Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this important amendment. Without touching Social Security, it would provide significant assistance to millions of Americans struggling economically even during this time of sustained growth. I believe this amendment demonstrates my party's continuing commitment to fostering economic growth and helping those in need. And we should not forget that, despite recent economic good times, there are many Americans who remain in economic need. African-American youths continue to suffer from an unemployment rate three times that of white youths. Hispanic youths suffer from an unemployment rate ten points higher than that of whites. And 8 million American families continue to live in poverty. We can do better. We can do better. I believe this amendment constitutes an important step forward in our drive to unleash the entrepreneurial energies of the American people; energies that can lift individuals out of poverty as they push communities to higher levels of prosperity. This amendment contains an important provision of the Renewal Alliance package I have been working toward since coming to the United States Senate. It also contains a number of other provisions that I believe represent the responsible way to raise the minimum wage: by ensuring that businesses do not find themselves saddled with costs that lead them to lay off minimum wage workers, exactly those proponents of a minimum wage hike are trying to assist. This amendment addresses three major areas of concern to Americans striving to work their way into our vast middle class: work opportunity, investment, and health insurance. First, as to work opportunity. In my view opportunity is the key to progress. I have sought to increase this opportunity through the Renewal Alliance, a bipartisan group of Senators seeking targeted tax benefits to spur economic growth in our nation's distressed urban and rural communities. This amendment contains key provisions of the Renewal Alliance program. Most important is a provision to permanently extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. A credit of up to $2,400 for wages paid would provide businesses with extra funds for investment in growth and employee training. As a result, many Americans currently without bright futures will receive experience and training--the keys, in my view, to economic success. Also critical to providing increased work opportunity are provisions in this amendment that encourage greater investment, and greater investment in small businesses in particular. Mr. President, 99 percent of American employers are small businesses. Small businesses employ more than half our private work force, and they have consistently been the engine of our economic growth, whether in traditional industries or on the cutting edge of high technology. Further, Mr. President, it is often small business owners who are willing to take a chance on someone in need--someone without experience, someone who has fallen on hard times. If they are to employ more Americans who are in need, Mr. President, our small businesses must have access to more investment capital. This amendment would addresses our continuing shortage of investment, thereby spurring small business growth and hiring. First, it would increase the maximum dollar amount small businesses can deduct for investment in business property. By increasing this amount to $30,000, beginning in 2001, the amendment would provide an additional $3,850 in annual tax savings for small businesses investing in new equipment. Second, the amendment would provide more than 50 provisions encouraging investment in pensions. They would expand coverage, enhance fairness for women, increase portability, strengthen security and reduce regulatory burdens. Finally, this amendment would addresses inequities in our tax structure that keep an estimated 44 million Americans from affording health insurance. 44 million is a distressing number. Equally distressing is the fact that fully 81 percent of uninsured Americans have jobs. Too many Americans, including the self-employed, the unemployed, and employees of small companies that do not provide health insurance, can't afford coverage. Why not? Because, under our tax code, they must pay taxes first, and buy insurance with whatever they have left over-- if anything. Paying with after-tax dollars can make health insurance twice as expensive--too expensive for millions of working Americans. We must address this inequity in our tax code. This amendment would do just that. First, it would enable self-employed Americans to deduct the full cost of health insurance. Finally, entrepreneurs would get the same tax benefits as larger companies. Second, this amendment would provide an above-the-line deduction for individuals whose employers do not subsidize more than 50% of the cost of health coverage. Thus all workers, not just those who itemize, would be better able to afford health care costs. Taken together, these provisions would provide significantly greater economic opportunity for all Americans. They would safeguard our economic growth and spur further investment in American workers. I urge my colleagues to give this important amendment their full support.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on two pieces of legislation designed to protect the habitat of this continent's migratory birds. Both H.R. 2454, known as the ``Snow Goose'' bill, and S. 148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act are intended to protect bird habitat, and by extension, the species which frequent these lands. At the Senate markup last month, Senator Chafee combined these two bills in the hopes of passing them as a complete package this year. Unfortunately, it has become obvious that this strategy will not work because some Members of the House, lacking a better vehicle, intend to use the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act as a tool for debating the merits of property rights legislation. Apparently, they do not care that in doing so they jeopardize the passage of both bills. I want very much for the Congress to pass the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act and am disappointed that the House has failed to even bring this issue to the floor. It is an important bill that will help ensure that the migratory species which Americans enjoy will receive additional protection in their winter habitats. But the Snow Goose is equally important and it is imperative that the Congress Act on this legislation as soon as possible. I fear the refusal of the House to act on S. 148 jeopardizes the chances of the Snow Goose legislation this year. For that reason, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 2454 to strip the language pertaining to the neotropicals from the text of the Snow Goose bill. As part of my agreeing to do this, I have been assured by both the Chairman of the House Resources Committee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans that they will do everything they can to assure that the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act is considered by the full House early next year. I am encouraged by their support and wish to thank them for their willingness to try to move this legislation. Therefore, I believe that removing the text of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act is only a short-term setback. I am confident that once the full House has the opportunity to consider this legislation that a good bill will emerge from that respected body. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2454, as amended.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President I rise today to honor and congratulate St. Joseph's Mercy of Macomb Hospital as they gather in celebration of their 100th Anniversary. St. Joseph's Mercy of Macomb has set a pioneering tradition in health care since it was founded in 1899. One year after its beginning, the hospital opened a 50 bed facility for treatment of the acutely ill. With its healing waters and mineral baths it attracted patients world wide. St. Joseph's Mercy continued to take great strides in healthcare by establishing a disabled children's clinic, physical therapy department and the area's first alcoholism treatment center which was one of the first to recognize mental illness as a disease. Continuing to provide the best quality of healthcare for the people of Macomb County, in 1990 St. Joseph's became partners with Mercy Health systems and Henry Ford Health System. What is truly remarkable about the people involved in St. Joseph's Mercy is the commitment they have to removing barriers to better health and making services available close to home for people of all ages. St. Joseph's Mercy has become a strong force in the community--working with parishes and schools to create healthcare teams and reaching out with HomeCare and neighborhood based healthcare centers. St. Joseph's Mercy is working hard to plan for the future of healthcare needs with critical, life saving initiatives and community outreach activities all designed to create a healthier Macomb County. The accomplishments this group has made in the past 100 years are to be commended. St. Joseph's Mercy has made a hospital much more than four walls filled with medical equipment. They have taken their guiding spirit and reached out to the community delivering a century of caring and charity. It is my hope that the St. Joseph's Mercy of Macomb will continue to provide excellent healthcare that knows no bounds.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to show appreciation and honor to Daniel Jacob Miller as he receives the Heroism Award presented by the Boy Scouts of America. Daniel is a true hero, good Samaritan and model citizen. On December 31, 1998, there was a tragic and massive automobile pile-up in Northern Michigan. The lone police officer on the scene needed help and that is when Dan stepped up. The officer asked if anyone had medical training and Dan, who had learned first aid training through the Boy Scouts, immediately offered his assistance. Dan's unselfish acts, putting his own life at risk helped save the lives of a mother and her children and enabled the police officer to tend to the many other seriously injured motorists. What is most exceptional about Dan is that he genuinely cares about all people and their well being. After the devastating tornados which struck Oklahoma last May, Dan instigated and helped organize a trip to aid in the disaster clean-up. Dan's leadership was also apparent when he taught fellow Boy Scouts how to operate a Ham Radio and assisted them in getting certified in Ham Radio operations in case of a disaster. Dan is described as a quiet and reserved person who enjoys doing his good deeds in secret and throughout his life he has continually put others' needs before his own. Daniel Miller is an exemplary person, Boy Scout and citizen. Time and time again his devotion and good will have blessed the lives of numerous people. It is my hope that many more people follow the path that Dan has set himself on and continue to make the state of Michigan and our nation a better place. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the Boy Scouts of America for their dedication to teaching young people the skills they need to assist in life-saving situations. The Boy Scout leaders who so unselfishly give of their time to help young men could never understand the far reaches of their work. Daniel Miller gives us one incredible example of the importance of the training young men get through the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, It is my great pleasure to recognize and honor the Downriver Guidance Clinic as they celebrate their First Downriver Guidance Clinic Week November 7 through November 13, 1999. For forty-one years the Downriver Guidance Clinic has been at the forefront of providing exceptional health care, mental health services and support to those people who are in need. The Downriver Guidance Clinic has enhanced the quality of life for children, adults and families in the Downriver community. Their programs have built foundations of support for children with behavioral problems, first time parents, teenage mothers, and adults who need help coping with unexpected changes in life. What is truly remarkable about the Downriver Guidance Center are the innovative and progressive programs they provide. The Opportunity Center combines traditional therapy, volunteer mentoring, and other activities to assist young people who need extra help interacting with parents, teachers and peers. Their Center for Excellence focuses on evaluating and assessing programs as a means for improved services. The Downriver Guidance Center programs continue to reach out to the community by providing employment programs that help ease chronically unemployed people into the workforce. The Center also provides an early childhood development which encourages good emotional and physical health ensuring that children enter school ready to learn. The accomplishments and work of the Downriver Guidance Center are to be commended. Their impact on the Downriver Community of the future is immeasurable. I applaud the Downriver Guidance Center for all the help they give others as they strive to meet the ever changing needs of the community they serve.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce my resolution which would recognize August 1st, 2000 as ``National Relatives as Parents Day.'' Mr. President, last year the state of Michigan and its Governor, John Engler, declared August 1, 1999, as Relatives Raising Relative Children Day in order to recognize the enduring and valuable contributions of those individuals willing to raise relative children as their own sons and daughters. I believe that we should follow the example set by my home State and recognize all of our relatives raising relatives. Mr. President, my resolution declaring August 1, 2000 as ``National Relatives as Parents Day'' provides the perfect opportunity to recognize and honor the dedication and compassion of relatives who willingly take on the often thankless responsibility of providing a relative child in need of a family and home. Mr. President, there is little doubt that children are our Nation's most valuable resource. They are, quite literally, America's future. And, it is our most important responsibility as lawmakers and as citizens to protect and care for our most vulnerable charges. Mr. President, there is also little doubt that the family plays a vital and irreplaceable role in providing young children with the secure and caring environment necessary to teach them the values integral to leading a happy, healthy and productive life. Mr. President, it is within the family that children best receive the special care and attention necessary for their proper development. Unfortunately, not all children grow up in a healthy home environment. Too many children will suffer from child abuse or neglect, poor nutrition and insufficient child care, all of which jeopardize the well-being of a young child and his or her opportunity for a fulfilling and successful adulthood. Sadly, in the event that the family unit breaks down, the child cannot remain in his or her existing home situation. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that there are many individuals willing to open their hearts and homes to children whose families are in crisis. These special people play an indispensable role in helping children heal--providing children with a stable and secure environment in which they can grow and develop into successful adults. Mr. President, approximately 520,000 children live with foster families--about 150,800, or 29 percent, of whom are children living with relatives who are willing to take in relative children, providing them with guidance and a caring and positive home environment. It is in honor of these individuals that I stand today, for without their selflessness, many of the close to 160,000 children would either remain in unhealthy and unsafe environments or be uprooted and placed in temporary group homes. Relatives who take on the responsibility of parents deserve special recognition for their long-lasting contributions to their children and to the larger community. It is my hope that all of my colleagues will join with me in recognition of all of this country's relatives, who as parents, have had an incalculable positive impact in the lives of young children in need of a family and home.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, recently the Senate passed the last of the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bills, the Labor, Health & Human Services, Education appropriations bill. Despite tight budgetary constraints, the Senate has passed a bill which embodies the basic principles of our democratic society--all of our citizens deserve an equal opportunity to reach one's highest potential--by providing access to a good education, jobs skills training and protection from illness. While I believe that this is a well balanced bill which appropriately reflects the priorities of the Senate, many of the votes that we cast in relation to the this bill challenged these priorities as well as our commitment to protecting the Social Security surplus from careless government over-spending. Therefore, please allow me to address some of the specifics of individual amendments which touch upon these issues. As I stated before, this legislation rightly embodies the ideals of responsibility, accountability and flexibility. No greater are these ideals highlighted than in the areas of education. This legislation provides for $37.6 billion for the Department of Education; $6 billion for special education; and $892 million in education impact aid. In fact, the Committee exceeded the President's funding level requests by $537 million, $586 million and $156 million respectively. This support will provide the foundation by which we can continue to strengthen and improve the education system for all of our children. In addition, this legislation respects the right of the states and local districts to make appropriate decisions regarding education. However, some of my colleagues would jeopardize the jurisdiction of states, schools and parents to decide the most appropriate means by which to address the specific concerns of their children. Senator Murray offered an amendment (No. 1804) which would have increased the levels for the class-size reduction program from $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion. This increase would be coupled to a mandate which requires that the funding must be used to reduce class size. Now, I agree that smaller class size is preferable to a larger class-size, just about anyone would; children receive more individual attention from the teacher when there are fewer children in the classroom. However, not all schools have the need for smaller class-sizes--42 states have already met the goal of 18 students per teacher. Thus, not all districts place priority on smaller class-sizes. Why would the federal government force districts and states to spend limited resources on a program which is unnecessary? What right does the federal government have to decide for the schools and the parents what their priorities should be? Forcing schools to spend funding on one particular program, simply takes valuable resources from other programs which might better address the needs of their students. Although this amendment failed, the funding itself is still available to schools; to reduce the number of children in each classroom if they so choose or, if further class-size reduction is unnecessary, to fund a more appropriate program such as technology-related training for teachers, dropout or drug abuse prevention programs and building new school facilities. It is for similar reasons that I could not support an amendment (No. 1809) to increase funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Again, I do not doubt that after-school programs offer structural, educational, and health services to children and the families of communities. However, the funding for this program had already been increased $200 million over FY99 funding levels by the Committee. I cannot justify forcing states and localities to spend additional funding on specific programs which might not be appropriate for their communities. As we continue to raise the bar on the quality of education provided to our children, we have also increased state and local accountability for reaching these high standards. Accountability is a key component of a successful education policy, without it there is less incentive to succeed or exceed goals. Earlier this session, we passed the Education Flexibility Partnership Act (Public Law 106-25), which in exchange for greater accountability, provides states with expanded flexibility to choose which education initiatives best fit the needs of their children. In the five years the Ed-Flex program was in effect, prior to its expansion to all states with the passage of this bill, it has realized modest to spectacular results, and in no case has performance declined or has a state abused its increased flexibility by diverting or misrepresenting funds. I am proud to have voted for Ed-Flex and the principles it upholds. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues, while espousing the virtues of accountability, would at the same time take away the flexibility states need to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of their students and schools. This is why I opposed an amendment (No. 1861) offered by Senator Bingaman, which purported to increase accountability for states. This amendment undermined the principles of responsibility, accountability and flexibility. While the amendment would increase funding for disadvantaged students by $49 million, it specifically mandated that $70 million in funding must be used for state accountability programs. This represents a net loss of $21 million in funding which could have gone directly to the classrooms--funding which could have directly and positively impacted the quality of education provided for economically disadvantaged students. This amendment represents accountability, or at least requires the implementation of an accountability program, without the accompanying flexibility states need to effectively address education issues. Mr. President, there is another side to responsibility as well. Earlier this year, we made a promise to the American people that we would not raid the Social Security surplus. Even as the President's budget proposal threatened drain the Social Security surplus by $158 billion over five years and the Democrats continued to filibuster my Social Security Lockbox legislation, we still held true to our commitment not to spend a single penny of the Social Security trust fund. Now, as we are nearing the end of the appropriations process, it is vital that we uphold our responsibility to the American people and keep this promise. Senator Nickles offered an amendment (No. 1889) which rightly expressed the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of protecting the Social Security surplus. Recognizing the possibility that the amount of funding appropriated through the 13 appropriations bills could exceed budgetary restraints, the Senate agreed that a solution could be an across-the-board reduction in discretionary funding in an amount equal to that needed to stay within budget constraints, thereby protecting Social Security. My vote reflects my unwavering belief that the social security surplus must be protected from wanton government spending. It also highlights my continuing opposition to rasing taxes on America's working families, especially when cutting wasteful Washington spending is certainly a viable alternative. Some of my colleagues, many of whom are the same individuals who have continued to vote against a Social Security Lockbox, denounced the across-the-board proposal. Although they could have offered a substantial and realistic alternative to across-the-board reductions in reductions, instead they choose to introduce an amendment (No. 2267) which merely denounces the proposal for a reduction in discretionary funding and offers vague support for paying for the budget shortfall by raising taxes and using other offsets. When my colleagues were pressed about details, they stated that there is currently $4 trillion in tax expenditures which could be examined and possibly eliminated to raise revenue for excess spending: that ``there may very well be an opportunity to squeeze some resources out of tax expenditures * * *''. Another term for tax expenditure is tax relief. And when my colleagues talk about squeezing out resources, this includes ``squeezing'' relief measures such as the tax credit for post- secondary education, the $500 per child tax credit, estate tax relief and the home interest deduction, among many other provisions which allow families to save and invest in their own and their children's futures. Without a clear explanation of exactly how enough revenue would be raised to fill the budget shortfall, thereby avoiding spending the Social Security surplus, I could not support the alternative amendment to the across-the-board reduction in discretionary spending levels and I will not support any proposal which would increase the already excessive tax burden on American families. In addition, some of my colleagues offered an amendment (No. 2268) which would reduce the level of fairness inherent in an across-the- board reduction by insisting on an exemption for specific programs from the resulting decreases in discretionary funding, specifically education funding. While I believe that education is a top national priority, this amendment primarily highlights a general lack of understanding about the actual education funding levels in this appropriations bill. My votes on these Sense of the Senate amendments simply express my preference for spending reductions versus raising taxes or spending the Social Security surplus. In that there are many specific areas of federal spending that in my view can and should be cut back, I would prefer to see us balance the budget with reductions of that type. Unfortunately, gaining consensus on such reductions will be difficult, although I will continue to press for this type of approach. Failing that, some type of across-the-board reductions may be the last resort. As I mentioned earlier, the education funding in this bill exceeds the levels requested by the Administration on many fronts. While it is impossible at this point to know exactly what the final spending level will be at the end of the day, even after including all of the President's emergency spending and a possible Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) pay-back bill, an across-the-board reduction, designed to protect Social Security, would result in approximately a 1.4 percent decrease. Mr. President, even with a 1.4 percent reduction in discretionary funding, I would further note that special education and education impact aid would have funding levels $521 million and $143 million above the President's request levels, respectively. In addition, the Department of Education would be funded $10.6 million over that which the President requested. Far from under-funding education, this bill continues to provide strong support for our schools and our students. We have almost completed our appropriations work this year, and I applaud the effort and dedication demonstrated by my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee and in the Senate as whole. I hope, as we go into the final stages of this process, we will continue to abide by the ideals of responsibility, accountability and flexibility by upholding our promise to protect Social Security and by producing a final package which will serve Americans well. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deepest condolences to the family of the slain Prime Minister of Armenia, Vazgen Sargsian, and the other assassinated leaders of the Armenian Parliament who were tragically killed in the brutal attack on the Armenian Parliament on October 27, 1999. My thoughts and prayers are also with the people of Armenia and the Armenian community around the world and in the United States. The tragic turn of events that took place earlier this week should not be viewed as an impediment to the on-going positive trends the world has seen in Armenia. Indeed, Armenia has proven its commitment to a democratic future in its recent elections which were deemed free and fair by international election monitors. They have also made substantial progress on the peace process regarding Nagorno Karabakh. The United States is enjoying a growing and mutually beneficial relationship with Armenia. Our focus should be on our continued support of the Armenian people. We must not allow the recent terrorist activity to eschew our dedication in helping Armenia achieve the highest form of freedom, liberty, and opportunity. To reaffirm our commitment to the progress embodied by the fallen Armenian patriots not only should be our goal, but our duty as a global leader. For this reason, I ask to submit a resolution that condemns the terrorist activities that took the lives of the Armenian Prime Minister, Vazgen Sargsian, and other leaders of the Armenian Parliament, and pledges continued alliance between our two countries. Our thoughts are with the families, friends and loved ones of those affected by this tragedy, and we send our hope that those who perpetrated this horrible act will be brought to justice. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I will speak briefly with respect to the passing of our dear colleague, John Chafee. He was a great friend to all Members, those who had the chance to work with him closely across the board from one side of the Chamber to the other. I think all felt the highest degree of respect and admiration for him. Today I want to express to his family my deepest condolences and those of my family. A lot of great things have already been said about John Chafee's remarkable career both in public service and in service of his country, his academic achievements, as well as his professional achievements. I will have many memories of him. Probably one that will be the most vivid in a certain way is something I took note of after reading a book about the Korean war which talked about John Chafee. The book made reference to his very distinguishable way of walking, the sort of commanding stride with which he moved among the troops. After I read that, I started noticing the way he walked from one building to another of the Senate, and I noticed the same absolutely distinguishable stride with which he carried himself; somebody who was in command, somebody who moved purposefully forward to meetings, to the floor of the Senate, to attain the objectives which he had for his State and his country. Certainly, anyone who had the chance to work with him, whether in the context of the issues that came before the Finance Committee or the Committee on Environment and Public Works, knows he brought to the Senate a great sense of dedication, commitment, integrity, and principle. We worked together quite a bit last go-round on the highway transportation bill. I remember on numerous occasions appearing in his office to make the plea for my State of Michigan. While he didn't have the ability to provide each and every Member with everything we wanted, he certainly put the time in to make sure he did the best for all of us in our States. That was his way of addressing all the things that came before him. It will be hard to move forward without him because we will all miss him, and I think as a collective chamber we will miss his leadership. As I said to his family and those close to him, I offer both my condolences but, at the same time, I express how much admiration I had for him and how I hope all Members can draw from our experiences with Senator Chafee some insights into how to make sure we conduct ourselves as Senators, with integrity and with the willingness and ability to work together to achieve great things. He certainly achieved many great things in his career, and I hope other Members can come close in our careers to achieving what he did.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we originally introduced this legislation, which is entitled ``The Millennium Digital Commerce Act'' on March 25. I introduced it with Senators Wyden, McCain, and Burns. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on the legislation May 27. Subsequently, the legislation passed unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee on June 23. President Clinton's administration indicated a statement of support. That was issued on August 4. I think that sequence of events suggest that there is a strong degree of support for this type of legislation. The same week the President expressed his support, we attempted to pass the bill in the Senate by unanimous consent. That was just before the August recess. Concerns were raised by two Members of the Senate about the possible impact of this bill on consumer protection. Since that time, we have worked to try to incorporate some of the changes and some of those considerations into the legislation to address consumer protection concerns while still providing the tremendous benefit of electronic signatures to the public which was intended by the legislation. I believe the substitute which we would propose to offer does just that. As was the case with the legislation which passed the Senate Commerce Committee, the substitute will promote electronic commerce by providing a consistent framework for electronic signatures in transactions across all 50 States. That framework is simply a guarantee of legal standing in each of those States. Such a guarantee will provide the certainty which today is lacking and will encourage the development and the use of electronic signature technology by both businesses and consumers. The legislation addresses the concerns raised by the use of electronic records and electronic transactions. It will allow people to secure loans on line for the purchase of a car, home repair, or even a new mortgage by giving both companies and consumers the legal certainty they need. However, the bill now includes safeguards to guarantee that electronic records will be provided in a form that accurately reflects the original transaction and which can be reproduced later. These safeguards are taken directly from the completed version of the Electronic Transactions Act, the ETA. This legislation also recognizes that there are some areas of State law which should not be preempted. These are specifically spelled out and excluded in this bill. They include but are not limited to wills, codicils, matters of family law, and documents of title. As almost anyone in this country knows who has paid the slightest degree of attention to developments in the areas of sales, or economy, or the markets, or watches their television and follows the commercials to the slightest degree, we are entering an age in which electronic commerce is rapidly serving as a substitute for traditional means of commercial activity. Many individuals and companies, as well as others who wish to engage in electronic commerce and other electronic exchanges, are suffering because there is no uniform supporting legal infrastructure in the United States which could provide legal certainty for electronic agreements. The problem is simple. We have about 42 States that have adopted their own basic version of how to authenticate documents that are entered into through electronic transmission. They are all different. Because of those differences, the potential exists for transactions and contracts entered into online through electronic commerce to be challenged in court because the laws of one State might be different from the laws in another. We wish to end that problem. The States are moving as fast as they can to address it through a uniform act which has been developed by the States. And slowly but surely we believe that act will be adopted by State legislatures and signed into law by Governors. But until the States get to that point, we need an interim solution so that electronic commerce can