Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Hatch in introducing the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. Mr. President, no company can grow if it fails to find enough employees with the skills needed to get the job done. And that is precisely the situation faced by our high-tech companies today. A Joint Venture: Silicon Valley study found that a lack of skilled workers is costing Silicon Valley companies $3 to $4 billion every year. A Computer Technology Industry Association study concluded that a shortage of information technology professionals is costing the U.S. economy as a whole $105 billion per year. These costs should not be seen as mere abstractions. Because of skilled labor shortages, an increasing number of highly productive firms have had to curtail their economic activities and/or move offshore. At an October 21, 1999 Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing, Susan DeFife, CEO of womenCONNECT.com, noted that ``as investment capital flows into start-ups and puts them on a fast growth track, the demand for workers will continue to far exceed the supply. In order to fill these positions, the options for tech companies are not particularly attractive: we can limit our growth, but then we lose the ability to compete; we can `steal' employees from other companies, which makes none of us stronger and forces us to constantly look over our shoulders; or, in the case of larger companies I know, move operations off-shore.'' None of these solutions is good for our economy or our workers. As e- commerce and other forms of high technology become increasingly integrated throughout our economy, the long-term solution to our dilemma will be for earlier and better training for our young people to qualify them for high-tech tasks. But we are losing productivity and opportunities for growth right now. If we are to maintain our high-tech edge in an increasingly competitive global market, we must find the skilled workers we need wherever we can. We must meet our training and education needs. And we need wise and careful reforms to our immigration laws. This is not an either/or proposition. We have studied this approach for some time. In February of 1998 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on high technology workforce issues. This hearing demonstrated that many companies could not find enough qualified professionals to fill key jobs. It also showed that the foreign-born individuals hired by companies on H-1B temporary visas typically many additional jobs for Americans through their skills and motivations. Mr. President, shortly after that hearing, Congress raised the cap on H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 in FY1999 and 2000, and 107,500 in 2001. A number of provisions in this legislation increased enforcement efforts and established a $500 fee per visa--currently generating $75 million per year--for training and scholarships to encourage Americans to enter high-tech related fields. Unfortunately, this was not enough. Despite the raised cap, a tight labor market, increasing globalization and burgeoning economic growth all combined to increase demand for skilled workers. The 1999 cap on H- 1B visas was reached by June of last year. We must do more to enable American employers to hire job-creating high-tech professionals. That is why I have sponsored this legislation that would: Provide a temporary increase in H-1B visas. Caps would be increased by 80,000 for FY 2000; 87,500 for FY 2001; and 130,000 for FY 2002. Create exemptions for universities, research facilities, and graduate degree recipients to help keep in the country top graduates and those who help educate Americans. Modify per-country limits on permanent employment visas to allow companies to hire talent without regard to nationality. Increase labor mobility by allowing H-1B professionals to change jobs as soon as the new employer files the initial paperwork, instead of waiting for a new H-1B application to be approved. Continue and extend the $500 per visa fee to provide over $150 million in additional funding over three years for training and scholarships. Counting the existing money brought in by the fee, this will raise the total to over $375 million over three years and will help over 50,000 American students receive scholarships in math, science or engineering. These provisions will increase our economic competitiveness, sustain our economic growth, and provide new opportunities for workers and entrepreneurs. Julie Holdren, President and CEO of the Olympus Group, told the Immigration Subcommittee that ``For every H-1B worker I employ, I am able to hire ten more American workers.'' A study for the Public Policy Institute of California by U.C. Berkeley Professor Annalee Saxenian bears this testimony out. It found that Chinese and Indian immigrant entrepreneurs in northern California alone were responsible for employing 58,000 people, with annual sales of nearly $17 billion. Critics of the last H-1B visa increase have been proven spectacularly wrong, as the U.S. economy added 387,000 new jobs in January and the unemployment rate dropped to a 30-year low of 4 percent. Specialty jobs in the computer industry alone are projected to grow by 1.5 million between 1998 and 2008, according to the Department of Labor. President Clinton's former chief economic advisor, Laura D'Andrea Tyson argues that ``it's time to raise the cap on H-1B visas yet again and to provide room for further increases as warranted. Silicon Valley's experience reveals that the results will be more jobs and higher incomes for both Americans and immigrant workers.'' Mr. President, the final word should belong to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. At a Budget Committee hearing last month he was asked ``Do you believe we should do something with our laws-- immigration--that would allow high tech . . . labor to come into the country to ease the burden'' on our labor force? Chairman Greenspan responded: ``I would certainly agree with that. It's clear that under existing circumstance . . . aggregate demand is putting very significant pressures on an ever-decreasing available supply of unemployed labor. The one obvious means that one can use to offset that is expanding the number of people we allow in, either generally or in a specifically focused area.'' By increasing the number of highly skilled professionals we allow to work in America, and providing additional funding for training and scholarships, we will create jobs for all Americans and keep our high- tech driven economic expansion on the move.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, this week, I joined with my good friends, Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum, to introduce the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000. This important legislation would enable low-income working Americans to increase their savings and build assets, thus allowing them to enter and become a contributing part of America's economic mainstream and benefit from its unprecedented period of economic growth. Right now, despite the fact that the net worth of American families has increased dramatically over recent years, the net worth of families with incomes below $25,000 per year has actually decreased. As many as 20 percent of American families are ``unbanked''--meaning that they do not have either a checking or a savings account. This disparity has had a severe and damaging affect not only on the ability of lower-income Americans to obtain financial assets but it has drastically reduced the chances of the working poor to achieve upper, or even middle class status. Even more distressing is the impact this disparity has had on children and minorities: one-third of all American households, and 60 percent of African-American households, have zero or negative net financial assets and 40 percent of all white children, and a staggering 73 percent of all Black children, grow up in households with zero or negative net financial assets. The lack of financial assets creates almost insurmountable obstacles against purchasing a home, starting a small business or investing in a post-secondary education--all investments which would enable these families to better their economic status and fully participate in the American dream, a dream which should be available to all American's willing to put forth the effort and initiative. And, Madam President, providing economic opportunity to all Americans is not only the right thing to do morally, but it is the right thing to do economically. Not only will this legislation empower our lower- income working Americans but it will benefit the entire society in the form of new businesses, new jobs, increased earnings, greater tax revenue, reduced welfare expenditures and a higher national savings rate. Case-in-point, Mr. President, IDAs yield over $5 for every $1 invested. Simply put, Madam President, without productive assets such as a home, a college education or a business upon which to build a successful financial future, the working poor may continue to work but they will also continue to remain poor. The legislation we are introducing today, the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000, recognizes the need to invest in the working poor: empower them with the ability to build assets, own a piece of their neighborhood and achieve wealth. Specifically, this legislation would establish Individual Development Accounts for poorer Americans, through which account holders can deposit any discretionary earned income and their Earned Income Tax Credit refund and have up to $500 of their savings matched, each year, by a financial institution. A tax credit would be made available to financial institutions and for investment in qualified non-profits administering qualified IDA programs, in order to provide incentives to match, dollar-for-dollar, IDA account savings, up to $500 per person per year. In order to promote asset building, the matched savings accounts would be restricted to buying a first home, receiving post-secondary education or training, or starting a small business. In addition, account holders would participate in classes designed to increase their financial literacy and better prepare them for full and successful participation in the mainstream economy. Madam President, I am also pleased to note that Congress has already recognized the important contributions that IDAs make to our communities and our economy in several important ways. In 1996, Congress included in the 1996 welfare overhaul law, a provision allowing states to include IDAs in their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)--welfare-to-work--plans. Since then, 28 states have included IDAs in their state TANF plans, 27 states have passed some form of IDA legislation, and five more states have IDA legislation pending. In addition, Congress established the Assets for Independence Act in 1998, which provided $125 million over 5 years for IDA demonstration programs. This Act is expected to reach an additional 30,000 to 40,000 working-poor Americans by 2003. Last summer, the Senate tax bill included a provision, similar to this bill, which would also have established tax incentives to encourage financial institutions to match the savings of lower-income account holders. I feel privileged to have voted for the tax bill, which included many pro-family and pro-community provisions such as the establishment of the Individual Development Accounts. Lastly, I am proud to be the lead sponsor of comprehensive bi- partisan and bi-cameral community development and renewal legislation, the American Community Renewal Act, which includes IDAs as a means by which communities can help themselves. Please allow me to take this opportunity and thank Senators Lieberman and Santorum for their continued support and effort of IDAs and the American Community Renewal Act. In closing, Madam President, the Savings for Working Families Act of 2000 provides a common sense long-term solution by providing working lower-income Americans the education and the tools by which they gain the financial know-how necessary to succeed in today's economy. It is important to recognize that achieving family development, neighborhood revitalization and community resurgence begins by empowering people to help themselves--this legislation provides this opportunity. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues this session to ensure the passage of the Savings for Working Families Act into law.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to praise Ford Motor Company's president and chief executive, Mr. Jacques Nasser, and Ford Motor Company's unprecedented gift of a home computer, color printer and unlimited access to the Internet to each and every one of Ford's 350,000 thousand employees worldwide. Through this act, Ford Motor Company has shown that it has truly recognized the need to provide all Americans with computer and Internet access. Not a single Ford employee will be left out of Ford's initiative to provide its people with access to the Information Age. To its great credit, Ford has recognized that competing in today's high- tech global marketplace means doing everything possible to secure and train a skilled and informed workforce. What is more, Mr. President, Ford has recognized that any company that wants to continue to succeed must see to it that everyone in its workforce, and not just a select few ``specialists'' be fully plugged in to the Information Age. Mr. President, there is a growing digital divide in this country. Although over 40 percent of all households owned computers and one- quarter had Internet access by the end of 1998, figures show a disturbing and significant gap between two growing classes: the technical haves and the technical have-nots. This divide is defined by income and education levels, race and geographical location. Household with incomes of $75,000 and greater are more than twenty times more likely to have Internet access in the home than households in the lowest income levels. Wealthier families are nine times as likely to have a computer in the home. Whites are more likely than African Americans or Hispanics to have Internet access from any location, including work and the home. In addition, where a family lives can impact the likelihood of having computer and Internet access, regardless of income level. Americans living in rural areas are lagging behind in Internet access. Even at the lowest income levels, households in urban areas are more than twice as likely as their rural counterparts to have Internet access. We are all aware that the increasing dominance of computers throughout the workplace demands computer proficiency. Right now, 60 percent of all jobs require high-tech skills. Mr. President, it is only through readily available access and