Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mr. Franco Iaderosa who has been named the Italian American of the Year by the Italian Study Group of Troy. The annual recognition is presented to those who make significant contributions in promoting and maintaining the importance of the Italian culture. Franco Iaderosa has dedicated himself to many years of service to the rich heritage of the Italian-American community in Michigan through his outstanding leadership as Education Director of the N.O.I. Foundation which promotes the Italian Language curriculum in both public and private Detroit schools. It is through Franco's commitment to the education of our children that Italian history, culture and traditions can be preserved and enhanced in our communities. I am proud to say that Michigan is home to one of the most vibrant Italian communities in the United States. They have brought countless contributions to the Great Lakes State. Our Italian community in Michigan has played an important role in enhancing the Italian culture, identity and pride of Italian-Americans, by teaching the importance of family, church, and local community. I want to express my congratulations to Franco Iaderosa for his years of dedication in keeping those traditions alive. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mr. John Floreno who has been named the Italian American of the Year by the Italian Study Group of Troy. The annual recognition is presented to those who make significant contributions in promoting and maintaining the importance of the Italian culture. John Floreno dedicated himself for over 20 years to the Italian American Cultural Society in Warren, Michigan, in many ways, including raising funds to build the cultural center, arranging for the purchase of the center's property, and providing for significant repair costs for the center. Over the years, John has been recognized through many distinguished awards for his dedication to the Italian heritage. It was through John's leadership that the construction of the center went forward. The Center is a central location where the community can gather to teach and preserve the Italian culture for future generations. I am proud to say that Michigan is home to one of the most vibrant Italian communities in the United States. They have brought countless contributions to the Great Lakes State. Our Italian community in Michigan has played an important role in enhancing the Italian culture, identity and pride of Italian-Americans, by teaching the importance of family, church and local community. I want to express my congratulations to John Floreno for his years of dedication in keeping those traditions alive. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of Teacher Appreciation Week. During this week we have a special opportunity to thank the dedicated professionals who open our children's eyes to the world of discovery and learning, the world that will open the door to a brighter future for them and for all of Michigan. Five days a week, for nine months out of every year, America's 2.7 million teachers help to mold our children's future, the future of Michigan, and the future of America. Across Michigan and across the United States, tomorrow's business leaders, inventors, doctors, and even teachers are building the foundation of learning and experience that will shape their lives and careers. This week, Mr. President, Michiganites like all Americans are taking time to pay tribute to our teachers, some of the most important people in our children's lives. After parents and families, teachers pay the most important role in helping our children reach their potential. No teacher can take the place of loving and attentive families, but the school experience plays a crucial role in shaping our children's character. After the tragic events in Colorado, I hope all of us will take the time to think about the difficult job our teachers have, in these troubled times, giving children the structure and habits as well as the knowledge they need to become good citizens and productive adults. I have always supported calls for better computer technology in our classrooms. And it is true that our children need to learn to use tools that will expand their access to information. But a qualified, highly trained teacher remains the most important education tool in any classroom. Today's technological innovations can help teachers capture our children's attention and bring the world to their eyes and fingertips. But no machine can take the place of a dedicated teacher who genuinely cares about a child's future. With the rapid advance of education technology, we must ensure that our teachers are trained in the most effective educational use of this technology, and that none of us are distracted from the basics of a good education by glittering machines. Unfortunately, Mr. President, there are disturbing statistics about how well our teachers are prepared to enter the classroom. More than 25 percent of new teachers nationwide enter school without adequate teaching skills or without training in their subject according to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. One in seven teachers has not fully met State standards. We must do more to ensure that our teachers are fully prepared to meet the increasing challenges of their profession. We must take advantage of every opportunity to provide today's teachers with access to proven training programs while simultaneously recruiting and training qualified and dedicated young people to become tomorrow's great educators. Most importantly, Mr. President, we must applaud and show our appreciation to the teachers who go that extra mile for our kids, capturing their attention, helping them gain the knowledge and skills they need, and providing examples of dedication and skill that should inspire us all.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise this morning to recognize the contribution of charter schools to the education of our nation's children. Today, on Charter Schools Day, we celebrate the hard labor and accomplishments of charter school teachers, parents, and students. In 1993, Michigan became the ninth state to grant citizens the freedom to establish charter schools. Many public school educators had found that the complex labyrinth of federal and state regulations prevented them from providing their students the best education possible. The Michigan State Legislature passed charter school legislation to provide regulatory relief for educators, ensure school accountability, and encourage educators to innovate. The following year, Congress established the public Charter Schools program which authorized $15 million for the Department of Education to support the development, initial implementation, and evaluation of charter schools. During the 105th Congress, I voted for the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998 which increased federal charter school funding to $100 million. Mr. President, charter schools are integral to our nation's education system because they empower citizens to develop schools which meet the needs of their local communities. One fine example of charter school innovation may be found in Michigan's Saginaw County. Four year ago, the Saginaw County Intermediate School District opened their Transitional Academy. This school was designed to educate juvenile offenders and provide them with an individualized education that would allow them to return to their regular schools and graduate with their classmates. Today, I am pleased to report that the Saginaw County Transitional Academy has not only graduated a majority of their students, but that these students have remained crime free. Charter schools are also successful because they empower parents to send their children to the public school of their choice. Last year, Michigan parents sent 30,000 children to charter schools, an increase from 21,000 in 1997. Throughout the nation, charter school organizations report that most, if not all, schools have large waiting lists. These lists symbolize the healthy competition that charter schools have created within the public school system. However, a charter school's primary mission is to educate its students. Standardized testing has revealed that a charter school education has a dramatic impact on its students. All public schools in Michigan, including charter schools, administer the Michigan Education Assessment Program test. Between 1997 and 1998, Michigan charter schools exam results kept pace or surpassed those of traditional public schools. In fact, half of all charter schools in 1998 doubled or tripled the number of students receiving satisfactory scores in one or more subjects. These results indicate that charter schools are truly improving education. In closing, I wish to honor charter school students, who work day after day to develop their skills and gifts. These students are the future of our nation and contribute to the vibrant life found throughout the countryside and cities of America. I applaud them for their efforts and congratulate them on this important day, Charter Schools Day.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is left on our side.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, might I just ask, is the 30 minutes of debate to be equally divided?

