation to prevent the Commission's proposal from taking effect last Congress, I also introduced the same bill I am introducing today: to raise the sentences for those who deal powder cocaine, and thereby bring the quantity ratio down from 100-1 to 20-1. I believe this proposal recognizes two realities: that crack is more dangerous and more addictive than powder, but that powder is very dangerous and a critical contributor to our very serious crack problem. First, as both the Commission's own study of the matter and a recent medical study indicate, crack is a more dangerous and addictive form of cocaine than powder. Moreover because of its relative cheapness and ease of use, it is more attractive to first-time users, and especially children. It is also common sense that with crack use finally stabilizing, we should not jeopardize what success we have had in combating it by dramatically lowering the penalties for selling it. That would surely invite new entrants into the crack market, and thereby lead to an increase in drug use and trigger a resurgence of violence among competing crack dealers. On the other hand, as the Commission's report also pointed out, present law has resulted, at least occasionally, in insufficiently severe punishment of individuals at the top of crack distribution chains. These dealers distribute their product in powder rather than in crack form. And at least a few of them have received considerably less than the mandatory 5-year penalty. At the same time lower level dealers who worked for them and sold the final product, crack, were receiving at least 5-year sentences. This overly lenient treatment of the powder kingpins does not seem right. Second and more generally, when the mandatory sentences for powder were originally set, they were set without knowledge of the extent of our crack problem and the contribution that powder cocaine makes to it. An increase therefore is warranted for that reason as well. Finally, while I believe some differential in the quantities that trigger the same sentence for crack and powder is warranted, 100 to 1 seems too great. It is also unique in our drug laws' treatment of derivative versus source drugs, and that uniqueness is part of what has made it racially divisive. My proposed legislation addresses all three of these points. Its lower threshold for powder mandatories would make it much less likely that a powder kingpin at the top of a crack-dealing chain would escape with a lower punishment than those further down in the chain. By raising the sentences for powder significantly, the bill also takes into account the contribution that powder cocaine dealing generally makes to the crack market. Finally, the change in the powder triggers makes the ratio of powder to crack necessary to trigger the same sentences 20 to 1 rather than 100 to 1. This would bring it in line with other similar differentials between source and derivative drugs, such as opium and heroin, which likewise have a 20 to 1 quantity ratio. Mr. President, last Congress we withheld action on this question beyond blocking the Sentencing Commission's proposal because we were told that the Commission ought to be given another chance to devise a solution. I believe, however, that this Congress must act on this matter--whether with the help of the Commission or on its own. By introducing this legislation at this time, I want to make clear that I intend to see to it that we do so.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in cosponsorship of Senate bill S. 202, the Older Americans Freedom to Work Act. This important legislation would remove existing penalties on outside income earned by Social Security beneficiaries who have reached retirement age. Currently, Mr. President, persons between the ages of 65 and 69 face a penalty of $1 in reduced benefits for every $3 in earnings above $13,500 per year. This penalty is unfair because it singles out older Americans for double taxation. That is, this income already is subject to normal taxation, and currently is reduced again through the earnings penalty. The penalty also is unwise, Mr. President, because it discourages trained and experienced people from participating in the labor force. When the current earned income limit was devised back in the 1930's, it was thought that encouraging older Americans to leave the labor force was a good idea. But times have changed. Where during the Great Depression there were too many workers and too few jobs, we face, in the next several decades, a worsening labor shortage. As the baby boom generation reaches retirement age between 2000 and 2010, there will be fewer younger workers to take the place of those who retire. We should be encouraging older Americans to stay in the labor force as long as they can safely continue to make a contribution there. In this way older people can better see to their financial needs, senior citizens will remain more active and thus happier and healthier, and our Nation will continue to benefit from these people's skills and wisdom. For the sake of our older Americans, and for the sake of continuing economic prosperity for all Americans, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.