Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I yield such time as he needs to the Senator from Alabama. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I know there are other Members who have expressed an interest to speak on this issue, some of whom will be arriving back in Washington, if they have not already gotten here, on flights this afternoon. So we will, I know, be here for some time waiting to give them the opportunity to speak before our vote on this. But at this time, seeing none of them on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his work on this legislation as well as many other things which he does here. But particularly for how hard he worked on this, as has his staff, to help us move this forward, I express my appreciation to him as well. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gregg of New Hampshire be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Knowing there are speakers on each side who hope to have a chance to speak, so we do not run the clock completely off during quorum calls, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, on our side I am not aware specifically of any other Member who wishes to speak. I do know that the Senator from California is here and there may be others coming. We do have some time left. We will temporarily reserve the remainder of our time, but if others who wish to speak from either side of the aisle are here, we will be glad to offer that. At this point, I will reserve the remainder of my time. The Senator from Alabama may stay for a minute. I am not sure. If necessary, I will come back down. I want to make clear to the Presiding Officer that anyone who wishes to speak may draw from that time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a tremendous accomplishment. Middle School South in Harrison Township, Michigan, has been selected as a Michigan Exemplary School and a National Blue Ribbon School for 1997-98. Middle School South of the L'Anse Creuse Public Schools, was one of two schools in the State of Michigan bestowed the honor of National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education. This selection is a tribute to the time and effort that the parents, administrators, teachers, and students have put into building an excellent learning environment. This prestigious award demonstrates what hard work and commitment can produce. Again, congratulations to all the teachers and students at Middle School South and the entire L'Anse Creuse Public School District. This is a distinguished award, and they deserve it. I wish them continued prosperity, and many more years of success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise for the second year in a row as an original co-sponsor of legislation increasing the authorization for the Small Business Administration women's business center program. These centers provide important management, marketing, and financial advice to women-owned small businesses. Mr. President, this program finances a number of very important initiatives at the state and local levels; measures that have proven crucial to women struggling to enter the job world and to start their own businesses. These initiatives have changed the lives of a significant number of women in Michigan and throughout the United States. For example, two women's business centers in Michigan are leading the way toward preparing and advancing women in the business field. Ann Arbor's Women's Initiative for Self-Employment, or WISE, program provides low-income women with the tools and resources they need to begin and expand businesses. The WISE program also provides a comprehensive package of business training, personal development workshops, credit counseling, start-up and expansion financing, business counseling and mentoring. In addition, Grand Rapids' Opportunities for Women, or GROW, provides career counseling and training for women in western Michigan. GROW provides essential job preparedness with basic business training and assistance in obtaining more specialized instruction. Mr. President, I salute the good people at WISE and GROW for their hard work in helping the women of Michigan. These programs create and expand business opportunities, fight against poverty, increase incomes, stabilize families, develop skills, and spark community renewal. If we are to maintain and increase revitalization of troubled areas and the empowerment of women we must continue to provide targeted funding for these types of assistance programs. For these reasons, I support the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. Because the Small Business Administration's women's business centers program makes it possible for women to build productive lives for themselves and their families, I believe it deserves the increased funding it needs to expand its services. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise for the second year in a row as an original co-sponsor of legislation increasing the authorization for the Small Business Administration women's business center program. These centers provide important management, marketing, and financial advice to women-owned small businesses. Mr. President, this program finances a number of very important initiatives at the state and local levels; measures that have proven crucial to women struggling to enter the job world and to start their own businesses. These initiatives have changed the lives of a significant number of women in Michigan and throughout the United States. For example, two women's business centers in Michigan are leading the way toward preparing and advancing women in the business field. Ann Arbor's Women's Initiative for Self-Employment, or WISE, program provides low-income women with the tools and resources they need to begin and expand businesses. The WISE program also provides a comprehensive package of business training, personal development workshops, credit counseling, start-up and expansion financing, business counseling and mentoring. In addition, Grand Rapids' Opportunities for Women, or GROW, provides career counseling and training for women in western Michigan. GROW provides essential job preparedness with basic business training and assistance in obtaining more specialized instruction. Mr. President, I salute the good people at WISE and GROW for their hard work in helping the women of Michigan. These programs create and expand business opportunities, fight against poverty, increase incomes, stabilize families, develop skills, and spark community renewal. If we are to maintain and increase revitalization of troubled areas and the empowerment of women we must continue to provide targeted funding for these types of assistance programs. For these reasons, I support the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. Because the Small Business Administration's women's business centers program makes it possible for women to build productive lives for themselves and their families, I believe it deserves the increased funding it needs to expand its services. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President. I rise today to honor the men's basketball team of Cornerstone College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and their coach, Kim Elders. This outstanding team recently reached the pinnacle of success by winning the NAIA Division II National Championship for basketball last month. The Golden Eagles of Cornerstone have received an honor that is reserved for only one team each year. This achievement is the product of hard work, determination, and dedication which was present throughout the Golden Eagles' season. The common focus of the team members was determined early in the pre-season as they declared themselves to be On A Mission.'' Throughout the regular season and continuing into the playoffs, Cornerstone subdued their opponents amassing an amazing record of 37 wins and only three losses, thereby earning the #1 rank in the national polls. At the national tournament in Nampa, Idaho, they proved that they deserved that rank by defeating all challengers. Their exciting season peaked at the championship game, in which Cornerstone beat the two-time defending national champion, Bethel, in an exciting overtime final. The achievements of the basketball team will be seen by many as a way to promote the glory of sport and the excellence of Cornerstone in particular. Interestingly however, these aspects are not the focus at Cornerstone College. Rather, Cornerstone has followed its motto of Academic Excellence, Christian Commitment,'' by using basketball and their team's success as a medium to bring the Christian message to others. This being the case, the men's basketball team has not only brought a sense of pride to Cornerstone College and the greater community, but their success has been a platform for bringing the hope of Christ to all who hear about their championship. Mr. President, the men's basketball team of Cornerstone College has shown itself to be a group of unique and talented individuals. I commend them for their dedication and hard work and honor them for the success that it has brought them. Furthermore, I commend Cornerstone College for its unique and important message and for their faithfulness in making it heard. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the men's basketball team of Cornerstone College for their success in becoming the 1999 NAIA national champions.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Fitzgerald, Moynihan, and Schumer in introducing this important legislation, which would prevent the federal government from taxing away any monies obtained by Holocaust survivors or their families in a settlement related to thefts by the Nazis or their sympathizers. The horrors of the Nazi regime and its atrocities remain very much with us. Many people in America and around the world, particularly Jews, must live every day with memories of atrocities suffered or witnessed, either by themselves or by those they love, during the Nazi terror. Ghettoes, death camps and simple murder were the stuff of daily life for millions of innocent people during this terrible time of Nazi power. Only recently has public attention been properly directed toward another great crime of the Nazi regime and those who cooperated with it: A 1998 study by the Institute of the World Jewish Congress estimates that between $90 billion and $140 billion in today's dollars was stolen from the Jewish populations of countries occupied by the Nazis. In addition to committing outright theft and looting, the Nazis seized liquid assets that could be converted easily into cash, such as insurance policy proceeds and bank accounts. Documents discovered by Risk International Services, Inc., an insurance archaeology firm, show that the Nazis specifically targeted insurance policies held by Jews as a source of funding for their expansionist, totalitarian regime. Some insurance companies also specifically (and illegally) targeted Jewish families. Knowing that Jewish policy holders soon would be taken to concentration camps, these firms sold specifically tailored policies, taking as much cash as possible up front, with no intention of honoring their obligations. After the war, Holocaust survivors attempted to collect on their policies, access their bank accounts and/or reclaim assets that had been illegally seized. Unfortunately, governments, banks and insurance companies failed to fulfill their duty to treat Holocaust victims with justice and dignity. Instead, Mr. President, they refused to honor policies or return stolen assets. In this way they compounded crime with crime and denied people who already had suffered more than most of us could bear the rightful means by which to rebuild their lives. Finally, after over 50 years of injustice, Holocaust survivors and their families are reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. But, even as we support these efforts to reclaim stolen property, I believe we must do our part in protecting the proceeds. Under current law, any money received by Holocaust survivors in their settlements with banks and other organizations that once cooperated with the Nazis would be treated as gross income for federal tax purposes. Mr. President, I firmly believe that victims of the Holocaust have suffered far too much for any such taxation to be just. These settlements represent but a fraction of what is owed to those who suffered under Nazi tyranny. To treat them as income subject to taxation would be wrong. This is why this legislation is so important. It will prevent the federal government from taxing away any monies obtained by Holocaust survivors or their families in a settlement related to thefts by the Nazis or their sympathizers. It will prevent yet another injustice from being done to those who survived the brutal Nazi regime. It will also keep our nation firmly on the side of justice.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Fitzgerald, Moynihan, and Schumer in introducing this important legislation, which would prevent the federal government from taxing away any monies obtained by Holocaust survivors or their families in a settlement related to thefts by the Nazis or their sympathizers. The horrors of the Nazi regime and its atrocities remain very much with us. Many people in America and around the world, particularly Jews, must live every day with memories of atrocities suffered or witnessed, either by themselves or by those they love, during the Nazi terror. Ghettoes, death camps and simple murder were the stuff of daily life for millions of innocent people during this terrible time of Nazi power. Only recently has public attention been properly directed toward another great crime of the Nazi regime and those who cooperated with it: A 1998 study by the Institute of the World Jewish Congress estimates that between $90 billion and $140 billion in today's dollars was stolen from the Jewish populations of countries occupied by the Nazis. In addition to committing outright theft and looting, the Nazis seized liquid assets that could be converted easily into cash, such as insurance policy proceeds and bank accounts. Documents discovered by Risk International Services, Inc., an insurance archaeology firm, show that the Nazis specifically targeted insurance policies held by Jews as a source of funding for their expansionist, totalitarian regime. Some insurance companies also specifically (and illegally) targeted Jewish families. Knowing that Jewish policy holders soon would be taken to concentration camps, these firms sold specifically tailored policies, taking as much cash as possible up front, with no intention of honoring their obligations. After the war, Holocaust survivors attempted to collect on their policies, access their bank accounts and/or reclaim assets that had been illegally seized. Unfortunately, governments, banks and insurance companies failed to fulfill their duty to treat Holocaust victims with justice and