Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time not be counted to either side.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the Senator as much time as he needs.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield that time to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Pennsylvania would like.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute 30 seconds. We are here today to try to put in motion a process that will save the Social Security trust fund surpluses for Social Security. The Republicans have been trying to simply get a vote on our proposal for over 70 days. The entire parliamentary effort that has been described has been aimed at simply getting us a chance to have a vote on what was our original amendment to a different bill. The notion that getting cloture on that amendment would somehow stifle opportunities for others to bring amendments is not the way this system works. I think everybody should understand that. Our goal is to get a vote on the amendment we wanted. That is perfectly consistent with what people on all sides always try to do. It was a simple effort. Let's not get caught up in the parliamentary discussions. The bottom line is we are still trying to create a lockbox for the American people who send payroll taxes to Washington so they can be assured those dollars go to Social Security. That is what we are fighting for. This debate is no more complicated than that. We have heard claims people want a weaker lockbox, a harder lockbox. Let's go forward with it. Let's pass this motion. Let's vote for cloture today. Give Members a chance to have a vote on our plan. If others want to offer their plans, there will be opportunities for that. I don't think there should be any absence of clarity as to what we have been trying to achieve for 73 days, and that is simply to get a vote on a lockbox, which was brought as an amendment by the Republicans. We will still get that vote; we will keep fighting until we do. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. How much time do we have?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may need to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need to make an initial statement. Then we will have speakers on our side and work with the Democratic side to work out the remainder of the time. Today is the 73rd day since we began the process of trying to move forward with a Social Security lockbox. I think, from every indication, we finally will begin to make some progress this morning. I hope this will be a rapid process from this point forward, that things will not be delayed much longer, and we can quickly come to some type of agreement for orderly consideration of this proposal. It is vitally important we not delay any longer. Since we introduced this amendment on April 20, the following has taken place: $22.2 billion more of the Social Security surplus or almost 20 percent of this year's surplus has been put in danger of being raided. The House voted 416 to 12 to pass their own version of a lockbox, a version that we could not consider in this body. The President himself has endorsed the idea of a lockbox and stated that Social Security taxes should be saved for Social Security. Yesterday, the Democratic leader indicated the Democrats would not block this motion to proceed. So I see this as a positive. What I have to say is very simple. It is clear that Americans, regardless of where they might live, believe their Social Security dollars ought to be used for Social Security. I cannot imagine there is a Member of the Senate who does not hear that message when talking to seniors in their States or, for that matter, when talking to anyone who is paying payroll taxes. The American people are frustrated when they hear that money they send here for Social Security is being spent on other programs. To some extent, this was justified during the period in which we were running budget deficits. But today we are not. Today we are running surpluses. The latest news is good news. It seems to me it even further justifies creating a lockbox to make sure none of these Social Security dollars are any longer spent on anything except Social Security. The only way to do it, in my view, is to pass legislation such as S. 557, such as the proposal that will be before us today. So I ask my colleagues to not only give us the chance to move forward on this legislation but to work together to craft a proposal as soon as we possibly can so we can be sure these Social Security dollars do not get spent on other programs. It is a very attractive thing, to talk of new programs, of expanding existing programs, and so on, because today we are in a period of economic prosperity and we are running surpluses. But we should take this opportunity, in my view, to at least fence off the Social Security surplus so it cannot be used for other programs. I am hopeful today we can take an important step toward that end so I can go back to Michigan and tell the people in my State their Social Security payroll tax dollars are going to be protected. That is what I want to do. I suspect that is what a lot of other Members of the Chamber want to do. I am hopeful that after today, once we get through the recess period, we will move expeditiously to finish the job. Social Security dollars ought to be spent on Social Security. We should move as quickly as possible to make that the case. So I am very optimistic, if we are successful with the cloture vote today, we can move in that direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues, Senators Boxer and Feinstein to introduce a resolution condemning the acts of arson against the three Jewish synagogues in Sacramento, California. Our history is blessed with courageous acts of men and women who have refused to accept, and united against, ignorance, oppression and discrimination. It was their selflessness which, in large part, secured and protected the same freedoms and liberties so many Americans take for granted today. On June 18th, 1999, in Sacramento, California, the Congregation B'nai Israel, Congregation Beth Shalom and Knesset Israel