Mr. ABRAHAM. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, wants to be the final speaker on our side for approximately 5 minutes, and Senator Lautenberg, who is the ranking member of the committee, wants to have approximately 5 minutes before that. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask, in our desire to protect the time on our side, that the time be assessed against Senator Lautenberg's time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In that case, Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes at this point.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, just to remind our colleagues, as well as those who watch our deliberations, what we are trying to do with this amendment is to amend the budget process in such a fashion that we protect the surpluses that will be built up over the next 10 years in the Social Security trust fund. We have now entered an era in which we project very substantial surpluses coming into the Federal Government, not just as a result of Social Security trust fund payments but also in the rest of the budget as well. We do not need to use Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. We are at the point now where we can accomplish that without any Social Security money being used. That, combined with the fact we are facing a huge long-term unfunded obligation problem in the Social Security trust fund, in my judgment, absolutely requires us at this time to protect those Social Security trust fund dollars so they can be used to modernize Social Security. The purpose of this amendment is to try to accomplish that. In short, this amendment says that until we come up with a plan to modernize Social Security, the Social Security trust fund surpluses should be used to pay down the publicly held debt. I do not think this is a very complicated proposal. I think it is one that people on both sides of the aisle were applauding just a few months ago when it was talked about by the President in the State of the Union Address, and yet now we hear one after another argument as to why we should not do this. The arguments range from those of some colleagues who say, well, let's just take all the Social Security trust fund surplus and, instead of paying down the national debt, put it in Fort Knox or some other place where it is secure--I can't quite even figure out how that one would work--to others who say this is not the right kind of lockbox; instead of just protecting the Social Security trust fund surplus, we should also save money for fixing Medicare. Well, their argument seems to be that if we don't somehow address Medicare simultaneously, we should spend the Social Security trust fund surplus. That one I can't figure out, either. Then we have heard, from the Secretary of Treasury, various concerns raised about the process by which this amendment would work. We have offered to try to address those concerns. We attempt to do that. We address that in this amendment, responding to his initial letter. Then we heard additional concerns in a second letter. Yet, we have heard no proposal from either the White House or the Treasury as to how to put together a lockbox that would satisfy them. Based on the vote last week, and what I expect to be the vote today, I think we are hearing an awful lot of protests, but I am increasingly questioning whether or not people are really sincere about truly trying to save this trust fund surplus. So for those reasons we are going to keep pushing this issue. We are going to keep bringing this back to the floor. We believe the money people send in for Social Security which creates a surplus ought to be saved to either modernize Social Security or used to pay down the debt and not spent on more programs here in Washington. The people pay in the money. They deserve to have it for their own retirement. We are going to keep working very hard to make sure they do. At this point, Mr. President, I will yield back any remaining time I had in this first 5 minutes, and now for 5 minutes I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, although I had asked yesterday that the full text of my bill, S. 922, the Made in USA Label Defense Act, be printed in the Congressional Record along with my introductory statement, a different bill was printed and erroneously labelled S. 922. Mr. President, to eliminate any confusion, I ask that the actual text of my bill, S. 922, the Made in USA Label Defense Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to His Highness Shaikh Essa Bin Salman Al-Khalifa, the late Amir of the State of Bahrain. The people of Bahrain recently commemorated the 40th day of mourning for their great leader who passed away on the 6th of March. Shaikh Essa was known for his kindness and compassion and will be dearly missed by both the people of Bahrain and his friends around the world. Shaikh Essa was a visionary leader who helped transform the Bahraini economy from an oil-based economy to an economy of trade, investment, banking, and service. These improvements led to Bahrain achieving one of the highest standards of living among the Arab countries. Under Shaikh Essa, Bahrain strengthened its relationship with the West. In 1903, Mason Memorial, the first American hospital in the region, was established. It has since become a landmark. In 1932, when Bahrain became the first country in the southern Gulf region to discover oil, American expertise backed the exploration. This year Bahrain is celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the strong friendship it has with the United States and our Navy. The Bahrani Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Mohammad Abdul Ghaffar Abdulla, continues to do a wonderful job in keeping this strong friendship alive. My condolences go out to the people of Bahrain and Shaikh Essa's family. I wish to extend my warmest regards to His Highness Shaikh Hamad Bin Essa Al-Khalifa, who has succeeded his father as the new Amir of Bahrain. I am certain he will follow his father's path and continue to keep allied relations between Bahrain and the United States. Mr. President, I ask that the Amir's tribute to his father be printed in the Record. The tribute follows. Speech of His Highness Shaikh Hamad Bin Essa Al-Khalifa, Amir of the State of Bahrain In The Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Our Dear People, Peace, And God Blessings Be Upon You God most high said ``among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with God, of them some have completed their vow, and some still wait, but they have never changed their determination in the least.'' Trust said God almighty. At this historical circumstances, we share with you the great tragic of the sad demise and great loss of our father, the leader. At the same time we are all united with prospect of confidence to shoulder the responsibility of continuing the pursuance of the path and the course he laid down through his sagacity, devotion and tolerance. In line with this, we need to meet the demands and changes of the future, in a world rift with volatility, by means of Bahrain's potentialities comprising the ability to develop and revitalize since the start of process of modern progress and development. For that, Bahrain has been leading the drive among brotherly states and closely working with them in this vital region, of the Arab nation and the whole world. The Respected Citizens, with the loss of our father, late Shaikh Essa Bin Salman Al-Khalifa, we have lost an Amir who was a caring beloved leader, a close friend to every individual of his people and a great man whom the whole world loved and respected. His human legacy shall remain the guide of this nation and over next generations, reflecting the true image of Bahrain in devotion, tolerance and civilization. Prevailed by this great tragic loss, and satisfied by the creed of God almighty, we pray that his mercy and blessing bestow our beloved who granted his country, people and nation all the goodness of action which shall remain the guide we follow in the nation and which will be preserved as a path we pursue enabling us to shoulder and assume the tremendous responsibility, we all are charged with for the sake of the pride, prosperity of Bahrain and for the future of the generations. The great late beloved left for us a well-developed, flourished and secured nation and he turned Bahrain into an oasis of civilization, prosperity and a landmark of knowledge and progress in an Arabian Gulf and the pan Arab nation. We ought to carry the standard, should the responsibility and continue the drive to serve this nation which is characterized by good nature and manner of the people, and by the competence and the civilized standard of the sons of this country. Our dear people, Our great late man shall be recorded by history for his leading role, high status and great decency. From this rich testimony, having great respect for the great late father, and at this adieu position with a forward look towards future, we recall that Essa Bin Salman was for us and his people in Bahrain, the man of national independence, of the constitution and consultation and the man who accomplished the state of institutions, law and order. He was the man of development, pan-progress and national economy. He was the man of Gulf unity and Arab solidarity in most difficult situations and circumstances. He was the man of peace and international cooperation and genuine friendship among the peoples of the world. All these guiding features shall remain before us while we pursue national path, our Gulf unity and our Arab solidarity and in all domains of our regional approach with the neighbors and our global cooperation. We shall remain the solid course at various levels, with all of you in the drive of the national work, with the brothers in the Gulf and the Arab world and with every sincere friend of Bahrain, in this region and in the whole world. With the blessings of God almighty, we shall adhere to the track forged by the great late, we shall share love, brace and cooperation with all who seek goodness for Bahrain, inside and outside, and we shall protect and safeguard Bahrain against any harm through the determination and sacrifices. As we pay tribute to the great late man and accolade his achievements, we ought to applaud with gratitude and for the sake of truth and history, the leading role of his brother and his right hand our uncle His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Salman Al-Khalifa, the Prime Minister, who and since the beginning till the last minute, spared no effort in serving the nation, developing the country, leading the government through his deep vision, sagacity and hard work resulting in the fruits of wisdom, experience and well organized systems. He was and shall remain a source of richness and a source of vision and inspiration to face the tasks of national work and future challenges. Every thanks and appreciation are extended to His Highness for the honorable and leading stances he played for the sake of this nation and at all stages of development. We have the confidence that through gifted traits of deep perception and solid resolve, His Highness will continue the path of devotion we expect from him and from the generation of the fathers who accompanied him in quest for development and progress. On other respect, witnessing this historical turning point, we call on and urge the young generation of Bahrain to shoulder their responsibilities and prepare for their tasks, starting from our Crown Prince His Highness Shaikh Salman Bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, whom we wish every success in discharging his new constitutional mission. We take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the unanimity and the support we gained from the members of the ruling family, led by our uncle His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Salman Al-Khalifa and our uncle His Highness Shaikh Mohammed Bin Salman Al-Khalifa who commended his appointing as the Crown Prince in accordance with the constitution. Our dear people, It would be necessary to express to all of you every gratitude over the cohesion and sincere loyalty you have demonstrated at this historical