consistent use of computers and technology that Americans will gain the skills necessary to participate and succeed in the New Economy. And, it is only through a skilled and educated workforce that the United States will continue to maintain its dominance in the New Economy. That means, Mr. President, that we cannot afford to leave anyone behind in our journey into the New Economy. We will need everyone to help us face the tasks ahead. I take this challenge seriously. That is why my New Millennium Classrooms Act would give businesses increased incentives to donate used but still highly useful computers to our schools. It's unconscionable that 32 percent of public schools have only one classroom with access to the Internet when U.S. businesses are trying to figure out what to do with literally millions of used computers. It's also bad policy. We need to get everyone onto the information superhighway. And I strongly believe, Mr. President, that Ford's exceptional program will help us in that effort. It will ensure access to the fundamental tools of the digital economy, and that is one of the most significant investments in our country that we can make. Ford's initiative not only benefits their immediate workforce, but their families and our greater communities. I would encourage all of our companies to look closely at Ford's contributions and the overwhelming good it creates. Again, please allow me to commend Mr. Nasser and Ford Motor Co, for their dedication and invaluable contribution. I ask that the full texts of the February 4, 2000 Washington Post and Detroit News articles be printed in the Record immediately following my statement. The articles follow: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 4, 2000] Ford Offers Home PC To Every Employee (By Warren Brown and Frank Swoboda) Ford Motor Co. said yesterday that it will provide every one of its 350,000 employees worldwide with home computers, color printers and unlimited access to the Internet for as little as $5 a month. Leapfrogging across the ``digital divide'' that some fear separates wealthy computer users from people unable to afford them, Ford is the first major company to offer every employee, from the loading dock to the boardroom, the tools to participate in the Information Age. ``It is clear that individuals and companies that want to be successful in the 21st century will need to be leaders in using the Internet and related technology. That is what this program is all about,'' Chairman Bill Ford said. Ford, the nation's second-biggest company in terms of revenue, is betting the estimated $300 million cost of the program will be quickly offset by gains in making all its employees computer literate. ``We're committed to serving consumers better by understanding how they think and act,'' said Jacques Nasser, Ford's president and chief executive. ``Having a computer and Internet access in the home will accelerate development of these skills, provide information across our businesses, and offer opportunities to streamline our processes.'' Ford said it may offset some of its costs by selling advertisements to run on the Internet service its employees will use. But even with that, the ambitious program appears unique in corporate America. Even Microsoft Corp. has nothing similar. And Hewlett-Packard Co., which is supplying the hardware under contract with Ford, provides computers only to employees who need them for work. The program results from a contract settlement negotiated last year between the automaker and the United Auto Workers union. But Nasser said the computer program would cover all employees, even those not represented by the UAW. ``We're not leaving out anyone,'' Nasser said. Edward Hay, president of UAW Local 919 at the Ford pickup- truck plant in Norfolk, called the computer plan a ``really good thing. The way the modern world is going, it's all going to be about computers and we've got to get up to speed.'' Many members of the local put off buying computers at Christmas in anticipation of a Ford computer program. But Hay said no one on the local predicted the deal would be this good. UAW officials said the local predicted the deal would be this good. UAW officials said they have talked to both General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG about similar deals, but officials at those companies said they now have no plans to follow Ford. The three U.S. automakers, however, have in the past tended to match each others' benefits programs. There are no strings attached to the computer deal for individual employees and no requirement that the PCs be used for work. Both Ford and UAW officials said there will be no monitoring of how employees use their computers or Internet access. Company sources said the price tag could be as much as $300 million over three years, but Ford officials declined to confirm that. Ford last year netted $7.2 billion. It has another $28 billion in the bank. In the United States, Ford workers will pay $5 a month for the basic package put together by San Francisco-based PeoplePC Inc. Hewlett-Packard Corp. will supply the computers and printers, and Fairfax-based UUNet Technologies Inc., a subsidiary of MCI WorldCom Inc., will provide the Internet access. After three years--and a total payment of $180 per employee--the hardware will be the worker's property, though Ford officials said it isn't clear yet if employees will have to continue to pay for Internet access. Elsewhere in the world, the monthly fee will be adjusted for household incomes and living standards. The $5 fee is largely symbolic. It hearkens back to 1914, when Henry Ford, the company's founder, introduced the then- revolutionary industrial wage of $5 a day. Chairman Bill Ford, Henry's grandson, said the $5-a-month computer offer is equally revolutionary. The base computer will have a 500-megahertz Intel Celeron chip, 64 megabytes of RAM, a 4.3 gigabyte hard disk, CD-ROM drive, 15-inch monitor, speakers and a modem. The printer will be a color inkjet. Hardware will start going out to Ford employees in April. All Ford employees who want to participate in the program should receive the necessary equipment within 12 months, according to the company and UAW officials. Hewlett-Packard sold 7.6 million personal computers worldwide last year, 4 million in the United States. If 300,000 Ford employees take advantage of the program, as Hewlett-Packard projects, the deal would represent nearly 4 percent of the company's worldwide computer sales. Weis said yesterday that it was one of the biggest single computer sales contracts for the company. Over the past year, Ford has moved aggressively to establish itself as the e-business leader, at least in the automotive industry. Under Nasser's prompting, the company has entered into deals with Oracle Corp. to use the Internet to speed up transactions and cut costs in dealing with suppliers. The company has also struck deals with Microsoft Corp., CarPoint and Yahoo Inc. to help customers shop for cars and trucks and other Ford-provided automotive services. Ford announced another agreement Wednesday, this one with UPS Logistics Group, to drastically reduce the delivery times of components to Ford factories and products to consumers. Organized labor is getting into the low-price computer business with the creation last fall of Workingfamily.com, which has already signed up more than a dozen unions representing approximately half the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO. But the lowest price the unions have come up with so far is $8 a week.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Wyden, in introducing legislation to extend indefinitely the current moratorium on new and discriminatory Internet taxes. Once again, Senator Wyden has demonstrated his grasp of the crucial issues surrounding electronic commerce and has moved rapidly to assure that potential barriers to the new economy are eliminated before they do any harm. I am pleased to join him in his latest effort. By now, it is obvious to everyone that e-commerce is the wave of the future. As a matter of fact, it's safe to say that the future is already here. During the week of December 6 alone, Americans bought $1.22 billion of merchandise online. Sales for 1999 should reach $64.8 billion. Beyond shopping, 5.3 million households had access to financial transactions like electronic banking and stock trading by the end of last year. The rate of growth for Internet commerce has been exponential for the past several years. Unfortunately, it's also a tempting target for taxation by the Federal Government, States and localities. And that could slow the growth of e-commerce and of our entire economy. We responded to this potential problem by passing Senator Wyden's legislation in 1998, to place a three-year moratorium on new or discriminatory Internet taxes, fees or charges. That legislation also established a Commission to explore the issue of Internet taxation and to submit to Congress a list of recommendations on how the Federal Government should legislate in this area. We are only halfway through the moratorium, but already it seems there are only two possible conclusions to the Commission. The first is that the wide differences of opinion within the Commission will make it impossible for the members to muster the majority of support necessary to submit a report. This is worrisome, Mr. President, because, unless action is taken by this Congress, the moratorium will expire and the door will be opened to new, discriminatory taxes on the Internet. The other possibility, more recently offered, is that the Commission may actually recommend an extension of the current moratorium. Whatever the conclusion therefore, the role of Congress is clear; the Internet Tax Moratorium must be extended indefinitely. And because of the limited number of legislative days scheduled in this election year, the process of doing so should begin now. As everyone knows, the current moratorium only precludes new and discriminatory taxes. It does not address the more difficult question of how to apply existing, State sales taxes to Internet transactions. The Supreme Court has spoken to this issue, ruling that States can indeed impose taxes on transactions much like Internet sales--namely catalog sales. However, States cannot force a business to collect sales taxes on purchases made to States where they have no physical presence or ``nexus.'' This discrepancy in sales taxation between main street businesses and those that sell goods over the Internet will be difficult to address for the following reasons: First, very soon every business will be an e-business in the sense that they will be using the Internet for sales, supplies, contracting and other purposes. We couldn't stop this process if we wanted to, and we shouldn't want to. According to one recent survey, 74 percent of brick and mortar, main street businesses have added ``click and mortar'' Internet services to their business. Second, the border less nature of the Internet is going to make it difficult--if not impossible--to determine what constitutes ``nexus.'' For example, what happens when someone in California uses America Online in Virginia to order fudge from the ``shopmackinac'' website in Michigan, and ships them to a friend in Rhode Island? Which State should claim ``nexus?'' Perhaps a ``destination-based'' Internet sales tax regime would be more effective in terms of collecting State sales taxes. Whatever the eventual outcome, I believe that in light of the present uncertainty it would not be proper for Congress to intervene on this issue. The States must have every opportunity to debate and possibly even initiate a model for addressing the current impasse. What is necessary is Congressional action to ensure that new, discriminatory taxes are not levied on the Internet by States or localities as a means of substituting perceived lost revenue. Many Governors--including Governor Engler of Michigan--support an extension of the current Internet tax moratorium. Access fees and similar Internet taxes, whether imposed by the States, localities, or the Federal government, pose a grave threat to the continued evolution of the Internet. America is experiencing a record period of growth and prosperity. In my view, the continued expansion of the economy is due primarily to electronic commerce. The spirit of entrepreneurship which has energized our nation, the adoption of new business models to more fully explore marketing and sales possibilities and the dramatic increase in consumer and business services are all largely the product of our new e-economy. Why on earth would anyone, or any government, want to threaten this dynamic medium when it is still in its infancy by increasing the cost of doing business over the Internet? I certainly do not, and I will continue to work to ensure that neither the Federal government nor other units of government threaten electronic commerce. If we are able to keep the government focused on removing impediments to electronic commerce rather than interfering in the development and implementation of new technologies then very soon the e-economy will simply be the economy, and our nation will be more prosperous as a result.