Torah Center were victims of malicious and cowardly acts of arson. Mr. President, these acts of intolerance and malice are a direct attack against all Americans and the ideals which are integral to a free and democratic society. The very liberties that allow America to prosper are directly undermined by such acts of blatant hatred and intolerance. Mr. President, the United States owes much of its strength and greatness to the special uniqueness and diversity of its people. It is imperative that we unite, upholding our responsibility to honor and protect the basic, inalienable right to live without fear and violence. We must send a message to those individuals who would undermine our free and democratic society, that their acts, and any similar actions, will not be tolerated. Mr. President, I would also like to take this time to commend the residents of Sacramento, and the larger California community, who have joined in solidarity with the Jewish congregations, demonstrating their continued commitment to preserving the freedom of all members of the community.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I would like to give my support to the Medical Innovation Tax Credit Act, sponsored by my good friend, Senator Jeffords. Our medical schools and teaching hospitals are the backbone for innovation in American medicine. As sites for vital human clinical trials, these medical institutions provide a superior training ground for our nation's health care professionals, functioning as centers for the development of innovative medical technologies, treatments and medicines. Yet, Mr. President, there has been an alarming decline in the utilization of these superior medical facilities for clinical trials. Due to changes within the health care marketplace, our medical facilities have come under increasing cost pressures, driving up the costs associated with conducting clinical trials at these facilities. Currently, it is more expensive for companies to perform clinical trials at teaching hospitals than at commercial research organizations. Mr. President, the Medical Innovation Tax Credit Act is integral to the continued success of our nation's status as a world leader in the development of medical advances. This legislation would enhance the flow of private-sector funds into our non-profit medical institutions by providing incentives for companies to perform more clinical trials at these institutions. The 20 percent medical innovation tax credit would help level the current cost differential and the resulting influx of funds would ease some of the financial pressures our medical institutions are experiencing. I urge all of my colleagues to send a strong message to our nation's medical institutions and health care professionals, that we will continue working to find ways to enhance and strengthen our valuable research program. To this end, it is essential that the Senate support the Medical Innovation Tax Credit Act.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader this morning, I make the following announcement to the Senate: This morning the Senate will debate cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 557 for 1 hour, to be followed by a cloture vote at 10:30 a.m. If cloture is invoked, the leader will file a cloture motion on the pending amendment to S. 557, the Social Security lockbox legislation, and that cloture vote will occur at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, July 16. Following that action, Senator Specter will be recognized as if in morning business for up to 30 minutes. The Senate will then resume consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, with the hope of completing the bill during today's session of the Senate. Under a previous unanimous consent agreement, all amendments must be offered by 11:30 a.m. today. It may also be the intention of the leader to debate and vote on the Y2K conference report and to begin consideration of any other appropriations bills cleared for action. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout the day.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of critical importance to the families in my State. Throughout Michigan, men and women are working hard every day to produce the cars that make our economy and our Nation move. They and their families depend on the jobs produced by our automobile manufacturing industry, just as the rest of us can depend on the cars they produce. But those jobs in Michigan's economy are jeopardized by efforts to increase the standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE. I have come to the floor today because I want to make certain that my colleagues are aware of the extremely serious impact of increased CAFE standards, not just on Michigan but on every State in the Union. I also point out that these punitive measures will be ineffective and fly in the face of ongoing efforts on the part of our automakers to increase fuel economy, efforts that promise to produce fruit in the very near future. The Federal Government currently mandates that auto manufacturers mandate a fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 20.7 miles per gallon for sports utility vehicles and light trucks. Since 1995, Congress has wisely refused to allow the Federal bureaucracy to unilaterally increase these standards. We have recognized that it is our duty as legislators to make policy in this important area of economic and environmental concern. Now, however, I understand that a number of colleagues are calling for an end to this congressional authority. They are calling on the administration to unilaterally increase CAFE requirements for sports utility vehicles and light trucks to 27.5 miles per gallon. This action is misguided. It will hurt the working families of Michigan. It will undermine American competitiveness. I want to put the Senate on notice that I will use every legislative means at my disposal to see that it does not happen. CAFE requirements costs jobs with few tangible positive affects. It really is that simple. Let me explain what I mean. To meet increased CAFE requirements, SUVs and light trucks would