situation, representing your sustained allegiance which reflects true unity between the people and their leadership in this cherished country. I would like to say it clearly that as a son of Essa and as an adherent to the duty, I shall raise the standard of his path which does not differentiate between the people of the single nation, regardless of their beliefs and origin, and which only consider the honesty of national association, and which consider the true citizenship which seeks every goodness for Bahrain and her people. On the Gulf, Arab and Islamic domains, we are pleased to express, on your behalf, the deep appreciation for the sentiments of heartfelt condolences and over the stances of sincere support we received from all brothers, leaders and people in the Gulf and Arab states, affirming the reality of unity which binds us all and to whom our late great leader was one of its prominent figures. We are also in the position to convey appreciation and thanks to the Islamic countries which embraced us with truly sincere feelings, and to all friendly states of the world with whom we share the keenness for a stable, secure and prosperous international community. To conclude, witnessing this historical point, and as we consider our assessment of all the institutions, the Consultative Council and various bodies of Bahrain national community for their constructive contribution, we have the pleasure to extend a message of applaud to those who safeguarded the soil of this nation and protected the achievements, and to express, on your behalf, every encouragement and support to the personnel of Bahrain Defense Force, who are shouldering the tremendous responsibilities in protecting the country, safeguarding its territories and securing the security and tranquility of citizens and residents. This is achieved by means of joining forces with exerted efforts of security forces, police and the national guard. At this moment, we recall the saying of our great late leader who addressed the personnel of Bahrain Defense Force and said ``our solid belief of Bahrain Defense Force is an integral part of the forces of Gulf Cooperation Council providing with further confidence and determination to achieve the security and stability of our region. You have presented a true example in accomplishing the mission of honor and duty.'' Such belief will remain our solid conviction at all times and circumstances. Our dear people, We pledge to remain with you at every step and stage of our national work, for we are strong through the support of God almighty and your backing. Cohesion and unity will continue to exist between us for the sake of Bahrain image and pride and for the sake of her prosperity. We shall present before you our views and perspective on the future of the national action, and it would be our concern to perceive your expectations and aspirations for the goodness of Bahrain based on the formula of cohesion between the leadership and the citizen. We are greatly confident that our Bahraini civilized society is blessed with many potentials of real progress upon which we can build in the path of political, administrative and economic development. Such path we highly believe in and consider it as a source of richness for our traditions of consultation, and as a pattern for governmental development and for accomplishing the comprehensive progress and diversifying of the national economy in the interest of the people of this nation and every piece of this soil. Finally, we have but to pray for God almighty to bestow our great loss and our leader with the mercy and rest him unto the heaven. We are consoled by the fact that we shall remain adherent to his spirit and keep his path, to protect the soil of this nation, by every means of determination, dedication and resolve. And say work righteousness, soon will God observe your work and his Apostle and the believers. Peace and God's blessings be upon you.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCain and Senator Lott to introduce legislation designed to modernize the manner in which registered securities broker-dealers, transfer agents, and investment advisers serve millions of American investors every day. Only a few years ago, a few pioneering brokerage firms, utilizing the vast potential of the Internet, began to revolutionize the securities industry by offering individual investors the opportunity to buy and sell stocks online. Because of the lower costs of electronic transactions, investors have found they can place trades online at a mere fraction of the price they were paying for services at traditional brokerage firms. They have also found that online brokerage firms offer them access to a wide array of information, investing assistance, and research that previously was available only to institutional investors. Almost overnight, many investors have demonstrated their preference for the savings and the empowerment that online brokerage services give them. For example, today Charles Schwab, which has been at the forefront of offering electronic services, reports that it has approximately 2.5 million active online accounts and that more than 50 percent of its custoemr trades are placed online. Since Schwab offers its customers multiple channels of access to its trading services, the fact that more than half of its customer trades are placed online is a dramatic illustration of the investing public's enthusiasm for and acceptance of online services. The dramatic emergence of online-only brokerage firms, such as E*Trade, Discover and Ameritrade, and the continued migration of traditional brokerage firms to the Web is further evidence of this. Soon, millions of securities transactions will be conducted electronically every day. Unfortunately, the full potential of online investing has been impeded because of antiquated laws that do not yet take account of electronic commerce. These laws act as barriers to the efficiencies and investor empowerment opportunities that the online brokerage industry offers. Now, once again, it is time for the government to catch up to the market developments spurred by the technology sector. It is time for the government to remove impediments to online investing. Today, when a person wishes to become a customer of an online broker, he can visit the web-sites of various brokerage firms to compare the value and services those firms offer. He may even provide some information about himself and the type of account he wishes to establish. However, because of traditional principles of contract law and certain recordkeeping requirements, an investor cannot open the account online with any legal certainty. Instead, he must print the application and physically sign and send it by regular mail. The technology gap demonstrated here must be bridged. Investors who, once their accounts are opened, may access investment tools and research and quickly submit trade orders online, should not have to wait days or perhaps even weeks to complete the process for opening an account. This system can and should be changed. Continuing to require pen-and-ink signatures on account applications and other documents, when secure electronic signature technology exists, imposes unnecessary costs and inefficiencies on brokerage firms and customers alike. Similar costs and inefficiencies have been recognized and removed in other areas of securities regulation, such as recordkeeping and document delivery. Today, brokerage firms can store documents in electronic rather than paper format and are allowed to deliver many documents, such as prospectuses, to customers electronically. There is no reason why the advantages of technology cannot and should not be extended to documents that require a signature. The legislation my colleagues and I introduce today would do just that by facilitating and enabling the use of electronic signatures by registered broker-dealers and others in the securities industry in their business dealings with customers and other transactional parties. The legislation would make clear that individuals can open a brokerage account and conduct business with a brokerage firm using an electronic signature as proof of identification and intent. It would also give both brokerage firms and their customers the assurance that they can rely on electronic signatures in their business dealings and that the validity of those dealings will not be challenged merely because a pen- and-ink signature was not used. At this point I think it is important to stress to my colleagues that the online brokerage industry is different from the day-trading industry, which has received a lot of negative attention in the past year. Day-trading firms offer a specialized service that enables their customers to enter orders and trade directly with the market. And while I am sure that most of these businesses are legitimate and sound, in recent months reports of abusive or questionable practices have emerged in relation to this type of trading. Anecdotal accounts tell of investors losing many times the amount of money they originally brought to the market. The online investing services provided by brokerage firms are quite different from the services provided by day-trading firms. For example, brokerage firms such as Charles Schwab, E*Trade, DLJ Direct, Discover, among others, set strict limits on the extent to which investors are permitted access to margin and option accounts. These firms empower their customers and are not the problem, and it is important that my colleagues and the public understand the differences. It is that simple. Frankly, I am surprised that the SEC does not require the use of electronic signatures, because unless a physical signature is witnessed, electronic signatures are a far more reliable means of guaranteeing a person is who they say they are. Electronic signatures may result from a variety of technological means that allow users to confirm the authenticity of an electronic documents author, location or content. These technologies are designed to allow contracts to be reviewed and agreed to electronically, to permit individuals and businesses to safely purchase goods online, and to enable government agencies to verify the authenticity of information submitted to them. It is a natural fit for transactions between online brokerage firms and investors. Despite the changes being made in the investor-brokerage relationship, we recognize that the Securities and Exchange Commission must retain full regulatory authority in this industry. This legislation therefore authorizes the SEC to provide guidance on the use of electronic signatures by broker-dealers and others in the securities industry. The SECs active involvement in the move from physical to electronic signatures is important. If the