dignity. Instead, Mr. President, they refused to honor policies or return stolen assets. In this way they compounded crime with crime and denied people who already had suffered more than most of us could bear the rightful means by which to rebuild their lives. Finally, after over 50 years of injustice, Holocaust survivors and their families are reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. But, even as we support these efforts to reclaim stolen property, I believe we must do our part in protecting the proceeds. Under current law, any money received by Holocaust survivors in their settlements with banks and other organizations that once cooperated with the Nazis would be treated as gross income for federal tax purposes. Mr. President, I firmly believe that victims of the Holocaust have suffered far too much for any such taxation to be just. These settlements represent but a fraction of what is owed to those who suffered under Nazi tyranny. To treat them as income subject to taxation would be wrong. This is why this legislation is so important. It will prevent the federal government from taxing away any monies obtained by Holocaust survivors or their families in a settlement related to thefts by the Nazis or their sympathizers. It will prevent yet another injustice from being done to those who survived the brutal Nazi regime. It will also keep our nation firmly on the side of justice.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Stanley J. Cherry, a World War I veteran and extraordinary citizen of Grand Traverse County, Michigan, who was recently awarded France's highest tribute, the Legion of Honor. A son of Polish immigrants, Stanley Cherry enlisted in the United States Army in May 1918, after which time he was sent to England with the 330th Second Machine Company Battalion where he was trained to operate English Vickers, French Hodgkiss, and American Browning machine guns. He began his service in France in October of the same year where he remained after the signing of the armistice, assigned to secure provisions. During his 62 year marriage to his wife Lucille, the couple owned and operated a general store in Elmira, Michigan, for over 30 years. In addition to running the store they raised two daughters, Joanne Hawly and Jeanette Galbraith, who both currently live in Traverse City, Michigan. In commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the signing of the armistice, the French government chose to honor surviving allied war veterans who fought in France to help defeat the German Army. A representative of the French Consulate General office in Chicago was present at the February 19th ceremony to confer upon Mr. Cherry the rank of Chevalier of the National Order of the Legion of Honor. France's highest honor, the Legion of Honor was founded in 1802 by Napoleon as a way of recognizing citizens for their contributions to France. In addition to the Legion of Honor award, Mr. Cherry was presented a certificate of merit voted by the Michigan Legislature and signed by Governor Engler. Mr. President, Stanley Cherry is an outstanding American citizen. In April he will be celebrating his 103rd birthday. I salute him for his many remarkable contributions as a veteran and for his commitment to his community and family. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring him on being conferred the rank of Chevalier of the Legion of Honor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today the Senate again will pass legislation to protect the habitat of the broad range of migratory birds which spend the spring and summer months in the United States. This legislation, which I introduced with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Daschle and Senator Chafee, is designed to protect over 90 endangered species of bird spending certain seasons in the United States and other seasons in other nations of the West Hemisphere. This is actually the second time this legislation has passed the Senate. Last year, after receiving considerable support from the environmental and conservation communities, this legislation passed the Senate by Unanimous consent. Unfortunately, time ran out for equal consideration in the House. Nevertheless, this year we returned with renewed determination and were able to again move this bill. Every year, Mr. President, approximately 25 million Americans travel to observe birds, and 60 million American adults watch and feed birds at home. Bird-watching is a source of great pleasure to many Americans, as well as a source of important revenue to states, like my own state of Michigan, which attract tourists to their scenes of natural beauty. Bird watching and feeding generates fully $20 billion every Year in revenue across America. Birdwatching is a popular activity in Michigan, and its increased popularity is reflected by an increase in tourist dollars being spent in small, rural communities. Healthy bird populations also prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses each year to farming and timber interests. They help control insect populations, thereby preventing crop failures and infestations. Despite the enormous benefits we derive from our bird populations, many of them are struggling to survive. Ninety species are listed as endangered or threatened in the United States. Another 124 species are of high conservation concern. In my own state we are working to bring the Kirtland's Warbler back from the brink of extinction. A few years ago, the population of this distinctive bird has been estimated at approximately 200 nesting pairs. Since then, a great deal of work has been done by Michigan DNR employees to preserve the Kirtland's Warbler habitat in the Bahamas, where they winter. Thanks in large part to this effort, the number of breeding pairs has recently increased to an estimated 800. This is an easily grasped problem. Since the entire species spends half of the year in the Bahamas, the significant efforts made by Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and concerned residents in Michigan will not be enough to save this bird if its winter habitat is degraded or destroyed. This situation is not unique, among bird watchers' favorites, many neotropical birds are endangered or of high conservation concern. And several of the most popular neotropical species, including bluebirds, robins, goldfinches, and orioles, migrate to and from the Caribbean and Latin America. Because neotropical migratory birds range across a number of international borders every year, we must work to establish safeguards at both ends of their migration routes, as well as at critical stopover areas along their way. Only in this way can conservation efforts prove successful. That is why Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee and I introduced the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This legislation will protect bird habitats across international boundaries by establishing partnerships between the business community, nongovernmental organizations and foreign nations. By teaming businesses with international organizations concerned to protect the environment we can combine capital with know-how. By partnering these entities with local organizations in countries where bird habitat is endangered we can see to it that local people receive the training they need to preserve this habitat and maintain this critical natural resource. This act establishes a 4-year demonstration project providing $8 million each year to help