have to be dramatically reengineered. Auto makers would be forced to implement and design radically new engine and autobody changes. Such changes would be enormously challenging, and would be reflected in decreased power and carrying capacity, coupled with an increase in price. The result would be a less desirable automobile. It would spell the doom of the line vehicles which are largely responsible for the resurgence and continued success of American automobile industry. Of course, this is precisely the goal of CAFE advocates: reduced public demand and consumption of this line of vehicle, but it is an unwise course. A government engineered campaign to steer the public away from the sport utility market, one which the U.S. producers dominate, will also be of enormous benefit to overseas competitors. The fact is, the U.S. dominates the light truck market because sky- high gasoline prices in countries such as Japan have forced foreign auto makers to make smaller, lighter cars. This matters because CAFE requirements are averaged over a producers entire fleet of vehicles. Since the Japanese auto producers produce relatively few light truck models, these producers will have to make no changes in vehicle capacity or production in order to meet U.S. CAFE requirements. Thus, foreign producers would avoid the cost and challenge of modifying their fleet fuel economy averages. And that means the government, not the market, will have placed an uneven burden on American workers. Consumers also suffer when their choices are narrowed. And auto makers and their employees suffer when they are forced to make cars the public simply does not want. In a statement before the Consumer Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, Dr. Marina Whitman of General Motors notes that in 1982: ``we were forced to close two assembly plants which had been fully converted to produce our new, highly fuel-efficient compact and mid-size cars. The cost of these conversions was $130 million, but the plants were closed because demand for those cars did not develop during a period of sharply declining gasoline prices.'' This story could be repeated for every major American automaker, Mr. President. And the effects on our overall economy have been devastating. During this time of economic prosperity, it is easy for some people to forget the massive dislocation of workers which occurred during the 1970's and 1980's. But we should keep in mind, not only the thousands of jobs in the auto manufacturing industry that were lost during this period, but also the massive impact this downturn in a key industry had on our economy as a whole. The story of plant closings were devastating for domestic automakers back in the 1970s and 1980s. It is unfortunately the case, sometimes when we are in a period of economic prosperity, as we are now, it is easy to forget the massive dislocation of workers which did occur back at that time. We should keep in mind not only the thousands of jobs in the auto manufacturing industry that were lost during that period, but also the massive impact that downturn in a key industry had on our economy. The American auto industry accounts for one in seven U.S. jobs. Steel, transportation, electronics, literally dozens of industries employing thousands upon thousands of Americans depend on the health of our auto industry. If we do again to our auto industry what was done to it during the 1970's and 1980's, we will quickly see our current prosperity turn to an era of significant unemployment, in my judgment. Mr. President, the last thing our economy and our people need is a repeat of those hard times. Our automakers simply cannot afford to pay the fines imposed on them if they fail to reach CAFE standards, or to build cars that Americans will not buy. In either case the real victims are American workers and consumers. Nor should we forget, Mr. President, that American automakers are investing almost $1 billion every year in research to develop more fuel efficient vehicles. Indeed, we do not need to turn to the punitive, disruptive methods of CAFE standards to increase fuel economy for American vehicles. Especially since domestic manufacturers have increased passenger car fuel economy 108 percent and light truck fuel economy almost 60 percent since the mid-1970s. And more progress will soon be realized. Since 1993, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles has brought together government agencies and the auto industry to conduct joint research--research that is making significant progress and will bridge the gap to real world applications after 2000. By enhancing research cooperation, PNGV will help our auto industry develop vehicles that are more easily recyclable, have lower emissions, and can achieve up to triple the fuel efficiency of today's midsize family sedans. All this while producing cars that retain performance, utility, safety and economy. By next year, Mr. President, technologies developed in the PNGV program will be incorporated into concept vehicles. These vehicles will help the auto industry determine their functional benefits, develop production infrastructure and determine commercial viability. By 2004 we will have production-feasible prototypes that can be brought to mass production within 3-5 years. Direct-injection engines, new forms of fuel cells, lithium batteries, new polymers, and many other technological developments are now in the works. They are in the works thanks to a strategy that places cooperation over punitive government mandates. We have made solid progress, Mr. President. Progress toward making vehicles that achieve greater fuel economy without sacrificing the qualities consumers demand. And we should remember, Mr. President, that we can remain competitive and retain American jobs only if people will actually buy the vehicles our industry produces. Cooperation will produce the results we need. New punitive mandates will produce an economic downside none of us want to see. Again, I will use every legislative means at my disposal as a U.S. Senator to stop bills or amendments to increase CAFE standards. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided attempt to increase the destructive CAFE requirements. As the son of a man would worked as a UAW member on the line for about 20 years of his life, and the son-in-law of a man who did it for 39 years in the State of Michigan, my family understands, as do thousands of other families in our State, exactly what happens when people stop buying American-made cars. People in our State and people in other States start to lose their jobs. We don't want that to happen. We can achieve the twin goals of keeping people at work and producing more fuel-efficient vehicles if we continue the course that has been working. The development, the research, the technology, which the Federal Government has participated in is going to produce the success we want. We can do it without government-imposed mandates of people losing their jobs. This Senator plans to fight in every way he can to make sure that is the course we follow. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. It would. I say to the Senator from Maryland, I obviously do not know, with respect to each and every one of those issues that was raised by opposition parties, the full story, but I also would suspect that very few of our colleagues know the full story or have examined that aspect of this debate. It seems to me, in the absence of a fuller examination, it would really be a mistake for the Members of the Senate to vote to remove, effectively repeal section 907 unless they know more of the background that the Senator just discussed. I know the Senator from Maryland plans to discuss some of the other issues today, but I urge colleagues who are not on the floor and maybe are not following this as closely to just take note of that list and other similar kinds of lists of concerns that have been raised and very serious charges that have been leveled against the government that we would now, in effect, set in motion a potential plan to support. It seems to me this is the kind of issue that requires far greater scrutiny by the Members of the Senate before we would take that action. I appreciate the Senator from Maryland raising those issues at this time. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to this discussion. I spoke earlier on this same amendment and want to speak again. I am a cosponsor with the Senator from Kentucky of the second-degree amendment which was offered earlier today to the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. As many of my colleagues may know, contained within S. 579 is the waiver, which we have been discussing, of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Section 907 restricts some forms of U.S. assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan until it takes demonstrable steps to cease all blockades against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azerbaijan blockade has cut off transport of fuel, food, medicine, and other vital goods and commodities to these regions. This in turn has forced the United States to send ongoing emergency lifesaving assistance to Armenia and, more recently, Nagorno-Karabakh as well. The present conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has been the subject of an ongoing peace process. With the consent of the United States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, their Minsk Group, as we have heard, has been assigned the responsibility of fashioning a peace proposal satisfactory to the conflicting parties. Despite serious reservations, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have accepted the OSCE's recommendations. As the Senator from Maryland just pointed out, Azerbaijan has not. In fact, they have summarily rejected the compromise peace proposal. If Azerbaijan had accepted the compromise plan, cowritten by the United States, direct negotiations would already be underway, and this conflict may have well been on its way to being resolved. If we vote today to abolish section 907, we, in effect, would reward Azerbaijan's rejection of the OSCE compromise peace proposal. We will have undermined what I believe and what I think a number of my colleagues who have already spoken believe to be a primary objective of that proposal, which is ending Azerbaijan's ongoing blockade. The comments of both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Maryland have been right on point. It could not be more self-evident that if the one and only leverage we have in the peace process to bring an end to this blockade and to the hostile relationships is taken away, there will be no incentives whatsoever. It would be, in my judgment, counterproductive in the extreme to create incentives for the intransigent party to stay the course, to remain intransigent. This, in my judgment, will not bring lasting peace to the region, and I question seriously the conclusion that apparently the administration has reached that somehow this administration, or any other, will be more effective as a negotiator if this changes. There are plenty of countries that have an interest in this region that do not have a provision like section 907 in place. Yet they have been no more successful in influencing Azerbaijan. The Minsk proposal was rejected by Azerbaijan. I do not understand how, in effect, rewarding Azerbaijan for its resistance is going to change anything. I want to comment on another point the Senator from Kansas made. He has mentioned several times today his provision, the Silk Road Act, includes a so-called national security waiver. He indicates that it does not, of course, eliminate the sanctions, it just simply allows the President to exercise the waiver which would remove those sanctions if, in the President's view, the circumstances allowed that. This provision, as the Senator from Maryland just said, would, in effect, give the President the power to repeal section 907 or to maintain it. However, its practical effect would be to eliminate section 907. The administration is on record, and very clearly on record, in supporting the repeal of this principal provision of the law and has been a vocal supporter of the Silk Road bill itself, as the Senator