change is to be orderly, the Commission must be familiar with the various types of electronic signatures available. The Commission, as the expert regulator of the securities industry, may determine that some forms of signature are superior to others for certain types of records. Mr. President, the securities industry is experiencing explosive growth in electronic transactions, and this bill's response is necessary and appropriate. The industry and the investors who utilize this medium need the efficiencies and certainty this bill would provide. I believe that the more efficient transaction procedures that will result from the bill will translate into cost savings for customers and industry alike. And that should be the ultimate purpose of any securities legislation relating to electronic commerce. Again, I would like to thank Senator McCain and the majority leader for joining me in introducing this legislation. I hope the Senate Banking Committee can move on this legislation in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed into the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my distinguished colleague Senator Hollings in introducing legislation to defend the truth and the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label. This is the second time, Mr. President, that the Senator from South Carolina and I have worked together to defend the ``Made in USA'' label. Last Congress, when the Federal Trade Commission proposed to dilute the meaning of the ``Made in USA'' label by allowing that label on products with substantial foreign content, Senator Hollings and I introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing this plan. Our resolution urged the FTC to restore the traditional and honest standard for the use of the ``Made in USA'' label. That standard, which has been in existence for more than 50 years, is that products must be ``all or virtually all'' made in the U.S.A. in order to earn the label ``Made in USA.'' Mr. President, there was an overwhelming outpouring of grassroots support from the American people for this straightforward and honest standard and for our Resolution. In just a few months, a total of 256 Members of Congress, including the Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. Senate, joined us as cosponsors of our Senate Resolution and its companion bill in the House. We were extremely pleased to see the FTC reverse its decision to dilute the ``Made in USA'' label and return to the traditional and time-tested standard for the use of the label. Frankly, this is the only standard that makes sense to the American consumers. If it says ``Made in USA'' the U.S. consumer has a right to expect that the entire product and all of its components was made by U.S. citizens. This standard is honest. It is clear. It provides value for all those who look for the label and for those who have earned the use of it. But in order to retain that value, the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label must be defended. We cannot and will not permit the ``Made in USA'' label to be used misleadingly. It belongs to those American businesses and workers who follow the rules, pay the taxes, and work hard--often against the odds presented by unfair foreign competition-- to continue to manufacture products here in America. These workers are correct to insist that Congress protect this cherished symbol of American pride and workmanship from abuse and misuse. That is why Senator Hollings and I recently informed our colleagues of our intention to introduce ``The `Made in USA' Label Defense Act of 1999.'' This legislation is necessary to close loopholes that currently allow the ``Made in USA'' label to be misused. These loopholes must be closed to prevent the inappropriate and misleading use of this label at the expense of American consumers, taxpayers, and U.S. workers. The particular misuse of the ``Made in USA'' label which we seek to address involves a U.S. territory, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or as it is sometimes referred to, Saipan. To understand how this situation arose, some history is in order. Saipan was the site of an important battle in World War II which cost America 15,000 casualties. Following the end of the war, it was administered by the U.S. on behalf of the United Nations as a district of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986. In 1986, Saipan came under U.S. sovereignty pursuant to a Covenant that was approved by popular vote in Saipan and by the U.S. Congress (Public Law 94-241.) At that point, Saipan, now known as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI, became an insular possession of the United States. CNMI negotiators for this Covenant sought an exemption from U.S. immigration laws. This exemption was granted, but it came with a clear warning from the Reagan Administration: the exemption was not to be used to bring in a permanent alien labor force in order to evade duties and quotas on Asian textile products and to provide unfair competition to domestic textile industry. The duty free and quota free treatment provided to Headnote 3(a) industries such as textiles was to benefit local U.S. citizens living and working in the CNMI. In a letter to the Governor of the CNMI in May of 1986, the year in which the Covenant was adopted, the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs of Interior Department in the Reagan Administration, Richard R. Montoya, issued the following clear warnings to the Government of the CNMI: The recent news reports on the tremendous growth in alien labor in the Northern Mariana Islands are extremely disturbing. . . . I would be remiss if I did not speak frankly to you on the possible consequences of the NMI's alien labor policy. As I have often stated, the intent of the Congress in providing the privilege of Headnote 3(a) to the territories is to benefit local and not alien job and business growth. The extensive and permanent use of alien labor in Headnote 3(a) industries is an abuse which cannot be tolerated by the [Reagan] Administration. The objectives of the recently negotiated Covenant financial agreement could be derailed as the wholesale transfer of U.S. tax, trade and social benefits to non-U.S. citizens occurs under the CNMI's alien labor promotion policies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of this letter, dated May 7, 1986, from then-Assistant Secretary Richard Montoya to the then-Governor of the CNMI, Pedro Tenorio, at this point in my remarks. At the time of the concerns raised in this letter, the total number of aliens in the CNMI was a mere 6,600 people. Today, the number of alien workers in the textile industry alone greatly exceeds this number. The number of non-U.S. citizens in the CNMI now tops 35,000, and actually exceeds the number of U.S. citizens in the territory. In fact, 91 percent of the entire private sector workforce is composed of alien labor. Even more alarming, Mr. President, we are now told by U.S. Government officials and news media investigations that the People's Republic of China itself may actually be involved in running some of these garment factories in Saipan. According to the February 8, 1998 Philadelphia Inquirer: ``One of the biggest island factories is Marianas Garment Manufacturing, Inc.--indirectly owned by the China National Textiles Import and Export Corp. (Chinatech), a behemoth that handles $1.2 billion in Chinese textile exports to the world, much of it to the United States.'' If this is true, then companies owned by the communist Chinese government have succeeded in deceiving U.S. consumers and evading U.S. trade laws. Clearly, this is a situation that demands the immediate attention of and a firm response by both parties in the Congress. But what concerns Senator Hollings and myself and what directly prompted us to introduce this legislation is the direct effect of the CNMI situation on American consumers. First, American consumers are deceived by the fact that, due to a loophole in U.S. law, the more than $1 billion worth of textile products that are now shipped each year from the CNMI to the U.S. can be legally labeled as ``Made in USA''--even though they are made with nearly all foreign labor and foreign materials. This deceives American consumers, who have a right to expect that products labeled as ``Made in USA'' are made by U.S. workers with U.S. materials. Second, American taxpayers are harmed because these foreign goods are allowed to be imported into the U.S. duty-free--as if they were made by U.S. workers. As the CNMI was so clearly warned by the Reagan Administration, duty free treatment for textiles from the insular possessions was designed to help local U.S. citizens in these territories. This abuse of our duty-Free laws is costing American taxpayers an estimated $200 million annually. This $200 million could be used to fund a tax cut to the American people or could be used to reduce other duties. Mr. President, let me say that I am a strong believer in free trade. I believe the U.S. and the whole world benefits form the unfettered movement of goods and services. But the fact that foreign garment exports to the U.S are laundered in Saipan to escape duties and quotas has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with a form of subterfuge. We cannot allow those nations whose imports are subject to lawful duties and quotas to evade these laws at the expense of American taxpayers. Third, American workers also are being harmed by this situation because the $200 million which these foreign imports escape paying to the U.S. Treasury acts as a subsidy for these misleadingly labeled products. Mr. President, in order to address these concerns, I am proud to join today with my colleague from South Carolina in introducing a tightly crafted and narrowly drawn piece of legislation that will address these concerns. Our bill is designed to protect Americans from the deleterious effects of the current situation by closing what we believe our colleagues will agree are two indefensible loopholes in current law: (1) The loophole that allows these factories in the CNMI to use the ``Made in USA'' label on their products or in any way imply that they were produced or assembled in the United States. (2) The loophole that allows foreign exports from the CNMI to masquerade as U.S.