establish programs in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The greater portion of these funds will be focused outside the U.S. Approved programs will manage and conserve neotropical migratory bird populations. Those eligible to participate will include national and international nongovernmental organizations and business interests, as well as U.S. Government entities. The key to this act is cooperation among nongovernmental organizations. The federal share of each project's cost is never to exceed 33 percent. For grants awarded outside the United States, the non-Federal match can be made with in-kind contributions. This will encourage volunteerism and local interest in communities that lack the financial resources to contribute currency. Since domestic organizations and communities are more financially secure, the matching portion of grants awarded within the United States will be required in cash. The approach taken by this legislation differs from that of current programs in that it is proactive and, by avoiding a crisis management approach, will prove significantly more cost effective. In addition, this legislation does not call for complicated and expensive bureaucratic structures such as councils, commissions or multi-tiered oversight structures. Further, this legislation will bring needed attention and expertise to areas now receiving relatively little attention in the area of environmental degradation. This legislation has the support of the National Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, the Ornithological Council, Ducks Unlimited, and the American Forest and Paper Association. These organizations agree with Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee, and I that, by establishing partnerships between business, government and nongovernmental organizations both here and abroad we can greatly enhance the protection of migratory bird habitat. I want to take a moment to comment on the contributions of Senator Daschle and Senator Chafee with respect to this bill. For over a year, my colleagues and their staffs have dedicated a great deal of time and hard work to this legislation. This bill would not have advanced as it has, perhaps would not have moved at all, were it not for their efforts, and I wish to thank them for all they have done. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Millennium Digital Commerce Act, a bill to promote the use of electronic authentication technologies and enhance the Internet's capacity to serve as a business tool. I am joined in introducing this bill by Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Ron Wyden, and Senator Conrad Burns. This legislation builds on the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, a bill I sponsored to promote the use of electronic signatures by the Federal Government, which was signed into law by the President as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act. The Internet has experienced almost exponential growth since its inception. Where once the Internet was a medium limited to the sharing of ideas between scientists and educators, it is now a tool which allows every person with a computer to access more information than is contained in any single library, communicate with friends for a fraction of the cost of phone service, or purchase goods from retailers located all over the world. Electronic commerce is clearly booming. But in order to realize its full potential, we must enact Federal and State legislation to enable, enhance, and protect the next generation of Internet usage. The Internet is poised to serve as an efficient new tool for companies to transact business as never before. The development of electronic signature technologies now allow organizations to enter into contractual arrangements without ever having to drive across town or fly thousands of miles to personally meet with a client or potential business partner. The Internet is prepared to go far beyond the ability to buy a book or order apparel on-line. It is ready to lead a revolution in the execution of business transactions which may involve thousands or millions of dollars in products or services; transactions so important they require that both parties enter into a legally binding contract. This capability is provided by the development of secure electronic authentication methods and technologies. These technologies permit an individual to positively identify the person with whom they are transacting business and to ensure that information being shared by the parties has not been tampered with or modified without the knowledge of both parties. While such technologies are seeing limited use today, the growth of the application has out-paced government's ability to appropriately modify the legal framework governing the use of electronic signatures and other authentication methods. Mr. President, the Millennium Digital Commerce Act is designed to promote the use of electronic signatures in business transactions and contracts. At present, the greatest barrier to such transactions is the lack of a consistent and predictable national framework of rules governing the use of electronic signatures. Over forty States have enacted electronic authentication laws, and no two laws are the same. This inconsistency deters businesses from fully utilizing electronic signature technologies for contracts and other business transactions. The differences in our State laws create uncertainty about the effectiveness or legality of an electronic contract signed with an electronic signature. Of course, certainty is the basis for commerce, and contracts provide that certainty. Parties enter into contracts understanding that they will be bound by the terms of the agreement. However, the fear is that a business located in a State with different electronic authentication rules may be able to escape contractual obligations agreed to through electronic signatures. This legal uncertainty limits the potential of electronic commerce, and, thus, our nation's economic growth. The needs for uniformity in electronic authentication rules is not only recognized by the business community, but by the States as well. For the past two years, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law, an organization comprised of e-commerce experts form the States, has been working to develop a uniform system for the use of electronic signatures for all fifty States. Their product, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or UETA, is in the final stages of review and the drafters expect to have the Act completed by October. Assuming the UETA is finished as scheduled, and I believe it will be, it will then fall on each State legislature to enact the legislation and establish the uniformity necessary for the interstate use of electronic signatures. But agreement on the final language of the UETA proposal is not the same as enactment. Uniformity will not occur until all fifty States actually enact the UETA. Because some State legislatures are not in session next year and other States have more pressing legislative items, it could take three to four years for forty-five or fifty States to enact the UETA. With the rapid State of development in the high- technology sector, four years is an eternity. The Digital Millennium Commerce Act is an interim measure to provide relief until the States adopt the provisions of the UETA. It will provide companies the baseline they need until a national baseline governing the use of