from Kansas just indicated. The notion we are not, in effect, repealing section 907, we are simply putting the President in a position to consider using a national security waiver to repeal it, may be technically true. But as a practical matter, if we act today to eliminate section 907 and replace it with a waiver language that is suggested, we would be eliminating the section 907 sanctions automatically, because I find it hard to believe the President, in light of his statements and his support, would retain section 907. I reiterate to my colleagues the importance of our second-degree amendment. Irrespective of your views on the Silk Road Act, either substantively or, for that matter, as a part of the foreign operations appropriations bill, our amendment would be consistent with our policies in this region, and it would maintain existing law with respect to the Government of Azerbaijan. I hope my colleagues will support Chairman McConnell and myself and others who are supporting this very important amendment. Also, I personally believe the treatment that has been received by the people of Armenia--and this is not the only time in this century that the people of Armenia have been victims of actions by military forces beyond their control--the treatment is simply unacceptable. I am not saying there are not arguments of sympathy toward all parties in this region, but the U.S. Government made the right step when we instituted section 907, that we expressed an appropriate level of sympathy, as well as support, and appropriately so, for the people of Armenia. It would be a tragic mistake for us today to reverse course and to set in motion what, in effect, would be a repeal of section 907. It will send the wrong message to the Azerbaijanis, and I believe just from a human rights point of view, it would send the wrong message with regard to our feelings toward the people of Armenia. Actions such as that would not be evenhanded, but clearly it would be a decisive gesture on behalf of Azerbaijan. In my judgment, when one takes into account the entire historic scope of things, that is not an appropriate action for our country to take. I urge colleagues to support our second-degree amendment, to then vote their conscience with regard to the Silk Road Act, both on substance as well as its inclusion in this legislation. As I indicated earlier, I support the efforts of the Senator from Kansas in virtually all other respects with regard to this effort and with regard to that legislation, except for this provision. Today, on behalf of myself and the others who have joined on the second- degree amendment, I hope we will have support. Let's not make this dramatic change in American foreign policy in this context. Let's send a message to the people of Azerbaijan that we hope they will take seriously the negotiation of the peace process and that America remains firm in its resolve to not continue or to open up these additional forms of aid until such time as the proposal we have already offered is favorably acted on.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Certainly.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I lend my support to this amendment. I realize the chairman and ranking member have a number of other issues they want to discuss. I am not sure at what point we will reconvene on this second-degree amendment. I clearly associate myself with the Senator from Kentucky, both as a cosponsor of the amendment as well as with his comments today. I share his view that the appropriate role for the United States at this point is not to decide this matter by taking this action--which I think would be premature; I think there still remain serious issues in play that would argue against changing the status of section 907 at this point. My view is that we should move forward with the balance of this amendment. I, too, applaud the Senator from Kansas, who I think has done great work in this area. I fully support his efforts as well as the contribution he makes by raising the section 907 issue. Hopefully, it puts all of our policymakers in the United States more in focus on the issues. If we are to include the Silk Road Act or a major portion of it in this legislation, it should be included without inclusion of section 907. I am willing to speak on this at a later point if we extend the debate. I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky, and I look forward to working with him, as well as the Senator from Kansas, in hopefully resolving this.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Ned Homfeld, who has been named Entrepreneur of the Year for 1999, by Ernst & Young, Mr. Homfeld was selected as the most outstanding company owner-manager from among 500 other exemplary nominees. Ned Homfeld, the president of Spirit Airlines, is the driving force behind the young company and its remarkable success in the highly competitive airline business. Spirit Airlines, a small air carrier, offers low cost jet service to some of America's most popular business and leisure destinations as well as underserved areas in need of air travel service. Before his involvement with Spirit Airlines, Mr. Homfeld was involved in numerous other operations including Ground Air Transfers, which delivered critically needed parts to automotive plants, and Charter One, a company that offered public charter day trips. Mr. Homfeld's drive for continued improvements in the airline industry is a testament to his hard work and devotion to the American public. Mr. Homfeld's continued dedication has not only served Spirit Airlines, but has greatly benefited the greater community as well. Spirit Airlines, providing safe, quality air travel at affordable prices, has been a welcome contributor to Detroit's and other cities across the United States, economic successes during the past decade. His creativity, perseverance and entrepreneurial spirit is an example to us all.