-made products for duty and quota purposes. Further, I will work to ensure that the estimated $200 million derived from eliminating the duty-free treatment of these products is rebated to the American taxpayer through tax cuts or tariff reductions. If in the future the CNMI feels that the domestic content of its products has increased to the extent that a use of the ``Made in USA'' label on these products would no longer be deceptive to the consumer, then it can petition Congress for a change in the covenant. Given its history of ignoring warnings from both Republican and Democratic Administrations on this matter, Senator Hollings and I believe that the burden should be on the CNMI to prove to Congress and the American people that products coming from the CNMI deserve to be labeled ``Made in USA.'' At the same time, Mr. President, we are currently engaged in the long and arduous process of bringing China into the World Trading Organization. I support China's admission into the WTO as long as they meet the same criteria which all member nations must meet and as long as they are truly dedicated to working to reduce and eliminate such trade barriers as quotas and tariffs. Our long-term objective must be to create a global trading regime where all nations conduct trade and commerce on a level playing field. However, until countries such as China demonstrate that they are prepared to adhere to such principles, we must continue to take certain steps to protect our own domestic industries and workers from the unfair trade practices utilized by some of our trading partners, such as those currently ongoing in the CNMI. This legislation is a bipartisan compromise measure that I hope avoids the political pitfalls of previous measures. Mindful of Members who wish not to interfere in the domestic laws of the CNMI, our bill merely takes those minimal steps necessary to defend the ``Made in USA'' label from misuse and to enforce U.S. trade laws for the benefit of the American taxpayer. It simply prevents the substantive equivalent of foreign textile products from evading U.S. trade laws. There will be those who argue that more is necessary, and this may be true. But Senator Hollings and I are committed to doing that which can be done on a bipartisan basis and achieved in this Congress. We urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my distinguished colleague Senator Hollings in introducing legislation to defend the truth and the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label. This is the second time, Mr. President, that the Senator from South Carolina and I have worked together to defend the ``Made in USA'' label. Last Congress, when the Federal Trade Commission proposed to dilute the meaning of the ``Made in USA'' label by allowing that label on products with substantial foreign content, Senator Hollings and I introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing this plan. Our resolution urged the FTC to restore the traditional and honest standard for the use of the ``Made in USA'' label. That standard, which has been in existence for more than 50 years, is that products must be ``all or virtually all'' made in the U.S.A. in order to earn the label ``Made in USA.'' Mr. President, there was an overwhelming outpouring of grassroots support from the American people for this straightforward and honest standard and for our Resolution. In just a few months, a total of 256 Members of Congress, including the Majority and Minority Leaders of the U.S. Senate, joined us as cosponsors of our Senate Resolution and its companion bill in the House. We were extremely pleased to see the FTC reverse its decision to dilute the ``Made in USA'' label and return to the traditional and time-tested standard for the use of the label. Frankly, this is the only standard that makes sense to the American consumers. If it says ``Made in USA'' the U.S. consumer has a right to expect that the entire product and all of its components was made by U.S. citizens. This standard is honest. It is clear. It provides value for all those who look for the label and for those who have earned the use of it. But in order to retain that value, the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label must be defended. We cannot and will not permit the ``Made in USA'' label to be used misleadingly. It belongs to those American businesses and workers who follow the rules, pay the taxes, and work hard--often against the odds presented by unfair foreign competition-- to continue to manufacture products here in America. These workers are correct to insist that Congress protect this cherished symbol of American pride and workmanship from abuse and misuse. That is why Senator Hollings and I recently informed our colleagues of our intention to introduce ``The `Made in USA' Label Defense Act of 1999.'' This legislation is necessary to close loopholes that currently allow the ``Made in USA'' label to be misused. These loopholes must be closed to prevent the inappropriate and misleading use of this label at the expense of American consumers, taxpayers, and U.S. workers. The particular misuse of the ``Made in USA'' label which we seek to address involves a U.S. territory, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or as it is sometimes referred to, Saipan. To understand how this situation arose, some history is in order. Saipan was the site of an important battle in World War II which cost America 15,000 casualties. Following the end of the war, it was administered by the U.S. on behalf of the United Nations as a district of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986. In 1986, Saipan came under U.S. sovereignty pursuant to a Covenant that was approved by popular vote in Saipan and by the U.S. Congress (Public Law 94-241.) At that point, Saipan, now known as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI, became an insular possession of the United States. CNMI negotiators for this Covenant sought an exemption from U.S. immigration laws. This exemption was granted, but it came with a clear warning from the Reagan Administration: the exemption was not to be used to bring in a permanent alien labor force in order to evade duties and quotas on Asian textile products and to provide unfair competition to domestic textile industry. The duty free and quota free treatment provided to Headnote 3(a) industries such as textiles was to benefit local U.S. citizens living and working in the CNMI. In a letter to the Governor of the CNMI in May of 1986, the year in which the Covenant was adopted, the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs of Interior Department in the Reagan Administration, Richard R. Montoya, issued the following clear warnings to the Government of the CNMI: The recent news reports on the tremendous growth in alien labor in the Northern Mariana Islands are extremely disturbing. . . . I would be remiss if I did not speak frankly to you on the possible consequences of the NMI's alien labor policy. As I have often stated, the intent of the Congress in providing the privilege of Headnote 3(a) to the territories is to benefit local and not alien job and business growth. The extensive and permanent use of alien labor in Headnote 3(a) industries is an abuse which cannot be tolerated by the [Reagan] Administration. The objectives of the recently negotiated Covenant financial agreement could be derailed as the wholesale transfer of U.S. tax, trade and social benefits to non-U.S. citizens occurs under the CNMI's alien labor promotion policies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of this letter, dated May 7, 1986, from then-Assistant Secretary Richard Montoya to the then-Governor of the CNMI, Pedro Tenorio, at this point in my remarks. At the time of the concerns raised in this letter, the total number of aliens in the CNMI was a mere 6,600 people. Today, the number of alien workers in the textile industry alone greatly exceeds this number. The number of non-U.S. citizens in the CNMI now tops 35,000, and actually exceeds the number of U.S. citizens in the territory. In fact, 91 percent of the entire private sector workforce is composed of alien labor. Even more alarming, Mr. President, we are now told by U.S. Government officials and news media investigations that the People's Republic of China itself may actually be involved in running some of these garment factories in Saipan. According to the February 8, 1998 Philadelphia Inquirer: ``One of the biggest island factories is Marianas Garment Manufacturing, Inc.--indirectly owned by the China National Textiles Import and Export Corp. (Chinatech), a behemoth that handles $1.2 billion in Chinese textile exports to the world, much of it to the United States.'' If this is true, then companies owned by the communist Chinese government have succeeded in deceiving U.S. consumers and evading U.S. trade laws. Clearly, this is a situation that demands the immediate attention of and a firm response by both parties in the Congress. But what concerns Senator Hollings and myself and what directly prompted us to introduce this legislation is the direct effect of the CNMI situation on American consumers. First, American consumers are deceived by the fact that, due to a loophole in U.S. law, the more than $1 billion worth of textile products that are now shipped each year from the CNMI to the U.S. can be legally labeled as ``Made in USA''--even though they are made with nearly all foreign labor and foreign materials. This deceives American consumers, who have a right to expect that products labeled as ``Made in USA'' are made by U.S. workers with U.S. materials. Second, American taxpayers are harmed because these foreign goods are allowed to be imported into the U.S. duty-free--as if they were made by U.S. workers. As the CNMI was so clearly warned by the Reagan Administration, duty free treatment for textiles from the insular possessions was designed to help local U.S. citizens in these territories. This abuse of our duty-Free laws is costing American taxpayers an estimated $200 million annually. This $200 million could be used to fund a tax cut to the American people or could be used to reduce other duties. Mr. President, let me say that I am a strong believer in free trade. I believe the U.S. and the whole world benefits form the unfettered movement of goods and services. But the fact that foreign garment exports to the U.S are laundered in Saipan to escape duties and quotas has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with a form of subterfuge. We cannot allow those nations whose imports are subject to lawful duties and quotas to evade these laws at the expense of American taxpayers. Third, American workers also are being harmed by this situation because the $200 million which these foreign imports escape paying to the U.S. Treasury acts as a subsidy for these misleadingly labeled products. Mr. President, in order to address these concerns, I am proud to join today with my colleague from South Carolina in introducing a tightly crafted and narrowly drawn piece of legislation that will address these concerns. Our bill is designed to protect Americans from the deleterious effects of the current situation by closing what we believe our colleagues will agree are two indefensible loopholes in current law: (1) The loophole that allows these factories in the CNMI to use the ``Made in USA'' label on their products or in any way imply that they were produced or assembled in the United States. (2) The loophole that allows foreign exports from the CNMI to masquerade as U.S.