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Wyden, in introducing legislation to extend indefinitely the current moratorium on new and discriminatory Internet taxes. Once again, Senator Wyden has demonstrated his grasp of the crucial issues surrounding electronic commerce and has moved rapidly to assure that potential barriers to the new economy are eliminated before they do any harm. I am pleased to join him in his latest effort. By now, it is obvious to everyone that e-commerce is the wave of the future. As a matter of fact, it's safe to say that the future is already here. During the week of December 6 alone, Americans bought $1.22 billion of merchandise online. Sales for 1999 should reach $64.8 billion. Beyond shopping, 5.3 million households had access to financial transactions like electronic banking and stock trading by the end of last year. The rate of growth for Internet commerce has been exponential for the past several years. Unfortunately, it's also a tempting target for taxation by the Federal Government, States and localities. And that could slow the growth of e-commerce and of our entire economy. We responded to this potential problem by passing Senator Wyden's legislation in 1998, to place a three-year moratorium on new or discriminatory Internet taxes, fees or charges. That legislation also established a Commission to explore the issue of Internet taxation and to submit to Congress a list of recommendations on how the Federal Government should legislate in this area. We are only halfway through the moratorium, but already it seems there are only two possible conclusions to the Commission. The first is that the wide differences of opinion within the Commission will make it impossible for the members to muster the majority of support necessary to submit a report. This is worrisome, Mr. President, because, unless action is taken by this Congress, the moratorium will expire and the door will be opened to new, discriminatory taxes on the Internet. The other possibility, more recently offered, is that the Commission may actually recommend an extension of the current moratorium. Whatever the conclusion therefore, the role of Congress is clear; the Internet Tax Moratorium must be extended indefinitely. And because of the limited number of legislative days scheduled in this election year, the process of doing so should begin now. As everyone knows, the current moratorium only precludes new and discriminatory taxes. It does not address the more difficult question of how to apply existing, State sales taxes to Internet transactions. The Supreme Court has spoken to this issue, ruling that States can indeed impose taxes on transactions much like Internet sales--namely catalog sales. However, States cannot force a business to collect sales taxes on purchases made to States where they have no physical presence or ``nexus.'' This discrepancy in sales taxation between main street businesses and those that sell goods over the Internet will be difficult to address for the following reasons: First, very soon every business will be an e-business in the sense that they will be using the Internet for sales, supplies, contracting and other purposes. We couldn't stop this process if we wanted to, and we shouldn't want to. According to one recent survey, 74 percent of brick and mortar, main street businesses have added ``click and mortar'' Internet services to their business. Second, the border less nature of the Internet is going to make it difficult--if not impossible--to determine what constitutes ``nexus.'' For example, what happens when someone in California uses America Online in Virginia to order fudge from the ``shopmackinac'' website in Michigan, and ships them to a friend in Rhode Island? Which State should claim ``nexus?'' Perhaps a ``destination-based'' Internet sales tax regime would be more effective in terms of collecting State sales taxes. Whatever the eventual outcome, I believe that in light of the present uncertainty it would not be proper for Congress to intervene on this issue. The States must have every opportunity to debate and possibly even initiate a model for addressing the current impasse. What is necessary is Congressional action to ensure that new, discriminatory taxes are not levied on the Internet by States or localities as a means of substituting perceived lost revenue. Many Governors--including Governor Engler of Michigan--support an extension of the current Internet tax moratorium. Access fees and similar Internet taxes, whether imposed by the States, localities, or the Federal government, pose a grave threat to the continued evolution of the Internet. America is experiencing a record period of growth and prosperity. In my view, the continued expansion of the economy is due primarily to electronic commerce. The spirit of entrepreneurship which has energized our nation, the adoption of new business models to more fully explore marketing and sales possibilities and the dramatic increase in consumer and business services are all largely the product of our new e-economy. Why on earth would anyone, or any government, want to threaten this dynamic medium when it is still in its infancy by increasing the cost of doing business over the Internet? I certainly do not, and I will continue to work to ensure that neither the Federal government nor other units of government threaten electronic commerce. If we are able to keep the government focused on removing impediments to electronic commerce rather than interfering in the development and implementation of new technologies then very soon the e-economy will simply be the economy, and our nation will be more prosperous as a result.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on February 6 of this year, in the Divine Providence Church, in Southfield, Michigan, several hundred Lithuanian Americans will gather to mark the tenth anniversary of the restoration of Lithuania's independence. Joined by Lithuania's ambassador to the United States, His Excellency, Stasys Sakalauskas, they will be celebrating their nation's original, modern independence day, February 16, 1918, as well as the events of March 1, 1990, the date on which Lithuania was finally and irrevocably released from the grip of Soviet communism. Michigan's Lithuanian-American community also will celebrate the perseverance and sacrifice of their people, which enabled them to achieve the freedom they now enjoy. I have reviewed the bare facts before: On March 11, 1990, the newly elected Lithuanian Parliament, fulfilling its electoral mandate from the people of Lithuania, declared the restoration of Lithuania's independence and the establishment of a democratic state. This marked a great moment for Lithuania and for lovers of freedom around the globe. The people of Lithuania endured 51 years of oppressive foreign occupation. Operating under cover of the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, Soviet troops marched into Lithuania, beginning an occupation characterized by communist dictatorship and cultural genocide. Even in the face of this oppression, the Lithuanian people were not defeated. They assisted their oppressors and kept their culture, their faith and their dream of independence very much alive even during the hardest times. The people of Lithuania were even able to mobilize and sustain a non- violent movement for social and political change, a movement which came to be known as Sajudis. This people's movement helped guarantee a peaceful transition to independence through full participation in democratic elections on February 24, 1990. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, peace and freedom had to be purchased again and again. In January of 1991, ten months after restoration of independence, the people and government of Lithuania faced a bloody assault by foreign troops intent on overthrowing their democratic institutions. Lithuanians withstood this assault, maintaining their independence and their democracy. Their successful use of non-violent resistance to an oppressive regime is an inspiration to all. Lithuania's integration into the international community has been swift and sure. On September 17, 1991, the reborn nation became a member of the United Nations and is a signatory to a number of its organizations and other international agreements. It also is a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and the Council of Europe. Lithuania is an associate member of the European Union, has applied for NATO membership and is currently negotiating for membership in the WTO, OECD and other Western organizations. The United States established diplomatic relations with Lithuania on July 28, 1992. But our nation never really broke with the government and people of Lithuania. The United States never recognized the forcible incorporation of Lituania into the U.S.S.R., and views the present Government of Lithuania as a legal continuation of the inter- war republic. Indeed, for over fifty years the United States maintained a bipartisan consensus that our nation would refuse to recognize the forcible incorporation of Lithuania into the former Soviet Union. America's relations with Lithuania continue to be strong, friendly and mutually beneficial. Lithuania has enjoyed Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) treatment with the United States since December, 1991. Through 1996, the United States has committed over $100 million to Lithuania's economic and political transformation and to address humanitarian needs. In 1994, the United States and Lithuania signed an agreement of bilateral trade and intellectual property protection, and in 1997 a bilateral investment treaty. In 1998 the United States and Lithuania signed The Baltic Charter Partnership. That charter recalls the history of American relations with the area and underscores our ``real, profound, and enduring'' interest in the security and independence of the three Baltic states. As the Charter also notes, our interest in a Europe whole and free will not be ensured until Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are secure. Mr. President, I commend the people of Lithuania for their courage and perseverance in using peaceful means to regain their independence. I pledge to work with my colleagues to continue working to secure the freedom and independence of Lithuania and its Baltic neighbors, and I join with the people of Lithuania as they celebrate their independence.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of S. 2005 which would repeal the effective capital gains tax increase contained in the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999. This legislation would protect small business owners from paying taxes on money not actually received. Overlooked in last year's legislation was a provision that repealed the installment method for accrual method taxpayers when assets or entire businesses are sold. Under this new method, the seller of an asset or business is required to pay taxes on total gains in the first year of the sale, no matter when the actual proceeds are received. S. 2005 would revert this practice to its previous method in which the seller of an asset only paid taxes on the profits from the installment received in that year if he or she should receive payments in increments. While this tax measure provides for only modest tax revenue, the negative impact on small business owners that this measure affects is quite significant. In effect, this tax increase cripples seller financing of small businesses and prevents thousands of men and women from purchasing small businesses. By potentially reducing the sale price of small businesses by up to 20 percent or more, small business owners will be much less likely to sell their businesses. Larger publicly traded corporations are not impacted as they tend to use other financing methods involving cash or stock transactions. So, this tax increase unfairly targets small business owners already overwhelmed with federal taxes and regulations. Madam President, it makes common sense that taxes should only be paid when profits are realized--and not on money that will not be collected for years to come. Small businesses are an important provider of new jobs and a driving force in this nation's economy. We must not penalize or restrict such a vibrant source of innovation, invention and creativity that has enabled the United States to realize previously unimaginable prosperity. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this legislation so essential in the success of this great nation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wanted to make a few comments about the legislation we are about to pass. Before I do so, I would like to thank a number of people for their help in this effort. First, I would like to thank my colleagues who cosponsored this legislation: Senators Feinstein, Lieberman, DeWine, Grassley, Coverdell, and Graham. Their support was crucial to moving forward with this bill and doing so in a timely fashion. Second, I would like to thank Senator Hatch, his Judiciary Chief Counsel Manus Cooney, his Deputy Chief Counsel Sharon Prost, his Chief of Staff Patricia Knight, and Bruce Artim and Pattie DeLoatche, all of whose commitment to seeing this effort through to fruition I appreciate both for the advice and guidance they provided and as the act of friendship I recognize it to be. Third, I would like to thank Senator Biden and his staff, especially Marcia Lee, whose assistance and cooperation in working out a final version of this bill acceptable to all involved, including the Administration, was indispensable. I would also like to thank my good friend Fred Upton, who first brought the serious problem that is the focus of this legislation to my attention, and Congressman Bliley and his able staff, especially John Manthei, who patiently tolerated and assisted with the vagaries of bicameral legislative drafting. Finally, I would like to thank my own staff, especially my Subcommittee General Counsel Chase Hutto, who worked tirelessly and creatively on this effort, and Lee Otis, my Subcommittee Chief Counsel. S. 1561, and its counterpart, H.R. 2130, are named for a young woman by the name of Samantha Reid. Samantha was born in the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit on January 2, 1984. She grew up in Lincoln Park. She played trumpet in her elementary school band. She was a girl scout for eight years, with the help of her mother, Judi Clark, who was a troop leader. She was an ``all star'' 6th grade baseball player. She went on to attend Carlson High School in Gibraltar, where she played freshman basketball. Her favorite restaurant was McDonald's, and her favorite meal there was a Big Mac. She loved to go to Cedar Point Amusement Park, and got mad if she couldn't go at least twice a year. She earned her spending money by helping around the house with chores and babysitting, and indeed, on February 11, 1995, she earned an award for outstanding performance in completing babysitting training from the City of Lincoln Park. Her mother called her ``Hammy Sammy'' because of the way she always smiled in pictures. Her older brother Charles Reid, who is 18, remembers and misses her loud voice. On January 17, 1999, Samantha died a few weeks after turning 15. She and two friends, none of them yet 16, were at a party given by a 25 year-old man in Woodhaven, Michigan. Samantha Reid drank a Mountain Dew--a soft drink--and passed out within minutes. She vomited in her sleep, and she died. Her friend, Melanie Sindone, also 15, passed out as well. Melanie lapsed into a coma, but she has survived. These two girls had no reason to believe that they were drinking anything dangerous. But they were wrong. Their drinks had been laced with the drug GHB, commonly known as a ``date rape drug.'' Samantha was undoubtedly slipped it for the purpose that this name suggests, although she died before that purpose was accomplished. Mr. President, GHB and its analogues are becoming increasingly common in our nation. They are finding their way into nightclubs, onto campuses and into homes. They are being used by sexual predators against young--sometimes very young--women. Their unwitting victims may be raped, become violently ill, and even die. GHB is especially dangerous because it is relatively easy to produce. According to the DEA, the clandestine synthesis involves the use of two common, non-regulated chemicals: gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), the