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Helms and Senator Biden for accepting as part of S. 886, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, my amendment to remove the requirement that an automated entry-exit program be established at land and sea ports and replace that with a required feasibility study to be completed within 1 year. This amendment would correct a significant error made in the 1996 Immigration Act that if left uncorrected will cause a significant loss of U.S. jobs in export and tourist industries, and would also significantly harm our relations with Canada and Mexico. This amendment is the same as legislation that passed the Senate in two forms last year, with the sole exception of provisions related to the U.S. Customs Service, which were removed at the request of the Finance Committee because it has scheduled a series of oversight hearings on the Customs Service, which is also up for reauthorization this year, and the removal of authorizations for the INS. Last year, the legislation passed the Senate first by unanimous consent as a stand alone bill (S. 1360) and second, as part of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Act mandated that an automated system be established to record the entry and exit of all aliens as a means to provide more information on individuals who ``over stay'' their visas. However, this well-intentioned government program, if implemented, would be quite disastrous. Today, when INS or Customs officials inspect people at land borders, they examine papers as necessary and make quick determinations, using their discretion on when to inspect further or solicit more information. If every single passenger of every single vehicle was required to provide potentially voluminous information and be entered into a computer--even assuming an incredibly quick 30 seconds per individual--the traffic delays would exceed 20 hours in numerous jurisdictions at both the northern and southern borders. This would create a human, economic, and even environmental nightmare in both directions. Last year, Congress delayed implementation of this program until March 30, 2001. But after that date, the crisis will begin. In 1996, the House version of the omnibus immigration bill contained a measure simply to establish pilot projects to collect entry and departure records at fewer than a handful of airports. The Senate bill contained a general provision to require an automated entry-exit system--but also only at airports. Then, in conference, without any debate, a mandatory entry-exit system to capture the records of ``every alien'' was added. Representative Smith and Senator Simpson, to their credit, conceded in a letter to the Canadian Ambassador that it was not the intent of the 1996 Act to cover, for example, Canadians at the northern border. However, because of the term ``every alien,'' the INS has interpreted the law to require this program to be implemented at all land borders, in addition to air and sea ports of entry. To the credit of the INS, it concedes that it cannot implement such a system and the agency questions what it will do if it is forced to do so. The Congress itself never considered such a system. That the legislative proposal was changed fundamentally in conference is clear. As Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin Hatch has stated, ``I think that we have all come to realize that section 110 of the 1996 Act [was] inserted in conference with little or no record, [and] no consideration or debate. It was well intended, there is no question, but I think poorly constructed.'' I would like to thank Senators Kennedy, Grams, Leahy, Burns, McCain, Gorton, Craig, Murkowski, Murray, Jeffords, Snowe, Smith of Oregon, Dorgan, Levin, Moynihan, Schumer, Mack, Durbin, and Hagel for cosponsoring this amendment and for their support along the way on this battle to prevent the major disruptions that Section 110 would cause to our economy and our international relations. I would particularly like to express my appreciation for the leadership on this amendment displayed by Senator Grams and his staff, who are trying to save jobs for the people of Minnesota that would be lost if this automated entry- exit system came into effect at the northern border. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act on behalf of myself, Senator Torricelli, Senator Hatch, and Senator McCain. This legislation will combat a new form of high-tech fraud that is causing confusion and inconvenience for consumers, increasing costs for people doing business on the internet, and posing an enormous threat to a century of pre- Internet American business efforts. The fraud is commonly called ``cybersquatting,'' a practice whereby individuals reserve internet domain names or other identifiers of online locations that are similar or identical to trademarked names. The easiest prey for cybersquatters has turned out to be computer-unsavvy trademark-owners in the non- internet world. Once a ``brick and mortar'' trademark is registered as an on-line identifier or domain name, the ``cybersquatter'' can engage in a variety of nefarious activities--from the relatively-benign parody of a business or individual, to the obscene prank of redirecting an unsuspecting consumer to pornographic content, to the destructive worldwide slander of a centuries-old brand name. For the enterprising cybersquatter, holding out a domain name for extortionate compensation is a tried-and-true business practice, and the net effect of this behavior is to undermine consumer confidence, discourage consumer use of the internet, and destroy the value of brand-names and trademarks of this nation's businesses. Many companies simply pay extortionate prices to cybersquatters in order to rid themselves of a headache with no certain outcome. For example, Gateway recently paid $100,000 to a cybersquatter who had placed pornographic images to the website ``www.gateway20000''. Rather than simply give up, several companies already have instead sought protection from cybersquatters through the legal system. For example, the investment firm Paine Webber was forced to sue an internet Web site, wwwpainewebber.com'' and its creator. The domain name at issue took advantage of a typographical error--the missing ``.'' (dot) between ``www'' and ``painewebber''--in order to