-made products for duty and quota purposes. Further, I will work to ensure that the estimated $200 million derived from eliminating the duty-free treatment of these products is rebated to the American taxpayer through tax cuts or tariff reductions. If in the future the CNMI feels that the domestic content of its products has increased to the extent that a use of the ``Made in USA'' label on these products would no longer be deceptive to the consumer, then it can petition Congress for a change in the covenant. Given its history of ignoring warnings from both Republican and Democratic Administrations on this matter, Senator Hollings and I believe that the burden should be on the CNMI to prove to Congress and the American people that products coming from the CNMI deserve to be labeled ``Made in USA.'' At the same time, Mr. President, we are currently engaged in the long and arduous process of bringing China into the World Trading Organization. I support China's admission into the WTO as long as they meet the same criteria which all member nations must meet and as long as they are truly dedicated to working to reduce and eliminate such trade barriers as quotas and tariffs. Our long-term objective must be to create a global trading regime where all nations conduct trade and commerce on a level playing field. However, until countries such as China demonstrate that they are prepared to adhere to such principles, we must continue to take certain steps to protect our own domestic industries and workers from the unfair trade practices utilized by some of our trading partners, such as those currently ongoing in the CNMI. This legislation is a bipartisan compromise measure that I hope avoids the political pitfalls of previous measures. Mindful of Members who wish not to interfere in the domestic laws of the CNMI, our bill merely takes those minimal steps necessary to defend the ``Made in USA'' label from misuse and to enforce U.S. trade laws for the benefit of the American taxpayer. It simply prevents the substantive equivalent of foreign textile products from evading U.S. trade laws. There will be those who argue that more is necessary, and this may be true. But Senator Hollings and I are committed to doing that which can be done on a bipartisan basis and achieved in this Congress. We urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCain and Senator Lott to introduce legislation designed to modernize the manner in which registered securities broker-dealers, transfer agents, and investment advisers serve millions of American investors every day. Only a few years ago, a few pioneering brokerage firms, utilizing the vast potential of the Internet, began to revolutionize the securities industry by offering individual investors the opportunity to buy and sell stocks online. Because of the lower costs of electronic transactions, investors have found they can place trades online at a mere fraction of the price they were paying for services at traditional brokerage firms. They have also found that online brokerage firms offer them access to a wide array of information, investing assistance, and research that previously was available only to institutional investors. Almost overnight, many investors have demonstrated their preference for the savings and the empowerment that online brokerage services give them. For example, today Charles Schwab, which has been at the forefront of offering electronic services, reports that it has approximately 2.5 million active online accounts and that more than 50 percent of its custoemr trades are placed online. Since Schwab offers its customers multiple channels of access to its trading services, the fact that more than half of its customer trades are placed online is a dramatic illustration of the investing public's enthusiasm for and acceptance of online services. The dramatic emergence of online-only brokerage firms, such as E*Trade, Discover and Ameritrade, and the continued migration of traditional brokerage firms to the Web is further evidence of this. Soon, millions of securities transactions will be conducted electronically every day. Unfortunately, the full potential of online investing has been impeded because of antiquated laws that do not yet take account of electronic commerce. These laws act as barriers to the efficiencies and investor empowerment opportunities that the online brokerage industry offers. Now, once again, it is time for the government to catch up to the market developments spurred by the technology sector. It is time for the government to remove impediments to online investing. Today, when a person wishes to become a customer of an online broker, he can visit the web-sites of various brokerage firms to compare the value and services those firms offer. He may even provide some information about himself and the type of account he wishes to establish. However, because of traditional principles of contract law and certain recordkeeping requirements, an investor cannot open the account online with any legal certainty. Instead, he must print the application and physically sign and send it by regular mail. The technology gap demonstrated here must be bridged. Investors who, once their accounts are opened, may access investment tools and research and quickly submit trade orders online, should not have to wait days or perhaps even weeks to complete the process for opening an account. This system can and should be changed. Continuing to require pen-and-ink signatures on account applications and other documents, when secure electronic signature technology exists, imposes unnecessary costs and inefficiencies on brokerage firms and customers alike. Similar costs and inefficiencies have been recognized and removed in other areas of securities regulation, such as recordkeeping and document delivery. Today, brokerage firms can store documents in electronic rather than paper format and are allowed to deliver many documents, such as prospectuses, to customers electronically. There is no reason why the advantages of technology cannot and should not be extended to documents that require a signature. The legislation my colleagues and I introduce today would do just that by facilitating and enabling the use of electronic signatures by registered broker-dealers and others in the securities industry in their business dealings with customers and other transactional parties. The legislation would make clear that individuals can open a brokerage account and conduct business with a brokerage firm using an electronic signature as proof of identification and intent. It would also give both brokerage firms and their customers the assurance that they can rely on electronic signatures in their business dealings and that the validity of those dealings will not be challenged merely because a pen- and-ink signature was not used. At this point I think it is important to stress to my colleagues that the online brokerage industry is different from the day-trading industry, which has received a lot of negative attention in the past year. Day-trading firms offer a specialized service that enables their customers to enter orders and trade directly with the market. And while I am sure that most of these businesses are legitimate and sound, in recent months reports of abusive or questionable practices have emerged in relation to this type of trading. Anecdotal accounts tell of investors losing many times the amount of money they originally brought to the market. The online investing services provided by brokerage firms are quite different from the services provided by day-trading firms. For example, brokerage firms such as Charles Schwab, E*Trade, DLJ Direct, Discover, among others, set strict limits on the extent to which investors are permitted access to margin and option accounts. These firms empower their customers and are not the problem, and it is important that my colleagues and the public understand the differences. It is that simple. Frankly, I am surprised that the SEC does not require the use of electronic signatures, because unless a physical signature is witnessed, electronic signatures are a far more reliable means of guaranteeing a person is who they say they are. Electronic signatures may result from a variety of technological means that allow users to confirm the authenticity of an electronic documents author, location or content. These technologies are designed to allow contracts to be reviewed and agreed to electronically, to permit individuals and businesses to safely purchase goods online, and to enable government agencies to verify the authenticity of information submitted to them. It is a natural fit for transactions between online brokerage firms and investors. Despite the changes being made in the investor-brokerage relationship, we recognize that the Securities and Exchange Commission must retain full regulatory authority in this industry. This legislation therefore authorizes the SEC to provide guidance on the use of electronic signatures by broker-dealers and others in the securities industry. The SECs active involvement in the move from physical to electronic signatures is important. If the change is to be orderly, the Commission must be familiar with the various types of electronic signatures available. The Commission, as the expert regulator of the securities industry, may determine that some forms of signature are superior to others for certain types of records. Mr. President, the securities industry is experiencing explosive growth in electronic transactions, and this bill's response is necessary and appropriate. The industry and the investors who utilize this medium need the efficiencies and certainty this bill would provide. I believe that the more efficient transaction procedures that will result from the bill will translate into cost savings for customers and industry alike. And that should be the ultimate purpose of any securities legislation relating to electronic commerce. Again, I would like to thank Senator McCain and the majority leader for joining me in introducing this legislation. I hope the Senate Banking Committee can move on this legislation in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed into the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Drug Testing and Treatment for Welfare Recipients Act of 1999. This legislation would establish a pilot program encouraging up to 5 States to implement drug testing and treatment programs