continue to expand and people can continue to engage in electronic commercial activity. The current and prospective patchwork of law and regulation cannot support, and in some cases is incompatible with, the e-commerce market's demanding requirements that are flowing from the interstate and international nature of Internet commerce. The uncertainty and certainly the existence of all these different State laws provides a lot of uncertainty, and the resulting risks that stem from that harm America's businesses and consumers because it puts a limit on the amount of commercial activity that is capable of being handled in this fashion. I think it further hinders the broad deployment of many innovative products and services by American companies, and, of course, in turn limits the choices for those who are prospective consumers, whether it is in business-to-business transactions, or business-to-consumer transactions. The point is this legislation cannot continue to wait. We have tried on several occasions already to bring it to the floor. We tried to pass it through unanimous consent agreements. We have tried to negotiate. So far we have been unsuccessful. The concepts and the goals behind this move toward electronic commerce and authentication are not a subject of controversy. Obsolete statutes that exist in State law should not be permitted to bar innovation and economic growth. This is no longer a States rights issue because we are dealing with otherwise enforceable contracts involving interstate commerce. Thus, passing legislation that contains crucial provisions providing interstate commerce certainty for electronic agreements, in my judgment, and I believe in the judgment of a lot of others, should be a top priority for the Congress before leaving this year. The legislation which we are talking about has been endorsed by numerous organizations and companies who are trying to expand e- commerce in our country. They are: America Online, American Bankers Association, American Council of Life Insurance, American Electronics Association, American Financial Services Association, American Insurance Association, Business Software Alliance, Charles Schwab, Chase Manhattan Bank, Citicorp, Coalition of Service Industries, Consumer Bankers Association, Consumer Mortgage Coalition, Digital Signature Trust Co., DLJ Direct, Electronic Check Clearing House, Electronic Industries Alliance, Equifax, Fidelity, and Ford Motor. Also, the Financial Services Roundtable, Gateway2000, General Electric Company, GTE, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Information Technology Association of America, Information Technology Industry Council, Intel, International Biometric Industry Association, Internet Consumers Organization, Intuit, Investment Company Institute (ICI), Jackson National Life, Keybank, Microsoft, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, National Retail Federation, NCR Corporation, New York Clearing House Association L.L.C., PenOp Inc., Securities Industry Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, U.S. Bancorp, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wachovia Corporation, Zions First National Bank, and Zurich Financial Services Group. The fact that the legislation passed the Commerce Committee unanimously, the fact the President has endorsed it, should be a signal to everybody that this is legislation that does have the kind of bipartisan backing that should allow it to move fairly quickly through the Senate. Yet it is not. It has been since June that we have tried to do this. We have yet to have a successful completion of our efforts. There are many issues involved in electronic authentication that can wait for the market to mature for resolution. Contractual certainty cannot. The absence of certainty with respect to electronic authentication contracts creates a huge impediment to the development of e-commerce both here and internationally. Before I finish on this issue, I am still very much interested in working with people who have objections. I hope we can work something out in the next day or two, but I do think we need action this year. If we can't work something out in the next day or two, it will certainly be my intention to ask the majority leader to see if we can't file a cloture motion on a motion to proceed to this legislation so we can work it out. It seems to me if people have substantive differences we ought to be able to enter into a consent agreement to afford the opportunity for a limited number of amendments on this legislation so those differences can be worked out on the floor. To hold the bill up and prevent proceeding to the bill jeopardizes our ability to get anything done this year. I appeal to those who raised objections to work with Members in the next day or two to find an amicable as well as hopefully a fairly quick process by which we can bring the legislation through the Senate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 243, S. 761, under the following limitations: That there be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form, and the only amendment in order to the bill be a manager's substitute amendment to be offered by Senators Abraham, Wyden, and Lott. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time and the disposition of the substitute amendment, the committee substitute be agreed to, as amended, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of S. 761 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the perspective offered by the Senator from Nevada. I want to acknowledge, while he is still on the floor, the continuing interest that I have in trying to work to a resolution on this issue because I think it is one, as is evidenced by the bipartisan nature of both the original bill and the proposed substitute, where there are, in fact, Members on both sides of the aisle who have an interest in proceeding in this area. So I hope we will be able to reach some kind of an agreement soon. I have a little bit more I want to say about the legislation before we adjourn, but I thank the Senator from Nevada for his expression of a continuing interest to work together.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sincere congratulations to the Americans of Arabic Heritage of the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania who are celebrating their 10th Anniversary this year. I am proud and honored to be celebrating this event with them at their annual banquet on October 23, 1999. I commend those members who are involved in this organization because they advance and demonstrate the continuing positive contributions of Americans of Arab descent. Furthermore, it is heartening to see the continual efforts of the Americans of Arabic Heritage in fostering a relationship of understanding and goodwill between the peoples and cultures of the United States and the Arab world. These efforts will go far in enhancing and promoting our community's image and understanding throughout the world. The Americans of Arabic Heritage of the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania have worked very hard to instill a sense of pride in their heritage. Their efforts have assured that this pride and this heritage will be preserved and carried on for generations to come. I am