direct consumers desiring to do business with Paine Webber to a website containing pornographic images. As with much of the pre-internet law that is applied to this post-internet world, precedent is still developing, and at this point, one cannot predict with certainty which party to a dispute will win, and on what grounds, in the future. Mr. President, some Americans continue to do a thriving, if unethical, business collecting and selling internet addresses containing trademarked names. Whether perpetrated to defraud the public or to extort the trademark owner, squatting on internet addresses using trademarked names is wrong. It must be stopped for the sake of consumers, for the sake of trademark owners and for the sake of the vast, growing electronic commerce that is doing so much to spur economic growth and innovation in this country. Mr. President, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act will help to establish uniform rules for dealing with this attack on interstate commerce. This legislation would establish penalties for criminal use of a counterfeit trademark as a domain name. Using a company's trademark or its variant as the address of an internet site would constitute criminal use of a counterfeit trademark if the defendant registered the address either knowingly and fraudulently or in bad faith. Among the evidence establishing bad faith would be registry of a domain name with (1) intent to cause confusion or mistake or deception, to dilute the distinctive quality of a famous trademark, or intent to divert consumers from the trademark owner's domain to one's own; and (2) providing false information on the application to register the identifier, or offering to transfer the registration to a rightful owner for consideration for any thing of value. Bad faith could not be shown where the identifier is the defendant's legal first name or surname or where the defendant used the identifier in legitimate commerce before the earlier of either the first use of the registered trademark or the effective date of its registration. Violation of this prohibition would constitute a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense; subsequent offenses would be classified as Class E felonies. In addition, Mr. President, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act provides for statutory civil damages in trademark cases of at least $1,000, but not more than $100,000 ($300,000 if the registration or use of the trademark was willful) per trademark per identifier. The plaintiff may elect these damages in lieu of actual damages or profits at any time before final judgment. These provisions will discourage anyone from ``squatting'' on addresses in cyberspace to which they are not entitled. In the process it will protect consumers from fraud, protect the value of countless trademarks, and encourage continued growth in our electronic commerce industry. Mr President, the growth of the Internet has provided businesses and individuals with unprecedented access to a worldwide source of information, commerce, and community. Unfortunately, those bad actors seeking to cause harm to businesses and individuals have seen their opportunities increase as well. In my opinion, on-line extortion in this form is unacceptable and outrageous. Whether it's people extorting companies by registering company names, misdirecting Internet users to inappropriate sites, or otherwise attempting to damage a trademark that a business has spent decades building into a recognizable brand, persons engaging in cybersquatting activity should be held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill, a section by section analysis and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act on behalf of myself, Senator Torricelli, Senator Hatch, and Senator McCain. This legislation will combat a new form of high-tech fraud that is causing confusion and inconvenience for consumers, increasing costs for people doing business on the internet, and posing an enormous threat to a century of pre- Internet American business efforts. The fraud is commonly called ``cybersquatting,'' a practice whereby individuals reserve internet domain names or other identifiers of online locations that are similar or identical to trademarked names. The easiest prey for cybersquatters has turned out to be computer-unsavvy trademark-owners in the non- internet world. Once a ``brick and mortar'' trademark is registered as an on-line identifier or domain name, the ``cybersquatter'' can engage in a variety of nefarious activities--from the relatively-benign parody of a business or individual, to the obscene prank of redirecting an unsuspecting consumer to pornographic content, to the destructive worldwide slander of a centuries-old brand name. For the enterprising cybersquatter, holding out a domain name for extortionate compensation is a tried-and-true business practice, and the net effect of this behavior is to undermine consumer confidence, discourage consumer use of the internet, and destroy the value of brand-names and trademarks of this nation's businesses. Many companies simply pay extortionate prices to cybersquatters in order to rid themselves of a headache with no certain outcome. For example, Gateway recently paid $100,000 to a cybersquatter who had placed pornographic images to the website ``www.gateway20000''. Rather than simply give up, several companies already have instead sought protection from cybersquatters through the legal system. For example, the investment firm Paine Webber was forced to sue an internet Web site, wwwpainewebber.com'' and its creator. The domain name at issue took advantage of a typographical error--the missing ``.'' (dot) between ``www'' and ``painewebber''--in order to direct consumers desiring to do business with Paine Webber to a website containing pornographic images. As with much of the pre-internet law that is applied to this post-internet world, precedent is still developing, and at this point, one cannot predict with certainty which party to a dispute will win, and on what grounds, in the future. Mr. President, some Americans continue to do a thriving, if