for people receiving assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Block Grant (TANF); the AFDC replacement established through the 1996 welfare reform law. It would fund these programs through three year competitive grants, providing States with the resources and flexibility they need to establish the most effective drug testing and treatment programs for their communities. Mr. President, across the nation, welfare caseloads are dropping. More and more welfare recipients are working to provide for their families and moving closer to complete independence from public assistance. According to the Congressional Research Service, in March of 1994 5.1 million families received assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). By September of 1998, those numbers had dropped to 2.9 million families receiving assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program. This 43% decline in the welfare caseload is encouraging. But it should not stop our efforts to help those hard-to-serve cases still on the rolls. Individuals who continue to receive welfare payments face daunting barriers to employment. One such barrier is drug addiction. People who are addicted to drugs have great trouble concentrating, keeping set schedules and maintaining basic order in their lives. For them, steady employment is often simply out of reach. According to the Administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy, drug abuse has plagued America for over a century. It has torn families apart, regardless of socio-economic background as it has destroyed individual lives and spawned crime and social breakdown. Drugs pose a threat to the individual, the family, and the community. Individuals dependent on illegal substances cannot take care of themselves, much less their children, and drug dependence often leads to other crimes. Desperate to feed their addiction, abusers are often forced into theft, assault, or even worse crimes in the search for that next hit. Today, an estimated 12.8 million Americans use illegal drugs. Approximately 45% of Americans know someone with a substance abuse problem. And the problem is particularly acute among young people preparing to enter adult life and the adult workforce. 25 percent of 12th graders still use illegal drugs regularly, as do 20 percent of 10th graders and 12 percent of 8th graders. To combat the debilitating effects of drugs on addicts and those around them, this bill would enable States to fund drug testing and treatment programs for welfare recipients in their communities. It would do this by establishing a three year competitive grant program. States would apply for this grant by submitting a drug testing and treatment plan for their welfare recipients. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would then award the grant to up to 5 states in the amount of $1.5 million per year per state for three years, bringing the total cost of this grant program to $22.5 million. The award decision will be based on two factors: (1) the need and ability of the State to address drug abuse by welfare recipients and (2) the ability of the State to continue such testing and treatment programs after the 3 year grant subsidies. Upon receiving the grant, States would be required to distribute the monies to entities already receiving funds through the Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant (SAPT), the primary tool the federal government uses to support State substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. The States may allocate the funds in any manner they deem appropriate to establish programs that best serve their communities. Mr. President, we often talk about breaking the cycle of poverty, and I believe that goes hand in hand with winning the drug war. I would like to read a brief quotation from the Administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy's National Drug Control Strategy. I think it makes an important point: ``While drug use and its consequences threaten Americans of every socio-economic background * * * the effects of drug use are often felt disproportionally. Neighborhoods where illegal drug markets flourish are plagued by attendant crime and violence.'' I have always been a strong advocate of community renewal and I truly believe that when we begin building drug-free families, safer streets, safer communities and more opportunities for our nation's economically disadvantaged will follow. Treatment for welfare recipients engaged in illegal drug use is the most important form of assistance they will ever receive. The Office of National Drug Control Policy points out that ``Americans who lack comprehensive health plans and have smaller incomes may be less able to afford treatment programs to overcome drug dependence.'' Mr. President, this bill would put drug treatment dollars in the hands of those who need it most. States need these funds to help finance more comprehensive treatment programs not covered by Medicaid. Comprehensive services are desperately needed for the most serious victims of drug abuse. This grant program constitutes a small investment that would encourage States to address drug abuse by welfare recipients, further reducing rates of welfare dependency and other social problems related to drug addiction. Ultimately, our goal is to help individuals provide for their families and achieve independence by breaking the cycle of dependency. This legislation will help significantly in that effort and I encourage my colleagues to give it their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section- by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Drug Testing and Treatment for Welfare Recipients Act of 1999. This legislation would establish a pilot program encouraging up to 5 States to implement drug testing and treatment programs for people receiving assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Block Grant (TANF); the AFDC replacement established through the 1996 welfare reform law. It would fund these programs through three year competitive grants, providing States with the resources and flexibility they need to establish the most effective drug testing and treatment programs for their communities. Mr. President, across the nation, welfare caseloads are dropping. More and more welfare recipients are working to provide for their families and moving closer to complete independence from public assistance. According to the Congressional Research Service, in March of 1994 5.1 million families received assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC). By September of 1998, those numbers had dropped to 2.9 million families receiving assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program. This 43% decline in the welfare caseload is encouraging. But it should not stop our efforts to help those hard-to-serve cases still on the rolls. Individuals who continue to receive welfare payments face daunting barriers to employment. One such barrier is drug addiction. People who are addicted to drugs have great trouble concentrating, keeping set schedules and maintaining basic order in their lives. For them, steady employment is often simply out of reach. According to the Administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy, drug abuse has plagued America for over a century. It has torn families apart, regardless of socio-economic background as it has destroyed individual lives and spawned crime and social breakdown. Drugs pose a threat to the individual, the family, and the community. Individuals dependent on illegal substances cannot take care of themselves, much less their children, and drug dependence often leads to other crimes. Desperate to feed their addiction, abusers are often forced into theft, assault, or even worse crimes in the search for that next hit. Today, an estimated 12.8 million Americans use illegal drugs. Approximately 45% of Americans know someone with a substance abuse problem. And the problem is particularly acute among young people preparing to enter adult life and the adult workforce. 25 percent of 12th graders still use illegal drugs regularly, as do 20 percent of 10th graders and 12 percent of 8th graders. To combat the debilitating effects of drugs on addicts and those around them, this bill would enable States to fund drug testing and treatment programs for welfare recipients in their communities. It would do this by establishing a three year competitive grant program. States would apply for this grant by submitting a drug testing and treatment plan for their welfare recipients. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would then award the grant to up to 5 states in the amount of $1.5 million per year per state for three years, bringing the total cost of this grant program to $22.5 million. The award decision will be based on two factors: (1) the need and ability of the State to address drug abuse by welfare recipients and (2) the ability of the State to continue such testing and treatment programs after the 3 year grant subsidies. Upon receiving the grant, States would be required to distribute the monies to entities already receiving funds through the Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant (SAPT), the primary tool the federal government uses to support State substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. The States may allocate the funds in any manner they deem appropriate to establish programs that best serve their communities. Mr. President, we often talk about breaking the cycle of poverty, and I believe that goes hand in hand with winning the drug war. I would like to read a brief quotation from the Administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy's National Drug Control Strategy. I think it makes an important point: ``While drug use and its consequences threaten Americans of every socio-economic background * * * the effects of drug use are often felt disproportionally. Neighborhoods where illegal drug markets flourish are plagued by attendant crime and violence.'' I have always been a strong advocate of community renewal and I truly believe that when we begin building drug-free families, safer streets, safer communities and more opportunities for our nation's economically disadvantaged will follow. Treatment for welfare recipients engaged in illegal drug use is the most important form of assistance they will ever receive. The Office of National Drug Control Policy points out that ``Americans who lack comprehensive health plans and have smaller incomes may be less able to afford treatment programs to overcome drug dependence.'' Mr. President, this bill would put drug treatment dollars in the hands of those who need it most. States need these funds to help finance more comprehensive treatment programs not covered