proud and delighted to see our community promoting our heritage and I wish them much success in their ongoing endeavors. Many in the local community have given generously of their time and efforts to be active in the Americans of Arabic Heritage of the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania. They are to be commended for their very worthwhile efforts and foresight, and I am pleased to recognize these efforts in the United States Senate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on the 13th of October, I was proud to cosponsor S. 1500, the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act of 1999. When Congress worked with the President to craft and pass the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, it included a number of desperately needed cost-saving measures to ensure that Medicare did not go bankrupt. At the time, Medicare was projected to be bankrupt by 2001 with annual costs rising at three times the rate of inflation. However, the Health Care Financing Administration, which oversees the administration of Medicare, has far exceeded the scope of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and gone beyond the intent of Congress in scaling back health care provider reimbursements. Driven by a philosophy that the Federal Government knows best how to handle your health care decisions, this administration has uniformly adopted policies that limit Medicare beneficiary choice, obstruct critically needed market- based reforms, and relentlessly pursued a strategy of reducing payments to providers as the prime method to reduce outlays. Sometimes such a ``Washington-knows-best'' strategy just doesn't work. The fact of the matter is, health care providers will bear costs that cannot be overlooked or undervalued simply because HCFA wishes to declare it so. This has been especially prevalent in the area of Skilled Nursing Facility care. The recently implemented Prospective Payment System (PPS) fails to account for the full range of services required by most Medicare beneficiaries provided care in these facilities. Specifically, the PPS implemented by HCFA has a payment schedule called Resource Utilization Groups (RUGs) that are intended to account for the needs of individual beneficiaries. However, these RUGs have failed to account for the full range of needs of these beneficiaries, especially for the medically complex patient. While private market insurance is significantly better at recognizing the needs of the medically complex patient, the failure of this administration to allow for any type of market-based reform to move forward has forced us to rely upon the implementation of the PPS by HCFA, which, as I discussed before, seems to have a predisposition towards underpaying for necessary services. The result, Mr. President, is that beneficiaries are increasingly denied access to lower-cost Skilled Nursing Facilities and are forced to continue care in higher-cost hospitals where they also may not be able to get the most appropriate level of rehabilitative care. S. 1500, introduced by Senator Hatch, attempts to address the over-reaching of HCFA directly and swiftly. First, it would provide for payment ``add- ons'' for the provision of additional treatment in the care of the medically complex patient. Second, it restores one percentage point of the reductions to the annual inflation adjustor mandated by BBA-97. Although the inflation adjustment reduction was directly written in the BBA-97 language, it's revision provides Congress the most direct and simplest way to counteract the excesses of HCFA. Mr. President, I am heartened that HCFA has recognized the flaws in the current PPS system and is undertaking a review of this system. However, that review will not be completed until next year. Our Skilled Nursing Facilities need these restorations now in order to continue to provide our Medicare beneficiaries continued and uninterrupted care. That is why I fully support this legislation, am cosponsoring it, and call on my colleagues to do the same as soon as possible.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Willie and Veronica Artis of Flint, Michigan. On October 19, 1999, they will be honored by Mott Community College for their many contributions to the greater Flint community. In 1979, Willie Artis co-founded Genesee Packaging, Inc., a maker of corrugated packaging with a focus on the automotive industry. Mr. Artis and Mr. Buel Jones began this company by utilizing the opportunities that were available to them through General Motors' minority business development programs. Using their extensive background in automotive contract packaging and corrugated manufacturing, Mr. Artis and Mr. Jones were able to penetrate the existing automotive market and build a relationship with a General Motors buyer. Upon co-founder Buel Jones' retirement, Willie Artis took control of the day-to-day operations of the company and implemented a restructuring of the organization. Presently, Genesee Packaging employs a total of 230 people in three different plants and has just completed thirty-three consecutive months of profitability. Willie Artis has over twenty-eight years of experience in sales, corrugated manufacturing and automotive contract packaging. He obtained his education at Wilson College in Chicago, Illinois, and continued his education through executive seminars for business owners at Dartmouth College. He is currently President and Chief Executive Officer of Genesee Packaging, Inc. in Flint, Michigan. Willie Artis' wife, Veronica Artis, is also an instrumental force at Genesee Packaging, Inc. Veronica obtained her higher education at the University of Wisconsin, Dartmouth College, Wharton School of Business, and Harvard University. Before joining Genesee Packaging, Inc, Veronica held various positions at Wisconsin Bell and Ameritech. Veronica joined Genesee Packaging, Inc. in 1989 as the Vice President of Administration and she is a member of the Executive Staff. The event at Mott Community College on October 19, 1999, is a salute to Mr. and Mrs. Artis' success, their commitment to the greater Flint community, and their contributions as fine corporate citizens. A scholarship will be established in their names that will be held at the Foundation for Mott Community College. I join Mott Community College and the entire Flint community in this celebration of two distinguished citizens, Willie and Veronica Artis.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I will withhold.

Mr. ABRAHAM. May I inquire, in terms of the queue, what additional unanimous consent agreements have been entered into with respect to time?