electronic authentication exists at the State level. First, the legislation provides that the electronic records produced in the execution of a digital contract shall not be denied legal effect solely because they are electronic in nature. This provision assures that a company will be able to rely on an electronic contract and that another party will not be able to escape their contractual obligations simply because the contract was entered into the Internet or any other computer network. By granting such certainty, this bill will reduce the likelihood of dissatisfied parties attempting to escape electronic contractual agreements and transactions. Mr. President, let me stress that this Federal preemption of State law is designed to be an interim measure. It provides relief until the States enact uniform standards which are consistent with those contained in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and this legislation. Simply put, once States enact the UETA or other legislation governing the use of electronic signatures which is consistent to the UETA, the Federal preemption is lifted. I consider myself a Federalist. I believe strongly in States rights and view with great caution proposals which call for the preemption of State law. After considerable study, it is my option that the need for a national baseline for the use of electronic signatures justifies a temporary, Federal action until such time as the States can enact a uniform standard. Second, the bill grants parties to a transaction the freedom to determine the technologies and business methods to be used in the execution of an electronic contract. In essence, this assures that the Federal baseline will extend to the various aspects of State law governing authentication including such matters as registration and certification requirements, liability allocations, maintenance of revocation lists, payment of fees and other legal and regulatory concerns. Third, this legislation sets forth the principles for the international use of electronic signatures. In the last year, U.S. negotiators have been meeting with the European Commissioners to discuss electronic signatures in international commerce. In these negotiations, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the States Department have worked in support of an open system governing the use of authentication technologies. Some European nations oppose this concept. For example, Germany insists that electronic transactions involving a German company must utilize a German electronic signature application. I applaud the Administration for their steadfast opposition to that approach. In an effort to bolster and strengthen the U.S. position in these international negotiations, this legislation lays out a serious of principles to govern the use of electronic signatures in international transactions. These principles included the following: One, paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions must be eliminated. Two, parties to an electronic transaction should choose the electronic authentication technology. Third, parties to a transaction should have the opportunity to prove in court that their authentication approach and transactions are valid. Fourth, the international approach to electronic signatures should take a nondiscriminatory approach to electronic signature. This will allow the free market--not a government--to determine the type of authentication technologies used in international commerce. Mr. President, these principles will bolster the U.S. convention that the Departments of State and Commerce are advocating abroad, and, hopefully, increase the likelihood of an open, market-based international framework to electronic commerce. Finally, the bill directs the Department of Commerce and Office of Management and Budget to report on Federal laws and regulations that might pose barriers to e-commerce and report back to Congress on the impact of such provisions and provide suggestions for reform. Mr. President, as with any legislation seeking to affect both Federal and State law, drafting this bill has been a challenging balancing act. During the drafting process, my office has received invaluable support from the Technology Division of the State of Massachusetts. Governor Paul Cellucci's staff have provided indispensable counsel on existing State law governing the use of electronic signatures and the manner in which Federal law can bolster or hamstring State contract law. Of course, the business and technology sectors have also been crucial in helping to craft this bill. Representatives from the Information Technology Association of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and the National Association of Manufacturers have each lent their time and expertise to this effort. I appreciate their contributions and look forward to continuing this effort to ensure that we develop the best approach possible to promote use of electronic signatures in business transactions. I urge my colleagues to support the Millennium Digital Commerce Act. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this legislation be placed in the Record. The fill follows:

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Crapo in offering a Sense of the Senate amendment rejecting a new tax proposed by the Clinton Administration. I am very pleased that this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle and will be accepted by the full United States Senate. This unanimous voice vote for the Abraham- Crapo amendment demonstrates beyond shadow of a doubt that this association tax increase proposal is dead on arrival here in the United States Senate. As part of the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal, this tax would be levied on the investment income earned by non-profit trade associations and professional societies. This proposal, which would tax any income earned through interest, dividends, capital gains, rents and royalties in excess of $10,000, imposes a tremendous burden on thousands of small and mid-sized trade associations and professional societies currently exempt under 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Administration would like us to believe that this tax is targeted to a few large associations, affecting only those ``lobbying organizations'' which exist as tax shelters for members and to further the goals of special interests. Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. This new tax would affect an estimated 70,000 registered trade associations and professional societies. The bulk of these associations operate at a state and local level, many of whom perform little, if any, lobbying function. In fact, associations rely on investment income to perform such vital services as education, training, standard setting, industry safety, research and statistical data, and community outreach. Through association organized volunteer programs, Americans contribute more than 173 million volunteer hours per year, at a value estimated at over $2 billion annually. These organizations already contribute millions in taxes for any activities which place them in competition with for-profit businesses. Yet the Administration would like to impose a new tax on income earned outside of the competitive business environment, income which is used to fund functions serving the public welfare. Unlike for-profit corporations, investment income does not go to shareholders, individuals, or other companies. Associations do not have the liberty of simply raising prices, as do ordinary corporations, to cover increased costs. Mr. President, faced with an additional increase in taxes of $1.44 billion over the next five years, many trade associations will be forced to cut back on important services, and some may not survive an economic downturn without the small cushion their investments provide. Without such services provided by associations, the government will be forced to step in, increasing expenditures and creating additional government programs and departments. During a time when the government is projecting on-budget tax surpluses of more than $800 billion over the next 10 years, it is unconscionable that we allow the Administration to levy a new tax on these non-profit organizations. Mr. President, in summary, the unanimous vote puts the entire Senate on record as rejecting this misguided tax increase on trade associations. Should this association tax proposal surface as a part of--or as an amendment to--tax reduction legislation reported by the Senate Finance Committee later this year, I will fight to ensure that the Senate adheres to the vote that we have taken today expressing the Sense of the Senate that it ought to be rejected outright.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Crapo, Santorum, Hagel, Inhofe and Collins in introducing a sense of the Senate amendment to the budget resolution rejecting the President's proposed tax, as part of his fiscal year 2000 budget proposal, on the investment income earned by nonprofit trade associations and professional societies. This proposal would tax any income in excess of $10,000 earned through the non-competitive activities of nonprofit associations, such as interest, dividends, capital gains, rents and royalties, posing a tremendous burden on an estimated 70,000 registered trade associations and professional societies. Mostly operating on a state and local level, these organizations depend on this income to perform such vital community services as education, training, standard setting, industry safety, and community outreach. Faced with an additional increase in taxes of $1.4 billion over the next five years, many associations will be forced to cut back or eliminate these important services, forcing the government to step in, increasing expenditures and creating additional programs. During a time when the government is projecting on-budget surpluses of more than $800 billion over the next 10 years, it is unconscionable that we would allow the administration to levy a new tax on these nonprofit organizations. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the resolution be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Coverdell, Ashcroft, and Hutchinson in introducing a sense of the Senate amendment to the budget resolution rejecting the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs. Deaths resulting from drug overdoses have increased five times since 1988. According to Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, the number of American teenagers using heroin, once considered a drug used primarily by hard-core drug addicts, has doubled in the past five years. Last year, the Clinton administration attempted to lift the ongoing ban on federal funds for needle exchange programs as a solution to reducing the rate HIV infection among intravenous (IV) drug use without increasing the use of drugs like heroin. Needle exchange programs are not the answer--giving an addict a clean needle is equivalent to giving an alcoholic a clean glass--both do a more sanitary job of delivering the poison that is killing our kids. A Montreal study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that IV addicts who used a needle exchange program were over twice as likely to become infected with HIV as those who did not. The New York Times magazine reported that one New York City needle program gave a single individual 60 syringes, little pans to ``cook'' the heroin, instructions for usage, and a card amounting to a ``get out of jail free'' pass for possession of drug paraphernalia. At a time when heroin use is skyrocketing among our youth, the last thing we need is for Washington to send the message that drug use is okay, and that we are not serious about the war on drugs. Join with us in finding that Congress shall continue the statutory ban on the use of federal funds to implement or support any needle exchange program for drug addicts. amendment no. 229 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning funding for special education) At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to support the Education Flexibility Act. This legislation will address our continuing problem in education policy: too many Washington-knows-best policies and red- tape getting in the way of States and local districts as they attempt to address their unique educational needs. Mr. President, over the past 16 years the Education Department has spent more than $175 billion on education programs. Yet achievement scores continue to stagnate and more young people than ever are dropping out of school. One crucial reason for this failure of Federal programs has been the enormous burden of Washington strings and mandates on the States and local school districts. While the Federal Government provides only 7 percent of total spending on education, Washington demands 50 percent of the paperwork filled out by local school districts. That is wrong. It is inefficient, it is unfair and it is not the way to improve our children's education. And this is why I support the Education Flexibility Act. This bill would give every State a chance to waive many of the cumbersome rules, regulations, and red-tape often associated with education programs run by Washington. The State of Michigan currently enjoys the benefits of the Ed-Flex program. In applying for its Ed-Flex waiver, Michigan streamlined several of its State regulations. Further, the very process of seeking waivers has brought Michiganians together to improve education. A working group of State and local officials, school board members, parents and principals was put together in Michigan to determine the best way to streamline regulations and deliver education services. I believe this legislation is moving in the right direction, and would like to see it move even further. I believe Congress should be even more flexible in new authorizations and appropriations. Communities are different and have different needs. Local school districts need to have more options on how to spend Federal education dollars. While some schools may need to hire additional teachers, other school districts may need to implement a summer school program or a literacy program. The point is, schools should have the flexibility and the resources to meet the specific needs of their students. A number of amendments have been offered during debate on this bill. My general view is that to offer new authorizations for additional Washington-based programs is moving in the exact opposite direction of the intent of this bill. This bill seeks to free up local education agencies from the Federal bureaucracies administering programs not to add to them. To the extent that these issues have been raised, I have supported the notion that we should first meet our current fiscal obligation to IDEA in addition to giving State and local education agencies flexibility in administering Federal education resources. I look forward to a fuller discussion of these issues in the proper