by Medicaid. Comprehensive services are desperately needed for the most serious victims of drug abuse. This grant program constitutes a small investment that would encourage States to address drug abuse by welfare recipients, further reducing rates of welfare dependency and other social problems related to drug addiction. Ultimately, our goal is to help individuals provide for their families and achieve independence by breaking the cycle of dependency. This legislation will help significantly in that effort and I encourage my colleagues to give it their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section- by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles written by Karen Kerrigan and Raymond J. Keating of the Small Business Survival Committee, along with a letter addressed from Karen Kerrigan to certain Members of Congress, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ABRAHAM. The Small Business Survival Committee, or SBSC, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group with more than 50,000 members. These materials give a small business perspective on recent actions of the Department of Justice's Antitrust division, and of the action against Microsoft in particular. As the SBSC point out, we are in an era of renewed activism on the part of the Antitrust Division. Since 1994 that Division has pursued more than 274 antitrust cases. The Antitrust Division was set up to protect consumers and our free enterprise system. But these materials demonstrate that it is questionable whether this new activism is in fact helpful to small businesses and entrepreneurs. In particular, the SBSC questions whether the government's action against Microsoft, along with the concomitant actions of the state attorneys general, will not actually hurt small businesses and entrepreneurs who have profited from Microsoft's innovative practice. Worse, significant harm may be done to our ability to compete and to our very system of free enterprise, by the draconian measures being put forward in these talks. Breaking up Microsoft or worse yet subjecting it and its suppliers to government approved contracting procedures will destroy business flexibility and substitute bureaucratic empire-building for free market competition as the force behind new initiatives. This would be tragic for all Americans as it would deny us the economic growth, innovation and freedom that open competition has provided for so long. I hope my colleagues will study these and other materials as we consider the proper course for antitrust law in our political and economic systems. [From the Business Journal, January 18, 1999] Big Antitrust Cases Will Hurt `Little Guys' (By Karen Kenigan) Small-business owners seldom go running to the federal government for protection when competition threatens their market position. But that, unfortunately, has become the strategy for some big businesses who see their market share eroding due to aggressive competition from a rival. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is currently being used by America's top CEOs who give up on the marketplace, essentially using the government as a temporary cushion against bleeding market share. But make no mistake, due to the desperate pleadings of such big corporations, small businesses as consumers, suppliers-- and even competitors--of successful big companies under attack will suffer from this excessive meddling in the marketplace. Headed by Joel Klein, the antitrust division is operating with renewed vigor. If you care to take a look at Justice's web site, it proudly lists more than 274 antitrust cases brought by the U.S. government since December 1994 (along with amicus curiae briefs in 31 other cases). ``The criteria for antitrust investigations or lawsuits seems to be if a company merges or wildly succeeds, then it may be ripe for antitrust action. When government moves against successful businesses, the entrepreneurial sector of the economy pays a price, too,'' said Small Business Survival Committee chief economist Raymond Keating. Keating argues that antitrust actions generally seek to supplant the wisdom of consumers with government regulators as the final arbiter to protect politically connected businesses that fail to adequately compete. He says small businesses that have gained from the success and innovation of companies under attack--Microsoft Corp. being a good example--will ultimately lose from aggressive antitrust action. Most troublesome is the permanent damage inflicted on the company under attack and the impact on its small-business suppliers. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman recently said that the companies of Silicon Valley that encouraged Justice action against Microsoft are displaying ``suicidal'' behavior. The door has been opened for new regulations in an ``industry relatively free from government intrusions,'' he warned the industry at a CATO-sponsored event. A new period has dawned in corporate America where some feel safe running to the government for protection and solace rather than responding to competition with better ways to serve consumers. An activist antitrust division has helped to fuel this rather co-dependent behavior. Its doors are thrust open to all pleaders who wish to use the government to sideline or district the competition. A costly government investigation is one way to put the best brains of a business competitor into nonproductive status, warding off potential bad press and other fallouts that often accompany an antitrust challenge. The government's pursuit of Microsoft is a bogus venture, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. In October, the group released a survey that showed 83 percent of the public views the case against Microsoft as a waste of federal and state taxpayer funds. ``With new evidence every day of the weakness in the government's case, it's only a matter of whether the government wants to wait 13 years, as it did in the IBM case,'' said CAGW president Tom Schatz. According to the antitrust division's own literature, its work is supposed to be focused on protecting consumers and our system of free enterprise. What's becoming more clear is that its work is doing much more to thwart competition by protecting whiny competitors at the expense of free enterprise.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Ed and Marlene Baker as they celebrate the 90th Anniversary of the Italian Tribune. The Italian Tribune was founded as a weekly newspaper by Vincent and Mary O. Giuliano in 1909 and has chronicled Italian-Americans for most of the 20th Century. The Italian Tribune has sustained the link between American life and Italian culture which is vital in exemplifying how we are a nation of immigrants and how America has provided opportunities for those who have come to her shores. The Tribune is one of the oldest weekly, and now bi-weekly, Italian- American newspapers in the United States and has kept Italian-American residents in Michigan informed for nine decades, bringing them news in the accurate manner and serving as an important community forum. The paper continually promotes loyalty to the United States, pride of Italian heritage and fraternal spirit to a community of over 350,000 first, second and third generation Americans of Italian descent in Michigan. Since the original issue was printed, the Tribune has gone through many changes, and is now published by Edward and Marlene Baker, descendants of the founding Giulianos. I want to express my congratulations to Ed and Marlene Baker as they celebrate the 90th Anniversary of the Italian Tribune, making it a part of life for hundreds of thousands of people. The longevity of the paper is a testament to their diligence and the sacrifices made by Vincent and Mary O. Giuliano.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Greater Pontiac Community Coalition for its ten year anniversary of their Youth In Government and Business program. The Greater Pontiac Community Coalition was founded by Reverend Douglas P. Jones, Pastor of the Welcome Missionary Baptist Church in Pontiac, Michigan, who serves as President of the Greater Pontiac Community Coalition. The program has promoted educational excellence among middle and high school students, with over 3,500 youth participating in this fine program. This year students were taught about government, law enforcement, education and business through hands-on visits with state and local officials representing each of those segments of the community. Valuable experiences are garnered through the Youth in Government and Business, inspiring many to carry the torch of community leadership into the future. Building on his past successes, Reverend Jones now plans to engage the program at the elementary school level, and his program is also being duplicated in other communities in Metropolitan Detroit. This is a testament to the success faith-based and community-based efforts can have in making a difference for our youth. I want to express my congratulations to Pastor Jones and wish him and all graduates continued success. Most importantly, I would like to thank him for his commitment to the youth in our communities.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Private Bryan J. White of the 1st Battalion, C Company, Platoon 1038, on the occasion of his graduation from United States Marine Corps basic training at Parris Island, South Carolina, on April 30, 1999. Private White is fulfilling his boyhood dream of serving his country as a soldier in the Marine Corps. To that end, throughout high school he maintained himself in peak physical condition and excelled on the swim and wrestling teams to meet the rigorous requirements of the Marine Corps. His commitment to fight and sacrifice to protect the United States and the freedoms Americans cherish is to be commended. He deserves both respect and admiration for his dedication to country. I want to express my congratulations to Private White and wish him the best of luck. Most importantly, I would like to thank him for his commitment to the United States of America.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of Senate Amendment No. 143, as well as the results of the Senate vote on that amendment be entered in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for 5 minutes to speak to the amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In effect, we started late, and the original plan was to have a 2-hour discussion, equally divided, from 9:30 until 11:30. We started 10 minutes late. So the purpose of this unanimous consent agreement would be to add in the additional 5 minutes to each side because of our late initiation. That isn't how much time is left. That is how much time will be added to each side because of the loss.