primary precursor chemical, and sodium hydroxide (lye). GBL is a solvent with a wide range of industrial uses. Tens of thousands of metric tons are produced annually and it is readily available from chemical supply companies. The synthesis is a simple one-pot method requiring no special chemical expertise. In addition, kits for making GHB containing GBL and sodium hydroxide are being sold on the Internet. GBL, once absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract after oral administration, is readily converted to GHB in the body and produces the same profile of physiological and behavioral effects as GHB. The combination of the ease with which GHB can be produced and widespread ignorance about GHB's dangers especially among our nation's youth has led the law enforcement community to view GHB as a serious and growing threat. The Controlled Substances Act provides an administrative mechanism for the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, to place dangerous substances susceptible of abuse on a ``schedule'' of controlled substances, thereby restricting access to them and imposing criminal penalties for their illicit sale and manufacture. The Attorney General and the Secretary are in agreement that GHB should in fact be scheduled, but they are in disagreement over which schedule it should be placed on. This is because GHB is currently under investigational use as a means of treating narcolepsy and cataplexy, afflictions affecting about 70,000 Americans, and HHS has been understandably reluctant to agree that GHB belongs on Schedule I or II, which would carry the most serious penalties for illicit sale, because the security requirements that would accompany such scheduling would interfere with this medical research. On the other hand, the DEA has been understandably reluctant to agree to any lesser scheduling, because the result would be lower penalties for the unauthorized sale and distribution of this drug. Moreover, under the Controlled Substances Act, the fact that GHB is under investigation for possible medical use precludes the Attorney General from using her emergency authority to schedule it as an ``imminent hazard to the public safety.'' The result has been an administrative deadlock that has resulted in a complete failure to schedule GHB at all. Hence legislative intervention is needed. This legislation has been drafted as a specific response to these various competing considerations, which the current scheduling categories are not all that well suited to handle in any event. Notwithstanding the current investigational medical use, the legislation determines that GHB is an imminent hazard to public safety. It therefore directs the Attorney General to place it on the schedule on which imminent hazards are ordinarily placed, which is Schedule I. It relaxes the physical security requirements that would ordinarily apply to Schedule I substances for the investigational medical uses of the drug, however, following the recommendation of the Secretary of HHS on what is appropriate in that area and thereby avoiding interfering with the ongoing research. It also makes clear that should this research pay off with a drug that the FDA approves because it concludes that it can responsibly be prescribed to treat narcolepsy, cataplexy, or other diseases, the FDA approved drug will be classified as a Schedule III drug, although the Attorney General can impose additional record keeping requirements to help assure that it is not diverted to improper uses. Finally, anyone involved in selling or distributing the diverted product will be subject to the same tough ``Schedule I'' penalties that apply to the sale or distribution of the illicit or unapproved drug. In practice, this means that while medical research will continue unhampered by the most cumbersome consequences of placing this drug in Schedule I, the harsh penalties provided for the sale, manufacture, and distribution of all Schedule I substances will apply to any and all illicit trafficking in GHB, whether the drug originated in a bathtub or a medical facility. This means that traffickers will be subject to a 20 year statutory maximum for distributing this drug, and that if, as in the case of Samantha Reid, the drug is slipped to someone who dies, or if it is slipped to someone who is raped or suffers serious bodily injury, that 20 year maximum become a 20 year minimum. This legislation also addresses three other major problems society has had in responding to the threat posed by this drug. First, it would require the Attorney General to develop, and make available to Federal, State, and local authorities, model protocols for taking toxicology specimens and victim statements in connection with suspected crimes involving GHB and other controlled substances or so-called designer drugs. The Attorney General also would be required to provide training materials for law enforcement officials responsible for investigating these offenses. And finally, she would be directed to make a grant for the development of standardized tests that could be used in the field to test for the presence of these drugs. The reason for these requirements is that even many in law enforcement are unfamiliar with the operation of GHB. As a result, they may defer testing for it or taking victim statements on the mistaken assumption that the victim is drunk and will be more coherent later, whereas in fact this drug can be processed very quickly by the body and no longer be detectable at that time. Moreover, the victim's memory may be impaired by the substance and she may forget events that she would have remembered had her statement been taken more quickly. Hence the need for model protocols, training, and tests. Second, the legislation directs the Secretary of HHS to conduct a National Awareness Campaign about the dangers of GHB. Consciousness of the dangers of this drug is lagging far behind the threat the drug presents, and it is critical that we make it a national priority to remedy that problem. Finally, the legislation would direct the Attorney General to examine and recommend improvements to current mechanisms for coordinating federal, state and local investigations and prosecutions in this area. And it would establish a special unit within the DEA to assess the federal response to the abuse and trafficking of GHB, other controlled substances, and other designer drugs associated with sexual assault, recommended any reallocations of enforcement resources necessary to improve that response, and direct the Attorney General to make any such reallocations she believes are appropriate. It is time to act, Mr. President, to save young people, and young women in particular, from these deadly drugs and the predators who use them. I ask my colleagues to give their full support to this amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that a number of letters from families and victims of date-rape drugs be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to close by reading one of those letters, the letter I received from Judi Clark, Samantha Reid's mother, that, better than anything I can say, makes the case as to why this legislation is needed now. She wrote this letter to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is as follows: To the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: On January 17, 1999, I lost my only daughter, Samantha Reid, when GHB and/or GBL was slipped into her Mountain Dew soft drink. I knew nothing about GHB before this tragic event. I took six months off of work and began educating myself on GHB. The more I learned about this invisible predator the more concerned for our nations safety I become. I have joined Spencer Abraham on campaigning to pass S. 1561. This bill is long overdue in our country and contains many positive programs for awareness, and will give law enforcement the much needed tools necessary to prosecute GHB cases. S. 1561 will allow for education targeting teens who are now receiving false information on GHB. A nationwide awareness campaign will give many young ladies the information necessary to protect and ultimately save themselves from GHB. Parents can be reached through public service announcements giving them the opportunity to communicate the dangers of GHB to their children. Samantha and I were not given the opportunity that S. 1561 has to offer. Lets not wait for one more senseless death before passing this legislation. Not one more mother should have to water the grass of a fresh grave, or place wind chimes on a tender young tree planted to shade the site of their daughter. Pumpkins for Halloween should be carved at the kitchen table together, not placed by a headstone. Our country is in desperate need of all the good this bill has to offer. Respectfully, Judi Clark, Rockwood, Michigan. Mr. President, I would say in closing that I am happy we have finally taken the action which Judi Clark and other parents across this country have been asking us to take, to make sure that other children will be made aware of the dangers of GHB. Hopefully the predators who use drugs such as this will be treated in the fashion they deserve, which is to be prosecuted effectively and put behind bars where they belong. No one else should have to go through what this family has suffered. I am very determined to not only see this legislation pass, but also to work closely with the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and State and local law enforcement agencies, to make sure this is just the first step in what will ultimately be a successful campaign to rid this Nation of the illicit use of this drug, and to make sure the children of our country are no longer the victims of predators who use it for criminal purposes. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will briefly comment on this legislation. First, I thank the cosponsors of this legislation, the Millennium Digital Commerce Act, and Senator Wyden, the lead cosponsor of the legislation, and Senators McCain, Burns, and Lott, who joined as cosponsors. I also thank Senator Leahy, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Hollings, Senator McCain and others who have worked with Senator Wyden and me in moving this through the legislative process. I express my appreciation to all my colleagues. As we move into the era of e-commerce it is important that people who wish to engage in commercial transactions online over the Internet be able to do so as effectively and efficiently as possible. Part of the challenge we confront is when people are entering into contracts in this nonwritten context, the potential exists for questions to be raised as to the validity of the contractual arrangements. Without getting into all the details, the goal of the Millennium Digital Commerce Act is to address this issue. Approximately 42 States have already passed what in effect are digital signature authentication laws which address contracts entered into online or which address the validity of contracts entered into through the web. The problem is those 42 bills are all different. It is possible for people to argue that a contract is valid in one State and not valid in the State of the other contracting party and, thus, is an invalid document. The purpose of our legislation is to try to make all such agreements valid if they fit or meet some parameters, identical to the ones the States are moving toward; a uniform system. In short, we believe this will be an interim approach until the States have passed a model uniform act. If we don't do this, impediments will exist between parties who wish to contract via the Internet and through electronic commerce. We believe the passage of this bill will relieve those impediments and allow for e-commerce to continue to expand and grow and strengthen our economy. I am very pleased at the passage of the bill today, and look forward to working with our counterparts in the House, they have passed a slightly different bill, to pound out a final consensus through the conferencing process and bring back to the Senate the output of that process. I hope to do this very early in the next session, so we can enact this legislation and move it to the President for his signature, and, as I said at the outset, improve the efficiency with which we engage in an expanded e-commerce universe. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate is soon expected to pass the Millennium Digital Commerce Act--a bill introduced by Senators Wyden, McCain, Burns, Lott and myself which is designed to promote electronic commerce. I rise today to speak in support of this legislation and to thank the cosponsors for their tireless efforts to pass this legislation. I believe it will have a profound impact on the way commerce is conducted on the Internet. By now, all of us have heard the prophetic pronouncements: ``The Internet will change of all of our lives.'' ``The Computer Age is reshaping the world.'' And so on. These words are true, and a review of the indicators which document the Internet's extraordinary growth bear this out. In 1993 about 90,000 Americans had access to these on-line resources. By early 1999 that number had grown to about 81 million, an increase of about 900 percent. The Computer Industry Almanac predicts 320 million Internet users world-wide by the end of the year 2000. And now the figures are coming in on how electronic commerce is transforming the way we do business. They are equally impressive. E- commerce between businesses has grown to an estimate $64.8 billion for 1999. 