unethical, business collecting and selling internet addresses containing trademarked names. Whether perpetrated to defraud the public or to extort the trademark owner, squatting on internet addresses using trademarked names is wrong. It must be stopped for the sake of consumers, for the sake of trademark owners and for the sake of the vast, growing electronic commerce that is doing so much to spur economic growth and innovation in this country. Mr. President, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act will help to establish uniform rules for dealing with this attack on interstate commerce. This legislation would establish penalties for criminal use of a counterfeit trademark as a domain name. Using a company's trademark or its variant as the address of an internet site would constitute criminal use of a counterfeit trademark if the defendant registered the address either knowingly and fraudulently or in bad faith. Among the evidence establishing bad faith would be registry of a domain name with (1) intent to cause confusion or mistake or deception, to dilute the distinctive quality of a famous trademark, or intent to divert consumers from the trademark owner's domain to one's own; and (2) providing false information on the application to register the identifier, or offering to transfer the registration to a rightful owner for consideration for any thing of value. Bad faith could not be shown where the identifier is the defendant's legal first name or surname or where the defendant used the identifier in legitimate commerce before the earlier of either the first use of the registered trademark or the effective date of its registration. Violation of this prohibition would constitute a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense; subsequent offenses would be classified as Class E felonies. In addition, Mr. President, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act provides for statutory civil damages in trademark cases of at least $1,000, but not more than $100,000 ($300,000 if the registration or use of the trademark was willful) per trademark per identifier. The plaintiff may elect these damages in lieu of actual damages or profits at any time before final judgment. These provisions will discourage anyone from ``squatting'' on addresses in cyberspace to which they are not entitled. In the process it will protect consumers from fraud, protect the value of countless trademarks, and encourage continued growth in our electronic commerce industry. Mr President, the growth of the Internet has provided businesses and individuals with unprecedented access to a worldwide source of information, commerce, and community. Unfortunately, those bad actors seeking to cause harm to businesses and individuals have seen their opportunities increase as well. In my opinion, on-line extortion in this form is unacceptable and outrageous. Whether it's people extorting companies by registering company names, misdirecting Internet users to inappropriate sites, or otherwise attempting to damage a trademark that a business has spent decades building into a recognizable brand, persons engaging in cybersquatting activity should be held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill, a section by section analysis and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge His Grace Nicholas, Sovereign Bishop of the Diocese of Detroit, who was elected to the Episcopate by the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople. Bishop Nicholas was born in Glen Falls, NY, in 1953 to Emmanuel and Caliope Pissare. He attended Colgate University and was awarded the prestigious Colgate War Memorial Scholarship. He then attended the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, graduating as the Valedictorian of the senior class in 1978 with a Master's Degree in Divinity. Bishop Nicholas was ordained as Deacon on July 6, 1991. Then he was ordained to the Priesthood by Bishop Maximos where he was elevated to the rank of Archmandrite on the same day, based on his years of service to the church. He served as Diocese Chancellor of Pittsburgh from 1991 until 1995 and then Chancellor of the Diocese of Detroit from 1996 to 1997. His Grace Bishop Nicholas of Detroit was elected to the Episcopate by the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople and has been ordained in the Holy Cross Church of Brooklyn, New York. As of April 18, 1999 Bishop Nicholas began his Apostolic work in the Diocese. Bishop Nicholas continued dedication to our community has had an immeasurable effect on the young and old alike. He truly is a role model of determination and spiritual leadership. I extend Bishop Nicholas the best of luck for his future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Will the Chair tell us how much time remains?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from New Mexico.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Honorable Ulysses Whittaker Boykin on his appointment as a new judge of the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan. On Friday, June 18 he will be invested and begin his official duties. Judge Boykin is very deserving of this appointment. Throughout his career, he has maintained the strongest of commitments to the highest legal standards. From his early days as an associate attorney in some of Michigan's finest law firms to his most recent position as a Partner and Shareholder in the firm of Lewis, White & Clay, Judge Boykin has always distinguished himself and received recognition by his peers for his excellent knowledge of the law and his legal ability. Additionally, Judge Boykin is very involved with his community. From his role with the Detroit Civil Service Commission to his work in mentoring high school and college students, his involvement in these activities and so many more have well prepared him for this appointment. It gives me great pleasure to welcome Judge Boykin to the bench. His reputation as being fair-minded precedes him, and I am confident the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court and the State of Michigan will benefit from his tenure.