context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There has been a great deal of debate about the need to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provisions affecting education. I believe that this raises an important point, particularly given the President's calls for new Federal programs such as his request for 100,000 new teachers, money for which would then compete with IDEA appropriations. For years now parents and local schools have been expressing concern over the rising costs of education for children with special needs. The Federal Government has made a strong commitment to the education needs of disabled children in every way, with one telling exception: it has not lived up to its promise to provide its share of the funds necessary to educate these children. The result has been an increased burden on local school districts, which must make a choice between hiring a new teacher or paying the Federal Government's share of the IDEA bill. Under the Republican Congress, funding for IDEA has increased significantly. Unfortunately, it is still not adequate to meet the costs imposed by federal mandates. I believe we have an obligation to do more to meet these previous commitments before we create new programs and start spending on them money which could go to fulfill our IDEA promise. Moreover, if Congress would actually meet the federal government's obligation to pay 40 percent of the costs for educating special needs children, it would free up millions for schools to spend meeting other specific, local education needs. For example, my state receives approximately $73 million from the federal government for the educational needs of disabled children. If the 40 percent mandate was reached, my state would receive $378 million. By meeting the federal government's obligation to current programs, my state would have $305 million per year more (or one- quarter of the amount appropriated for the new teacher program last year) to be used for whatever needs local school districts might have-- including hiring more teachers, after-school programs, or tutoring programs. Mr. President, I recently asked a school district in my state what kind of difference fully funding IDEA could make to them. Here is what I found: If the federal government met its obligation in funding IDEA in the Oakland School District, that district would have $60 million more to spend on educating their students. I think we can all agree on our commitment to elementary and secondary education. The main point of disagreement is over how to deliver federal resources to schools. I suggest that by freeing local school districts of regulations and redtape and by giving them more flexibility in how they administer federal resources, we can free local schools to do what they do best: educate our children. Education flexibility is not the answer to all our educational problems. But I submit that it provides the best means available to get at those answers: allowing the parents, teachers, and local officials in a position to know what their students need to make the important decisions involved in setting education priorities. This is a crucial piece of legislation, Mr. President, and I am proud to lend my full support behind this bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999. I would like to express my thanks to Senators Kennedy, Grams, Leahy, Graham, Burns, McCain, Snowe, DeWine, Jeffords, Gorton, Craig, Levin, Schumer, Murray, Murkowski, Moynihan, Mack, Smith (OR), Dorgan, Santorum, Cochran, and Inouye for being original cosponsors of this legislation. The legislation will correct an unfortunate provision--Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Act. In correcting this provision, this legislation will prevent the Immigration and Naturalization Service from effectively shutting down our borders to trade and tourism. The legislation has wide support and appeal and is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Trucking Association, American Hotel and Motel Association, Travel Industry Association of America, Border Trade Alliance, American Association of Exporters and Importers, National Automobile Transporters Association, Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, American Association of Port Authorities, International Mass Retail Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association, International Warehouse Logistics Association, National Tour Association, Passenger Vessel Association and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. As a number of my colleagues are aware, Mr. President, in 1996 both the House and the Senate versions of the omnibus immigration bill contained differing provisions requiring collection of data on those entering and exiting the United States at certain airports. In conference, without any debate, a mandatory entry-exit system to capture the records of ``every alien'' was added to that legislation. Representative Smith and Senator Simpson, chairmen of the respective House and Senate Subcommittees responsible for 1996 legislation, have both agreed in an exchange of letters with the Canadian Ambassador that this provision, ``Section 110'' of the bill, was not intended 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 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. Put simply, Mr. President, Section 110 is a mistake, and we must correct it. Failure to do so will cost American jobs. It will effectively close our borders to honest trade and tourism while harming our efforts to fight drugs, terrorism and illegal aliens. It must be eliminated. We risk a great deal if we fail to act, Mr. President. Last year alone, exports to Canada generated more that 72,000 jobs in key manufacturing industries and more than $4.68 billion in value added for the state of Michigan alone. Our trade with Canada is the most extensive and profitable in the world. And last year more than 116 million people entered the United States by land from Canada. The extent of our trade with Canada has caused us to develop an intricate web of interdependence that requires a substantially open border. With ``just in time'' delivery becoming the norm in our automobile assembly lines and throughout our manufacturing sector, a delivery of parts delayed by as little as 20 minutes can cause expensive assembly line shutdowns which our economy can ill afford. But delay is exactly what we will see if Section 110 is not eliminated. Dan Stamper, President of the Detroit International Bridge Company, has testified that even a very efficient system, say one taking 30 seconds for each person to be recorded entering or leaving the country, would mean enormous delays. More than 30,000 crossings per day take place at Detroit's Ambassador Bridge. Even if we say that 7,500 Canadians cross each day, that means 2,250 minutes of additional processing time. But there are only 1,440 minutes in a day. Traffic would be backed up literally for miles. Significant problems would be experienced on the Southern border as well. Assembly lines will shut down. Tourists will stay home. Americans will lose jobs. And for what? Nothing the American people want. The two pilot programs set up by the INS to test implementation of Section 110, one in Texas and one in upstate New York, were both shut down due to fierce community opposition. Moreover, time and manpower diverted to Section 110's impossible directive will take away from efforts to deal with other problems facing the INS and the Customs