10 million customers shopped for some product using the Internet in 1998 alone. And 5.3 million households had access to financial transactions like electronic banking and stock trading by the end of 1999. While the Internet has experienced almost exponential growth since its inception, there is still room to expand. Today, new technologies enable the Internet to serve as an efficient new tool for companies to transact business as never before. This capability is provided by the development of secure electronic authentication methods. These technologies permit an individual to positively identify the person with whom they are transacting business and to ensure that information being shared by the parties has not been tampered with or modified without the knowledge of both parties. While such technologies are seeing limited use today, the growth of this application has out-paced government's ability to appropriately modify the legal framework governing the use of electronic signatures and other authentication methods. The growth of electronic signature technologies will increasingly allow organizations to enter into contractual arrangements without ever having to drive across town or fly thousands of miles to personally meet with a client or potential business partner. The Internet is prepared to go far beyond the ability to buy a book or order apparel on-line. It is ready to lead a revolution in the execution of business transactions which may involve thousands or millions of dollars in products or services; transactions so important they require that both parties enter into a legally binding contract. Mr. President, the Millennium Digital Commerce Act is designed to promote the use of electronic signatures in business transactions and contracts. At present, the greatest barrier to such transactions is the lack of a consistent and predictable national framework of rules governing the use of electronic signatures. Over forty States have enacted electronic authentication laws, and no two laws are the same. This inconsistency deters businesses from fully utilizing electronic signature technologies for contracts and other business transactions. The differences in our State laws create uncertainty about the effectiveness or legality of an electronic contract signed with an electronic signature. This legal uncertainty limits the potential of electronic commerce, and, thus, our nation's economic growth. Fortunately, the need for uniformity in electronic authentication rules was recognized early by the States. For the past two years, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law, an organization comprised of e-commerce experts from the States, has been working to develop a uniform system for the use of electronic signatures for all fifty States. Their product, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or UETA, was finished in July. As was expected, the UETA is an excellent piece of work and I look forward to the day when this model legislation is enacted by each of the 50 states. But agreement on the final language of the UETA proposal is not the same as enactment, and despite the hard work of the Commissioners, uniformity will not occur until all fifty States actually enact the UETA. That will likely take some time. Because some State legislatures are not in session next year and other States have more pressing legislative items, it could take three to four years for forty-five or fifty States to enact the UETA. When you consider the changes that have taken place in just the last two years, it is obvious that in the high- technology sector four years is an eternity. The Digital Millennium Commerce Act is therefore designed as an interim measure to provide relief until the States adopt the provisions of the UETA. It will provide companies the federal framework they need until a national baseline governing the use of electronic authentication exists at the State level. Once States enact the UETA, the Federal preemption is lifted. To be specific, this legislation promotes electronic commerce in the following manner. First and foremost, the legislation provides that the electronic signatures used to agree to a contract shall not be denied effect solely because they are electronic in nature. This provision assures that a company will be able to rely on an electronic contract and that another party will not be able to escape such certainty, this bill will reduce the likelihood of dissatisfied parties attempting to escape electronic contractual agreements and transactions. To ensure a level playing field for all types of authentication, the bill grants parties to a transaction the freedom to determine the technologies to be used in the execution of an electronic contract. In essence, this assures technology neutrality because businesses and consumers, not government, will make the decisions as to what type of electronic signatures and authentication technologies will be used in transactions. Since the Internet is inherently an international medium, consideration must also be given to the manner in which the U.S. conducts business with overseas governments and businesses. This legislation therefore sets forth a series of principles for the international use of electronic signatures. In the last year, U.S. negotiators have been meeting with the European Commissioners to discuss electronic signatures in international commerce. In these negotiations, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the State Department have worked in support of an open system governing the use of authentication technologies. Some European nations oppose this concept, however. For example, Germany insists that electronic transactions involving a German company must utilize a German electronic signature application. I applaud the Administration for their steadfast opposition to that approach. This bill will bolster and strengthen the U.S. position in these international negotiations by establishing the following principles as the will of the Congress: One, paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions must be eliminated. Two, parties to an electronic transaction should choose the electronic authentication technology. Third, parties to a transaction should have the opportunity to prove in court that their authentication approach and transactions are valid. Fourth, the international approach to electronic signatures should take a non-discriminatory approach to electronic signature. This will allow the fees market--not a government--to determine the type of authentication technologies used in international commerce. Mr. President, it is my hope that adoption of these principles will increase the likelihood of an open, market-based international framework for electronic commerce. Finally, the bill directs the Department of Commerce and Office of Management and Budget to report on Federal laws and regulations that might pose barriers to e-commerce and report back to Congress on the impact of such provisions and provide suggestions for reform. Such a report will serve as the basis for Congressional action, or inaction, in the future. Mr. President, Senator Wyden, Senator McCain, Senator Burns, the Majority Leader and I worked very hard to address the multiple of issues and concerns raised by those most affected by this legislation, namely the high-tech industry, the states and the consumer. I also want to recognize the considerable time and effort dedicated to this legislation by Senator Leahy, Senator Hollings and Senator Sarbanes. Senators Leahy and Sarbanes worked diligently with the sponsors of this bill to address protection issues. In particular, my colleagues were concerned about the effects of this legislation on the notification and disclosure requirements required by law. I understand very well the concerns my colleagues raised and I agree with many, but not all, of their conclusions. I believe the use of electronic records in electronic transactions is crucial to real growth in electronic commerce. And if e-commerce is to truly expand the opportunities for individuals, businesses and consumers must have the freedom to agree to the types of documents and information they receive electronically. This right to choose to receive records electronically must be provided by Congress. The best way to do that is to pass laws which establish legal certainties for the sending, receipt and storage for the broad range of electronic records, and in particular, for records associated with loans and mortgages. Today, a vacuum exists with respect to these records. Aggressive businesses and small banks are filling this vacuum by providing loans and mortgages electronically even though there is question as to whether such transactions are protected under law. The increasing demand for such services demonstrates the popularity for electronic loans. By making applications easier and reducing associated consumer costs, these businesses are providing a service which is becoming increasingly popular with the American public. Rather than ignore this new market, or worse, condemn it, Congress should work with the industry and the proper regulatory agencies to ensure that these increased consumer opportunities are maintained and that relevant consumer protection provisions are modernized. I believe my proposal to permit individuals to opt-in to the receipt of records and to opt-out of receipt at any time represented reasonable middle ground on this issue, and am disappointed that my colleagues and I could not agree on a framework for records based on this model. I intend to continue working toward a resolution which will permit individuals to have access to electronic records. It is simply in the long-term best interest of both consumers and the economy. And I am sure I will not labor on this effort alone. I am pleased to note that, among parties familiar with this debate, there is growing support for legislation to quickly address this important issue. Mr. President, despite our philosophical differences, it was clear from the beginning that everyone involved was interested in working cooperatively to enact good legislation. And while I wish this bill could go further, I am nevertheless pleased with the product that we have passed today. So I want to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Sarbanes for their cooperation and hard work. I also want to recognize the efforts of the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings. Senator Hollings made it clear very early that he had concerns surrounding the issue of preemption. His staff and mine worked quickly and effectively to find common ground on this legislation and his spirit of compromise allowed us to move forward on a bill that I do not doubt he would have written differently. I want to thank him for his contribution. Finally, I wish to express my thanks to the Technology Division of the State of Massachusetts. Governor Paul Cellucci's staff provided indispensable counsel on existing State law governing the use of electronic signatures and the manner in which Federal law can bolster or hamstring State contract law. I value the Governor's input and will continue to work with him to address the extent to which the States are impacted by this legislation as it advances. Of course, the business and technology sectors have also been crucial in helping to craft this bill. Representatives from the Information Technology Association of America, Ford, the Coalition for Electronic Authentication, the Information Technology Industry Council, Apple, the American Electronics Association, NCR, America Online, the Electronic Industry Alliance, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and the National Association of Manufacturers have each lent their time and expertise to this effort. I appreciate their contributions and look forward to continuing this effort to ensure that we develop the best approach possible to promote use of electronic signatures in business transactions. Mr. President, despite the great work that has taken place here in the Senate, there is more work to do on this legislation. The House is currently working on a companion bill and I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Commerce Committee and other Representatives to ensure that the legislation sent to the President for his signature is the best and most effective approach to expanding electronic commerce possible.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, Senator Hollings, that is certainly the intent of the legislation in its current form, but I would note that there must be a modicum of common sense involved in this approach. It is expected that states will pass consumer protection provisions in conjunction with the Electronic Transactions Act. It is important, however, that states not use the heading of ``consumer protection'' to enact changes which are inconsistent with the spirit of UETA and which threaten to undermine the uniformity which UETA is intended to convey. I believe the current language realizes these important goals.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I agree wholeheartedly. The purpose of this section is to permit insurance companies to use electronic signatures in the same manner and extent as other market participants. Under no circumstances is the legislation intended to allow insurance companies to evade state insurance regulations.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for this final Appropriations package. This is a good package that protects the Social Security surplus from being raided to pay for non- Social Security spending, that provides sufficient funds for important national programs, and which addresses critical issues specifically for Michigan. I trust that the President will be able to sign this quickly and get these Fiscal Year 2000 funds to the programs that will disburse them to Michiganians as soon as possible. Mr. President, I am confident that this package will not raid the Social Security surplus as has been the norm for almost 30 years. The Congressional Leadership and the Administration have crafted a package of appropriations and offsets that will not touch the Social Security surplus The precise bookkeeping agreed upon by the Administration and Congress used in this bill will help regulate how these funds are actually spent by the government, so that we don't spend the Social Security surplus. These aren't gimmicks, but finely crafted tools necessary for the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that bureaucrats don't spend their funds faster than Congress intended, so as to protect the Social Security surplus. However, for those that are concerned that such tools could potentially be insufficient to control the rate of spending, and may in fact lead to the government dipping into the Social Security surplus, I will carefully track the revenue and outlay totals for the Federal Government over the next few months. And if it appears that we are falling behind in maintaining a sufficient buffer to protect the Social Security surplus, then I will immediately introduce and push for as large of a rescission package as necessary to prevent that from occurring. But that, in my opinion, will not be necessary. Already for the first month of Fiscal Year 2000, the Congressional Budget Office is reporting that we are running $6.4 billion ahead of last year, or almost $77 billion more in net revenue than last year. Considering the CBO estimated that net revenues would actually drop by $1 billion between Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, I believe we will have more than enough of a non-Social Security surplus buffer to accommodate even the worst case assumptions that CBO may put forward. As a specific note, Mr. President, one of the tools used to control spending in this package is an across-the-board 0.38 percent cut in discretionary spending. Although I would rather see specific cuts to achieve the $1.3 billion in fiscal discipline provided by this cut, such as cutting in half the funding for the Space Station, this is a modest enough cut to be palatable, especially considering the significant latitude given the executive