Mr. ABRAHAM. May I ask, before the 5:45 vote that is slated, are there any other unanimous consent agreements that have set aside time?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he would be willing to enter into a unanimous consent agreement which would allow me to speak for up to 10 minutes and then have his 20 minutes following because we would still be within the timeframe for the vote.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Then I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 10 minutes, followed by 20 minutes for the Senator from Wisconsin, followed by 1 minute for the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank my colleagues for their consideration. I rise today in support of what I believe is a real, substantive solution to the vexing question of campaign finance reform. To my mind that question is this: how do we revive voter confidence in the electoral process without violating the fundamental guidelines laid down in our Constitution? The answer, I believe, lies in public exposure and voter knowledge. The more voters know about the sources of a particular candidate's campaign funding, the better able they will be to determine whether that funding has or will interfere with the candidate's ability to represent them. The solution I support is in the nature of a substitute amendment. I have cosponsored this amendment along with Senators Hagel, DeWine, Gorton, and Thomas. It was my hope that my colleagues and I would be able to introduce this substitute on the floor and call for a vote. However, procedural barriers have been created which have undermined meaningful debate on this issue. In the end, these procedural barriers have prevented my colleagues and I from submitting our substitute for a vote. However, because I believe campaign finance reform is a critical issue which will be with us for some time to come, I feel compelled to say a few words about the contents of the substitute. I believe that provisions in the substitute correct key, perceived problems in our campaign financing system. The first section of the substitute would increase disclosure. It would ensure that the public, and the candidates' constituents in particular, are made immediately and continuously aware the sources of candidates' financing. It also would ensure public notification of any candidate financing by an outside organization or interest seeking to influence the election. How would the substitute accomplish these ends? By requiring additional monthly and quarterly disclosure reports for federal candidates and for national political parties. The substitute would also require national party committees to disclose their receipts and disbursements from non-federal accounts--as they are currently required to do so for their federal accounts. A variety of other disclosure components is also included in the legislation. The second section of the substitute imposes reasonable restrictions on soft money. I am very concerned about the constitutional implications of a complete ban on soft money. Thus, our substitute would place a $60,000 cap on soft money, pending an expedited review by the Supreme Court. I believe this approach deals responsibly with the issue of soft money, without ignoring potentially serious conflicts with the first amendment. Also included within the substitute is a provision that would raise individual and PAC contribution limits to adjust for inflation. The present limits have been in place since 1974, when the first law regarding campaign finance was passed by the Congress. It is clearly justifiable that these limits be raised to reflect the present economic realities while maintaining the disclosure provisions so that the public can continue to be informed about the sources of financing. In addition, I would have liked to have been given the opportunity to submit an additional amendment to campaign finance legislation. I would have introduce an amendment limiting non-constituent contributions to 50 percent of the total raised by the candidate. This amendment would accomplish a multitude of goals. It would instill a guideline for the candidates, instill confidence in the voters, and would help dispel the all too common notion that candidates are improperly influenced by campaign contributions. In my view it is not difficult for a politician to arrange financing in a way that avoids the appearance as well as the reality of corruption. In the context of my amendment, all federal candidates would have to follow the same rules, dictating that they receive no more than 50 percent of overall contributions from PACs and out of state donors. Political committees that do not have their national headquarters within the candidate's state would be considered ``out of state'' contributions for these purposes. Any individual who is not a legal resident of the candidate's state and contributes $200 or more to a candidate would also be considered an ``out of state'' donor. Why do I suggest such an approach? Because I don't think we are addressing the serious perception problems that exist with respect to campaign reform when we stand on the floor and focus all of the amendments on who gives money to the national parties. The fact is the party is not the individual who is on the floor of the Senate casting votes. It is the 100 Members of the Senate. I believe what is relevant is who supports us. Can we claim to represent constituents if more than 50 percent of the money we receive from our campaigns come from people we don't represent? I argue the answer to that is no. I think much more than contributions to the national parties undermines our constituents' confidence that when we are on the floor we are acting in the best interests of our constituents and our States. In my judgment, this type of amendment--one that, unfortunately, will not be voted on--is an important and integral part of any legitimate campaign reform proposal. I am certain Federal candidates would find that they can run successful campaigns with this 50-percent imposed limit. More importantly, these limits would increase politicians' accountability to their own constituents and decrease the appearance of out-of-State special interest influence. I ask unanimous consent the text of my proposed amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I believe the substitute, which I cosponsored with Senators Hagel and Thomas and Gorton and DeWine, along with my proposed amendment, is the better way to reform campaign financing. I think it strikes a reasonable balance between addressing the issues of corruption with the constitutional concerns. I only wish these amendments had been allowed to reach the floor. I can assure my colleagues that I will continue to support real constructive campaign finance reform. As I say, it is unfortunate that the structure of our procedures won't allow us to offer these variations. I think it is obvious to all Americans that right now we have an impasse. The reason we have an impasse is because we have essentially only one alternative that is being treated as the only option available with respect to campaign finance reform. Clearly, the way to break a legislative logjam is to consider other alternatives. That is what the Senator from Nebraska and I are trying to do. Perhaps it won't happen in the context of this year's debate, but I hope in future debates we will go beyond the simple all-or-nothing approach that we have had in recent debates and give the rest of us a chance to have our amendments considered and voted on. I think that is the only way we are going to get to a conclusion that does, in fact, change the process, and for the better.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. If there is time remaining, I am happy to yield.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I haven't used all of my time, so I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.