agencies in finding these cuts. However, because of the vagaries of the budget process, the pay of Congressional Members has been exempted from this cut. I cannot support such unequal treatment, and declare that I will return an equal proportion of my Senatorial pay to the Department of Treasury. Nothing else would be fair. But this package is not just about what it does not do. Mr. President, this appropriations package does a great deal of good as well. It increases funding for Head Start by over 10%, while providing over $35 billion for education in general, including funds for 100,000 new teachers while also significantly expanding the discretion local school districts will have to use that money for teacher testing and quality training. It will put 50,000 more police on our streets as well as providing over $2.1 billion for assistance programs to local law enforcement agencies. The National Institute of Health will see its funding increased by 15% to almost $18 billion, while important high- tech legislation that I sponsored to stop the poaching of corporate and identifiable World Wide Web address names by unscrupulous profiteers and carpet-baggers does not continue unimpeded. And maybe most significantly, the unintended effects upon Medicare and Medicaid of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as well as the onerous additional regulations levied by the Health Care Financing Agency in implementing that Act, will be softened through the provision of over $27 billion in additional health care funds over the next 10 years. This will provide specific relief for Michigan's hospitals by easing the reductions in the reimbursements they receiving for treating our Medicare beneficiaries in Michigan, and thereby expanding the access for quality medical care. It will also increase the unrealistically low reimbursement rates set for Skilled Nursing Facility care, while also ensuring that the arbitrary $1,500 per patient cap on physical and rehabilitative therapy set by the Administration is not allowed to deny our seniors the help they need to recover from such debilitating conditions as strokes and severe heart conditions. It improves the ability of women to receive pap smear tests, provides greater access to renal dialysis treatment, while also making immunosuppressive drugs more readily available. And it provides very much needed protection for Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers from capricious reductions in their reimbursements, thereby allowing them to protect the uninsured and Medicare dependent population that they overwhelmingly serve. But, Mr. President, this package is good for Michigan is well as our nation. A number of issues that significantly affect my constituents are addressed in this package. Our unique Great Lakes environment is protected through the continued funding of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, increased funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Sea Lamprey control, and Sea Grant Research funds, as well as funding for a new simulator at the Great Lakes Maritime Academy in Traverse City to ensure our commercial shipping maintains its peerless safety record. This appropriations package funds worthy projects such as Detroit's Focus:HOPE information technology training program for the city's poorest residents, Central Michigan's charter school and education performance institute, Northern Michigan's Olympics Training Facility, and almost $2.5 million in funding to protect and preserve Isle Royale National Park and Keweenaw National Historical Park. This bill brings new Tribal funding for a new band of the Pottawatomi Indians and $15 million more in PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) funds which are desperately needed by Michigan's more rural counties. And on the international front, this package provides almost $2 million to support the Middle East Peace Process through the Wye River Accord agreement, as well as a number of policy and funding initiatives overseas such as continued support for Armenia in its dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh and the further development of education and infrastructure in Lebanon. Mr. President, many will try to make political hay out of opposing this bill for this or that various reason. But on the whole, this final appropriations package achieves three very important goals: it stops the 30-year raid by big Washington spenders on the Social Security Trust Fund, it adequately funds important national priorities, and it addresses several specific programs in Michigan important to my constituents. We were sent to Washington to govern, Mr. President, and at this point in the session, I asked myself if I was going to be an effective legislator, or simply a politician. I'm glad I chose the former in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Wayne County Medical Society as they gather in celebration of their 150th Anniversary. The Wayne County Medical Society has set a pioneering tradition in health care since it was founded on April 14, 1849. They began with only 50 physicians and have grown to include more than 4,200 physicians. They work together to promote unity and loyalty among physicians in the community and to raise awareness of public health issues concerning the citizens of Wayne County. What is truly remarkable about this select group is the profound impact they have had on the public health of the people in Detroit and Wayne County. One of its most notable accomplishments was leading a polio immunization drive which vaccinated thousands of Detroiters and all but eliminated the threat of the crippling disease. The WCMS continues to provide health care that shows no bounds with the free medical and dental clinic they run at the Webber School in Detroit. Every child is offered free services such as physical examinations, dental fluoride sealants and prophylaxis. The WCMS also takes a proactive approach to health care, in 1998 they sponsored a teen pregnancy conference with more than 500 Detroit Public School students in attendance. The children were encouraged to abstain from sex and to understand the consequences of not practicing safe sex. By sponsoring an annual party for foster children in Wayne the WCMS shows their commitment to the community extends beyond healthcare. The WCMS is truly an asset to the Detroit Community. The accomplishments this elite group has made in the past 150 years are to be commended. Guided by the spirit of charity the WCMS has improved and enriched the lives of countless people. It is my hope that they will continue encouraging unity among physicians and be a crusader for public health in Detroit for many years to come.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Margaret Holtschlag on receiving the Michigan Teacher of the Year award given by the Michigan Department of Education. Mrs. Holtschlag, a fourth grade teacher at Murphy Elementary School in the Haslet School District, was selected from nearly thirty regional finalists as the Michigan Teacher of the Year. Described by colleagues as an innovative, thoughtful and progressive teacher, her dedication is second to none. As the winning teacher, Mrs. Holtschlag will share her expertise as she travels across the state working with teachers to improve programs and teacher quality. What is truly remarkable about Mrs. Holtschlag is that her classroom extends beyond a room filled with desks and chalkboards. Two years ago she took a group of students on a trip to Korea and set up an Internet pen-pal link between Haslet, China and Korea. In the past, her students have built weather stations and explored nearby wetlands. Additionally, her students have spent time at the Michigan Library and Historical Center, discovering and exploring aspects of Michigan history that can not be learned from a text book. For twenty-one years Mrs. Holtschlag has devoted her life to teaching and making a positive impact on each and every student she encounters. Her captivating teaching style inspires both students and colleagues alike. This is truly a rare gift. A quality education is one of the most important tools that a child needs and it gives me great joy to know that such a dynamic and caring teacher is helping to shape the lives of Michigan students.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 74, a resolution which recognizes the United States Border Patrol's 75 years of service to this country. These brave men and women serve, day in and day out, as both defenders and ambassadors of our nation. With professionalism, civility and a watchful eye, members of the United States Border Patrol watch out for illegal immigrants and the entry of illegal drugs. It is a difficult task, Mr. President. But one that our Border Patrol Agents perform well. And these duties are not just difficult, Mr. President. Oftentimes they are dangerous as well. Particularly in this era of well-armed thugs and smugglers, Border Patrol Agents may find themselves out-gunned as they protect our nation's borders. 86 Border Patrol Agents and Pilots have lost their lives in the line of duty--6 in 1998 alone. We all owe our Border Patrol our thanks for their bravery and their willingness to put in long, hard hours in service to their country. I would like to make special note, Mr. President, of the members of the Detroit Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. These fine individuals perform with grace in the face of very difficult assignments. In the Detroit sector, fewer than 20 Border Patrol field agents are expected to be responsible for four large Midwestern states--Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, an area covering hundreds of miles of border. This small number of Border Patrol agents also must assist INS investigators in responding to local law enforcement requests in these four states. I salute the good work of the United States Border Patrol, and especially thank the members of the Detroit Sector for their work above and beyond the call of duty.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and honor Imam Vehbi Ismail for his fifty years of dedicated service to the Islamic community. The Imam has been an instrumental force in the Albanian American and Islamic communities in Michigan. Originally, from Albania he emigrated to the United States in 1949 after studying theology in Egypt. Through his spiritual leadership the Imam set himself on a path to improve the Albanian American community. One of his greatest accomplishments was the establishment of the Albanian Islamic Center where he served as the Senior Cleric. What is truly remarkable about this extraordinary individual is his work in the areas of democratic and human rights. The Imam has been the driving force in the Michigan community, raising awareness for human rights for Albanians world wide. The Imam has proudly served as one of the longest active Clerics in the country. His family and the Albanian American community look to him as the elder statesman and guiding spirit for their community. Mr. President it is with sincere joy and appreciation that I honor the Imam Vehbi Ismail. He is truly an example of unselfish charity and an inspiration to many.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, apparently a UC had been entered into which had set in order speakers through Senator Wellstone. I know Senator Allard and I have been here for some time. I noticed Senator Kennedy has joined us. We were hoping we might come up with another UC which would ensure continuing order in terms of the speakers; ideally, the order in which we have been here. If that is possible, I would appreciate it. Therefore, that leads me to propose that following the speech of Senator Wellstone, if we might then proceed in an order in which I would be allowed to speak next, followed by Senator Allard, followed by Senator Kennedy, if that is possible. If it is not, we would be open to adjusting that. I am not sure how.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I have no idea how long the Senator from Minnesota will be speaking. I will be speaking approximately 15 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I have no objection to that.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I yield myself such time as I might require at this point. I believe it will be probably 15 minutes. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment which, in my judgment, will help protect our children and our neighborhoods from the scourge of drugs and drug-related violence. This amendment contains a number of provisions that are critical to our war on drugs. It includes a package of provisions aimed at fighting the production and distribution of methamphetamines. Authored by Senators Ashcroft, Hatch, and Grassley, these provisions include additional money to hire additional personnel, including almost $10 million for additional DEA agents to assist state and local law enforcement. Also included is a provision raising penalties for offenses involving methamphetamines, including production of methamphetamine precursors. And the amendment includes additional funding for prevention and treatment programs. Contrary to some of the positions and assertions made, in fact, this amendment includes significant increases in those funding proposals. The amendment also enhances penalties for drug distribution to minors and in or near schools. Also to protect our schools, the amendment provides incentives for schools to develop policies expelling students who bring drugs on school grounds and school choice for victims of school violence. Mr. President, today I want to focus in particular on the amendment's provisions concerning sentences for powder cocaine dealers. These provisions are drawn from legislation I introduced earlier this year along with Senator Allard and quite a few other Senators. As the father of three young children, I am deeply disturbed by the trend for almost all of the last 7 years in teenage drug use. This represents a reversal, really, of the decade long progress we had been making in the war on drugs. In 1997, 9.4 percent of teens reported recent use of marijuana, up 180 percent from 1992. The percentage of teens using cocaine tripled during those same years. And most disturbing of all, the greatest increases took place among our youngest teens. For example, the percentage of 12 and 13 year olds using cocaine increased 100 percent from 1992 to 1996, compared with a 58 percent increase among 17- and 18-year-olds. This spells trouble for our children. Increased drug use means increased danger of every social pathology we know. This trend may finally have been arrested for most drugs. In 1998, the Monitoring the Future Study, prepared annually by the University of Michigan, showed improvements--although very modest ones--in levels of teenage drug use. All three grades studies--8th, 10th, and 12th--showed some decline in the proportion of students reporting any illegal drug use during the previous 12 months. Equally important, use by 8th graders, who started the upward trend in use at the beginning of this decade, declined for the second year in a row. We also are finding heartening news in our war on violent crime. The FBI now reports that, since 1991, the number of homicides committed in the United States has dropped by 31 percent. Also since 1991, the number of robberies has fallen 32 percent. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, robberies fell a stunning 17 percent in 1997 alone. This is good news, Mr. President. And there is widespread agreement among experts in the field that the principal cause of this decline in violent crime is our success in curbing the crack cocaine epidemic and the violent gang activities that accompany that epidemic. The New York Times recently reported on a conference of criminologists held in New Orleans. Experts at the conference agreed that the rise and fall in violent crime during the 1980s and 1990s closely paralleled the rise and fall of the crack epidemic. At the same time, there is a warning signal here. The most recent ``Monitoring the Future'' Study also showed an increase in the use of cocaine in all three grades studied. Use of both crack and powder cocaine within the past 30 days likewise rose in all three grades, except for powder cocaine in the 12th grade, where it did not fall but at least held steady. This is in contrast to the study's finding that the use of other drugs by kids may finally be leveling off, albeit at unacceptably high levels. Yet surprisingly, despite these developments, in last year's Ten-Year Plan for a National Drug Control Strategy, the administration proposed making sentences for crack dealers 5 times more lenient than they are today. We have already heard the case made by the preceding speaker--and I suspect successive speakers on the other side of the aisle will be likewise making the case--that by somehow making crack sentences more lenient, notwithstanding the clear evidence that as we have gotten tough on crack cocaine dealers, the spread of crack cocaine and incidental crime related to crack cocaine addiction has been going down. This is a strikingly bad idea, and one that this Congress should emphatically reject. The President's principal explanation for the proposal to lower crack sentences is that the move was recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to address the disparity in treatment between crack and powder dealers. I agree we should reduce this disparity, which produces the unjust result that people higher on the drug chain get lighter sentences than those at the bottom. But going easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school yards and playgrounds--is not the solution. Crack is cheap and highly addictive. Tough crack sentences have encouraged many dealers to turn in their superiors in exchange for leniency. Lowering these sentences will remove that incentive and undermine our prosecutors, making them less effective at protecting our children and our neighborhoods. No, there is a better way to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences more in line. Instead of lowering sentences for crack dealers, we should instead raise sentences for powder dealers. Doing so will accomplish every legitimate policy objective that can be advanced by the President's proposal--except greater leniency for these individuals, which in my view is not a legitimate policy objective. Raising sentences for powder dealers is accordingly what this amendment proposes to do. Specifically, it changes the quantity of powder cocaine necessary to trigger a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence from 500 grams to 50 grams, and makes a similar change in the amount necessary to trigger a mandatory 10-year sentence. The effect of this will be to raise sentences substantially for those who deal in powder cocaine, a change that I think is entirely justified. Even without taking into account the differential treatment of crack, powder sentences are currently too low. Powder is the raw material for crack. Yet sentences for powder dealers were set before the crack epidemic, without accounting for powder's role in causing it. It is also one of the drugs the use of which continues to increase, not only among teenagers but also among adults. Moreover, we occasionally see a large powder supplier get a lower sentence than the low-level crack dealer who resold some powder in crack form simply because the powder dealer took the precaution of selling his product only in powder form. That is plainly an unjust result and one that our legal system should not countenance. By making the changes in the quantity triggers for mandatory minimums I have described, our amendment will reduce the differential between the amount of powder and crack required to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence from 100 to 1, the current differential, to 10 to 1. That is the exact same ratio proposed by the administration in their proposal. But our proposal in this amendment will accomplish that goal not by making crack dealers' sentences more lenient but, rather, by toughening sentences for powder cocaine dealers. Now the administration has charged--and we have heard a comment about this on the floor today; I suspect we will hear more--that the proposal we are offering is nevertheless the wrong way to proceed on account of its allegedly racially disparate impact. In my judgment, if the sentencing structure being proposed is in fact desirable on its merits, that is a dubious basis on which to evaluate the merits of this proposal or, for that matter, the administration's. Since the administration has made this charge, I think it is important to understand it is not true. In fact, if our proposal is enacted, overall the percentage of cocaine dealers sentenced to tough, mandatory minimum sentences should be less disproportionately African American than it is under current law. This is because under current law and under the administration's proposal, persons convicted of dealing between 100 and 250 grams of powder are not subject to mandatory sentences. Under the proposal, they are contained in our amendment. According to the Sentencing Commission statistics in the most recent year for which they were collected, for fiscal year 1996 the percentage of non-Hispanic whites in that group, 38.9 percent, was higher than the percentage of members in any other racial category. Therefore, imposing mandatory minimum sentences on this group of people would accordingly reduce the racially disparate impact of current law. Thus, the sentencing outcome under our proposal should have a less racially disparate impact than the current proposal which is in place in law. By contrast, the administration's proposal to change the triggers for mandatory minimums for crack dealers is highly likely to increase the percentage of individuals sentenced to mandatory minimums for dealing cocaine who are African American. Had the administration's proposal been in effect during fiscal year 1996, the proportion of individuals sentenced to a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence who are African American would have increased--not decreased--increased slightly from 82.8 percent to 85.2 percent. Thus, contrary to the administration's charge, the proposal contained in this amendment will actually decrease the racially disparate effect of mandatory sentences on cocaine dealers. On the other hand, what is not true of our proposal and is true of the administration's proposal is to change the quantity trigger for crack dealers. Their proposal will increase the racially disparate impact of mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine dealing compared to current law. All that being said, I would like to get away from these numbers and talk about some of the contacts I have had with people in my State who are the victims of these drug dealers. Despite the disparity reduction justification given for the President's proposal, I have not found anyone in my State--any parents, regardless of their race, whose children have been touched by a crack cocaine dealer--who don't want to see the person responsible suffer serious consequences, no matter who the crack dealer was. Their families are already suffering consequences; their schoolyards are suffering consequences; their neighborhoods are suffering consequences. They believe that the people behind it, whether it is the peddler in the schoolyard or the kingpin selling the powder cocaine, ought to suffer the consequences, as well. Reverend Eugene F. Rivers II, cochair of the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation in inner city Boston, says: To confuse the concerns of crack dealers with the broader interests of the black community is at best inane and at worst immoral. Those who are straining to live in inner-city neighborhoods that are mostly adversely affected by the plight of crack and who witness crack's consequences first hand want crack dealers taken off the streets for the longest period of time possible. We owe it to the thousands upon thousands of families struggling to protect their children from the scourge of drugs and drug violence. That means staying tough on those who peddle drugs and sending a clear message to our young people that we will not tolerate crack dealers in our neighborhoods or powder dealers who supply the crack dealers. President Clinton had it right 3 years ago when he agreed with this Congress in rejecting an earlier Sentencing Commission plan to lower sentences for crack dealers. Back then, President Clinton said: We have to send a constant message to our children that drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost your life, and the penalties for drug dealing are severe. Unfortunately, President Clinton's new plan to reduce sentences for crack dealers does not live up to that obligation. It sends our kids exactly the wrong message, and it does not do any favor to anybody except drug peddlers. In contrast, the approach taken by our amendment is faithful to this obligation. It achieves a reduction in the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing in the right way, through legislation making sentences for powder cocaine dealers a lot tougher. At this crucial time, we may be making real progress in winning the war on drugs and violent crime in part because we have sent the message that crack gang membership is no way to live and that society will come down very hard on those spreading this pernicious drug. At the same time, our kids remain all too exposed to dangerous drugs, far more exposed than we can probably imagine. In light of these two trends, it would be, in my opinion, catastrophic to let any drug dealer think that the cost of doing business is going down. This is especially no time for lowering sentences for dealing in crack, a pernicious drug that brought our cities great danger, violence, and grief. It will be nearly impossible, in my judgment, to succeed in discouraging our kids from using drugs if they hear we are lowering sentences for any category of drug dealers. By adopting this amendment, we can send our kids the right message: We will not tolerate crack dealers in our neighbors, and we will make the sentences on powdered cocaine dealers a lot tougher. Success in the drug war depends upon all the efforts of parents, schools, churches, the medical communities, and local law enforcement community leaders. There is no doubt about that. They are doing a great job in the drug fight. The Federal Government must do its part, too. We must provide needed resources, and we must reinforce the message that drugs aren't acceptable and that drug dealers belong in prison for a long time. Our kids deserve no less. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. To address a couple of the points that were made by previous speakers, first, we have to concern ourselves not just with costs that are attendant to incarcerating crack cocaine dealers but with the costs that are brought about when those crack cocaine dealers are running wild in our communities. The notion that there are no costs involved when these folks remain on the streets, in our playgrounds and neighborhoods, addicting children, precipitating violence when the crack gangs are busy in their communities, is to miss, I think, a very vital part of this debate. The costs of addiction are significant. Who exactly are the targets of the addiction? Very often, they are, themselves, members of minority communities. I don't think we are doing a favor to the minority communities of this country if we allow the schoolyards in those communities to be infested with crack cocaine dealers. The key is, Do we want to rid our communities of drug dealers? In my judgment, that certainly ought to be our objective. That is what we have tried to do in this amendment, not just with the sections relating to powder cocaine sentences, for the dealers of powder cocaine, but the other provisions of the legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I hope my colleagues understand when they cast their vote on this issue, the question is very simple: Do you think it is time for powder cocaine dealers to serve tougher sentences for drug kingpins to go to jail for a longer time or don't you? That is what is at stake. If you believe in tougher sentences for powder cocaine dealers, we ask for your support for this amendment. If you believe in getting tougher on methamphetamines, we ask for your support for this amendment. If you believe we should devote more resources to drug treatment programs, then you should vote for this amendment. But don't be fooled by claims that somehow or another we are doing anybody a favor by not moving forward in this area, and by letting drug dealers continue to infest our schoolyards. That is not doing any favors to anybody. I hope our colleagues will join us and support this amendment. I yield the floor to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, Senator Ashcroft, and myself. I wish to be somewhat responsive to a few of the statements made in some of the speeches in opposition to this amendment, as they pertain specifically to the issue of changing the mandatory minimum sentences on dealing with powder cocaine. I think it is important that we reflect on how we got to where we are today. There has been for some time, as reflected in actions of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, concern about the disparity between the mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine triggers of 5-year mandatory minimums for the dealing of 5 grams, of 10 years for dealings of 10 grams, and the mandatory minimums for powder cocaine, which are 100 times greater with the 5-year mandatory minimum trigger at 500 grams and the 10-year trigger at 1,000. The Sentencing Commission has tried on a couple occasions to address this issue. The first time they tried this we were forced to take action as a Congress to stop their proposal from going into effect. I remind my colleagues that we overwhelmingly voted, I believe unanimously voted, to say no to the proposal of addressing this disparity by simply changing the powder cocaine thresholds to the same as crack cocaine. We thought it was a big mistake to make the cost of doing business go down. The President signed that legislation into law, making the very same statement, that the message we would be sending to young people, to drug dealers, to everybody, was the wrong message if we made crack cocaine sentences more lenient. The Sentencing Commission came back with a second proposal--that was a proposal actually in response to a study we requested--that we would simultaneously make the crack cocaine mandatory minimum sentences more lenient while making powder tougher. The Sentencing Commission decided that a ratio of a 10-to-1 difference in the thresholds versus a 100-to- 1 difference was the appropriate ratio. A number of us found this second suggestion also unacceptable because, once again, it would require making the sentences for crack cocaine dealers more lenient. I speak for myself, but I think others who cosponsored this legislation share the view that we should not be making drug sentences more lenient, particularly for crack cocaine dealers. I want to talk about why we should not do that because the only way to change the disparity between powder cocaine mandatory minimums and crack cocaine mandatory minimums is either make the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine more lenient and the mandatory minimums for powder cocaine tougher or do a little of each. I think anything that changes the crack cocaine mandatory minimum threshold is a mistake, for several reasons. First, the current mandatory minimum with respect to crack cocaine, the 5-gram threshold, to trigger a 5-year mandatory, has been a very effective device in terms of getting the lower end drug dealers to begin giving up to prosecutors up the drug chain so we can begin prosecuting people higher on the drug chain. If we make those mandatory minimums more lenient, if in fact the sentences being confronted by people at the bottom end of the drug chain aren't very severe, they are not going to cooperate. They are not going to provide the evidence or finger the higher-ups in the drug chain itself. A second argument not to change the crack cocaine thresholds is that we have differences in a lot of States already between what the State mandatory minimums punishments are and the Federal mandatory minimum punishments are. In Michigan, we have a pretty tough set of State laws, similar to the Federal laws. They are sufficiently similar so that if somebody is being pursued for crack cocaine dealing, they don't really gain anything by playing off the State versus the Federal law enforcement officials. But if we begin to make crack cocaine thresholds for mandatory minimum sentences more lenient, in Michigan, what is going to happen--and I predict in a lot of other States--is that the crack cocaine dealer is going to begin to make a deal with the Federal prosecutors, as opposed to the State prosecutors, to get the lighter sentence. I can't imagine that is what we want to do here in the Congress of the United States. The third issue I think is important is to understand exactly how crack cocaine is sold. I have talked to people who are in our drug task forces in Michigan. They have pointed out that you really can't increase the thresholds very much beyond 5 grams because people don't walk around with larger quantities of crack cocaine in their possession when they are dealing. They hide their stuff, and they deal in quantities smaller than 5 grams or slightly greater than 5 grams. If you change that as significantly as has been proposed by the Sentencing Commission, if you make the thresholds more lenient, you are not going to find anybody carrying around or being apprehended with sufficient levels of crack cocaine to be pursued under the mandatory minimum structure. Fourth, if we make the sentences for crack cocaine more lenient, we are going to be sending a terrible message as well as providing incentive for people to pursue crack dealing in greater amounts. Do we really want to send the message to young people that we are getting less tough on crack cocaine dealers? Do we want to send the message to crack dealers that the cost of doing business just got cheaper? Do we want to tell the families that we want to, in fact, make it harder to pursue, prosecute, and ultimately confine and incarcerate crack cocaine dealers who are in their neighborhoods, their schoolyards and playgrounds, selling dope to their kids? Is that the message we want to send? I hope not. Finally, of course, as we know, crack is both cheaper and more addictive than cocaine in powder form. That is the reason there is a disparity to begin with, much the same as between heroin and opium. For all these reasons, it does not make a lot of sense to make the mandatory minimum threshold for 5-year or 10-year sentences for dealing in crack cocaine more lenient. If you rule out the notion of making crack cocaine sentences more lenient, then the only other way to address the disparity between powder and crack cocaine is to make the powder cocaine sentences tougher. So if people are on the other side of this issue and want to simultaneously make the disparity between crack and powder closer, lower that disparity, and oppose this amendment, then the only thing they can be saying is they want to make sentences for crack cocaine dealers more lenient. I can't believe many Members of this body want to do that. That is the only option we have. That is why we have pursued an option that will reduce the disparity by making sentences for powder cocaine dealers tougher. What we have done in setting the standard we have chosen in this amendment is to use the ratio that was agreed upon by the Sentencing Commission in their proposal, and by the administration, of a 10-to-1 ratio between the triggers of mandatory minimum sentences for crack dealers and for powder dealers. But we have reduced the disparity from 100-to-1 to 10-to-1 by making tougher sentences for powder cocaine dealers--the change in our proposal. I want to address two or three other points that were made in some of the earlier speeches. First, we have heard talk about the cost of incarceration. I addressed this earlier in my first speech because I get frustrated when I hear people talking about how much it costs to keep crack dealers and drug dealers out of the playgrounds and neighborhoods of our communities. The impression is that the only cost on which we should focus is exclusively the cost of incarceration. But what is the cost to us as a society and of having larger numbers of children becoming addicted to crack cocaine, having these people not in prison but in our neighborhoods? What about those costs? Can we possibly equate the cost of someone who dies as a result of their drug addiction or kills somebody in pursuit of the resources to be able to meet their drug addiction? What are the costs of that? So I think it is a little bit unfair to only add up the costs on one side of this equation. I think we should also be talking about the costs to our communities of allowing larger numbers of drug dealers to avoid sentencing and to stay in business. The other point I make, as I did earlier today, is that we have seen a dramatic reduction in the last few years in both the number of murders and robberies and other numbers of violent crimes across the board in our country, in city after city. Those with expertise on this issue have consistently cited that the reason for these declines in the murder rates, the rates of armed robbery, and so on, is the effectiveness with which we are finally beginning to address the crack cocaine epidemic in America. So, Mr. President, the notion that we would do anything that would reverse our course with regard to cracking down on the dealers of crack seems to me to be a mistake. Finally, I say our goal should be to lower the disparity so that more people up the drug chain are subject to mandatory minimum sentences. That is a good reason, in my judgment, by itself, to make tougher the threshold for mandatory minimum thresholds for the sale of powder cocaine. In addition, by doing that, we will reduce this disparity that exists. I believe if we accomplish both objectives, we will make a greater impact on our fight against drugs in this country. But our colleagues should make no mistake about the fact that if we don't take this approach and want to reduce this disparity, their only option is to make the sentences for crack dealers lighter and more lenient. I don't believe the Members of this Chamber want to go on record as saying they want to move in that direction. So we have offered an amendment that constructively addresses the disparity without making crack sentences more lenient. I think the other components of this amendment are also good--those that deal with methamphetamines, the increased amount of support for drug treatment programs, and the variety of other components of this amendment. I say, finally, with respect to the question of why it should be in the bankruptcy bill, there are a lot of issues that were agreed upon when we moved to the bankruptcy legislation that were going to be included in the debate here, the so-called nongermane amendments, ranging from amendments dealing with East Timor, to agriculture, and so on, and this amendment as well. Perhaps this isn't the ideal spot for this debate. I only say that was the agreement that was reached by 100 Senators, that we would have amendments that were not specifically germane to bankruptcy as part of the final bill we will deal with on the floor this year. I hope those who argue somehow that we shouldn't be dealing with this issue will be equally vocal in complaining about the insertion of other less germane issues in the bankruptcy debate because clearly we are going to hear it argued from both sides that some of the issues are inappropriate in this context. The fact is, I think the American people want us to take a tough stand on drugs and want us to take a tough stand in favor of tough drug sentences. Our amendment accomplishes that. I sincerely hope our colleagues will join us in supporting its passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Frederick Alber of Lapeer County, MI. On November 13, 1999, the community of Oregon Township will dedicate a new headstone for Mr. Alber and also honor other veterans buried in the Oregon Township Cemetery. Frederick Alber enlisted in the Seventeenth Michigan Infantry on July 2, 1862 at age 24 and served valiantly during the Civil War. On July 30, 1896, Private Alber was issued the Medal of Honor for his undaunted bravery in the wilderness and his heroic actions at Spotsylvania. On May 12, 1864, Private Alber rescued Lieutenant Charles Todd of the 17th Michigan Infantry who was in the hands of a party of rebels. Private Alber shot down one enemy rebel and knocked over another with the butt of his musket. He then took the rebels as prisoners and conducted them both to the rear of the formation. The Civil War is one of the most important events in our nation's history. Thanks to the brave actions of soldiers like Frederick Alber, we are a united, free country. It is only fitting that we remember the great sacrifices made by those who have gone before us. The marker dedication at Frederick Alber's grave site is a meaningful way to remember and honor the past heroes of our country and is an appropriate manner in which to salute our cherished liberties. I join the entire community of Oregon Township and Lapeer County as they pay their respects to a real American hero, Frederick Alber.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the third year that the Saginaw County Convention & Visitor's Bureau has recognized an organization, person or event with its Pinnacle Award. Nominees for the Pinnacle Award are chosen by the staff of the Saginaw County CVB, county-wide chambers of commerce, or from the county hospitality industry and are given based on the following criteria: Someone who has brought a convention or conference(s) to Saginaw County that has significant fiscal impact on the county. Someone or something that has garnered strong and positive press for the county and its various communities. An activity or event that significantly improved or contributed to the quality of life in the county, or has had a significant economic impact. A person who has initiated a program or event that has a positive impact on more than just their own business or interests. A person who has assisted the Saginaw County Convention and Visitors Bureau ``above and beyond'' the call of duty for the greater good of the County. A person who or an organization that has preserved or revitalized historical aspects of the County. A person who or organization that has created or supported an event that showcases favorable aspects of the County, or which brings new tourism to the area. The winners of the 1999 Pinnacle Award are: Tony D'Anna, who has taken the lead on creating the Frankenmuth Oldies Fest and annual classic car show (Autofest). Bishop Ed Leidel of the Episcopal Diocese of Eastern Michigan for bringing many conventions and meetings to Saginaw County. Frankenmuth Oktoberfest which has grown over the past 10 years to become one of Michigan's great ethnic festivals. P.R.I.D.E. (Positive Results In a Downtown Environment). Since 1975, P.RI.D.E. has operated as a volunteer association with goals that include the organization of events that encourage people to come to the city as well as the improvement of the downtown area. Sarah Schultz, owner of Sarah's Attic in Chesaning, whose newly formed educational pilot program teaches children the importance of love, respect, and dignity through different ethnic dolls. Rev. P. David Saunders, of the Bethal AME Church, for his outstanding success in bringing many meetings and conventions to the county. Other nominees for the 1999 Pinnacle Award include: Bethlehem Boar's Head Christmas Festival, Howard and Bonnie Ebenhoeh, Cindy Hartung, Terry Jankowski, ``Dixie'' Dave Minar, St. Charles Haunted House Association, and Tom Trombley. I join the Saginaw County Convention and Visitors Bureau as they honor and salute the above individuals and organizations with the 1999 Pinnacle Award. Through their hard work and diligent efforts, the economy and quality of life in Saginaw County is greatly enhanced.