service--problems like drug interdiction, the fight against terrorism, and the fight against illegal immigration. Drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration are real problems requiring a real investment on our part. We can't afford to undermine these programs to pursue a policy we know is nothing more than a mistake. This legislation would eliminate the mandated automated entry-exit system at land and sea ports of entries and replace it with a feasibility study, required within one year of the passage of the bill, to examine whether any system could ever be developed and at an acceptable cost to American taxpayers, employers, employees, and the nation as a whole. The bill would also authorize significant additional resources at the Northern and Southern borders to fight drugs and terrorism, and to facilitate the entry of legitimate trade and commerce. The legislation authorizes for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 a net increase of 535 INS inspectors for the Southwest land border and 375 inspectors for the Northern land border, in order to open all primary lanes on the Southwest and Northern borders during peak hours and enhance investigative resources. It would add 100 canine enforcement vehicles to be used by INS for inspection and enforcement at U.S. land borders. And it would provide for a net increase of 40 intelligence analysts and additional resources to be distributed among border patrol sectors that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug or narcotics distribution and transportation centers to fight against drug smuggling and money-laundering. For the U.S. Customs Service, the bill would authorize significant additional resources in technology and manpower for peak hours and investigations, including new technology and a net increase of 535 inspectors and 60 special agents for the Southwest border and 375 inspectors for the Northern border. In addition, the bill provides a net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as needed to process and screen cargo and reduce commercial waiting times on U.S. land borders. It would also authorize a net increase of 360 special agents, 40 intelligence analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money-laundering organizations. The bill also provides for a net increase of 50 positions and additional resources to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative resources for anticorruption efforts. Mr. President, this bill passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent last year, which helped lead to a significant success--a two and a half year delay in the mandate for implementing this system. The 30 month delay was based on a recognition that this program is unworkable. Unfortunately, it provided only a small reprieve that will expire at the beginning of the next Congress. We must build on our success achieved last year. It is time to act, to protect American jobs, to maintain our law enforcement priorities and to uphold common sense. I want to thank again the many cosponsors of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my condemnation of anti-Semitic statements given by Communist Party members of the Russian Duma. I believe that this is an important issued that must be addressed. The Russian Federation vowed to fight against such discrimination when joining the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In order to maintain this commitment, the Russian Duma must censure those in its ranks failing to comply with the recognized OSCE resolution. In the U.S., Congress has joined international organizations and the world community in denouncing the anti-Semitic statements. House Concurrent Resolution 37 asserts that Congress: condemns the statements; commends President Boris Yeltsin and other members of the Russian Duma for rebuking the anti-Semitic statements; and reiterates our firm belief that such discrimination is counter-productive to efforts toward true peace and justice. Furthermore, in dialogue with Russian leaders the U.S. has the opportunity to combat this hate-filled rhetroic. I believe it is of the utmost priority that the anti-Semitic statements be given proper attention in discussions with Russian leaders. I urge my colleagues to join me in not only supported House Concurrent Resolution 37, but also in signing onto the letter to Vice- President Al Gore raising the issue of anti-Semitism with Prime Minister Primakove.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Budget Committee chairman. I ask our colleagues to take note of this. We have already heard people come to the floor and talk about how this budget doesn't do enough for education, while at the same time they are now saying it is the President who cares about investment in education. This budget invests more in education than the President of the United States has proposed by a very substantial amount over the next 5 years. We will have a chance later to debate how that investment should be made. I agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee--we want fewer ``Washington knows best'' solutions and more people at the local level making decisions as to how to use the dollars. It is the Republican's budget, not the President's, that puts more money in education. Another investment that I think we all, particularly today, have to acknowledge is important is a greater investment in national security. Obviously, the current events in the Balkans once again remind us that America must have a sufficient investment in our security to be able to meet international challenges we confront. To give the Senate an idea of exactly what we confront with respect to national security today, let me use one statistic. That is the decrease in levels of manpower and weaponry in just the last 8 years. Eight years ago, we engaged in Operation Desert Storm, an accomplishment of great military significance. If we had to do that again today, we would find ourselves severely strapped both with respect to the percentage of our total Armed Forces that would be needed to initiate that effort, as well as the amount of weapons from our total arsenal that would be needed. In fact, I believe it would take about 90 percent of today's Army, two-thirds of our fighter wings, two-thirds of our aircraft carriers, and the entire U.S. Marine Corps based on those current sizes today to replicate what we did in 1991. If that doesn't demonstrate to us the need for a greater investment in national security, I don't know what does. If we need further arguments, I think we need only to look so far as the reinlistment rates which are, as everyone in this body knows, not at the level we require. We need to have better pay and better benefits, pension benefits, and so on, for our Armed Forces in order to encourage more people to join and to stay in the Armed Forces. We have already taken a step in that direction earlier this year, but we need to back up the Soldiers' Bill of Rights with budget authority to be able to move forward. That is what this budget does over the next few years. Finally, I want to talk about two other things. This budget sets aside money not at all connected to Social Security, but, rather, surpluses wholly unrelated to our Social Security payroll taxes for the purpose of reducing the tax burden on the people who pay taxes in this country. What we are talking about is very simple: More money is coming into the Federal Treasury than even the biggest liberal spenders anticipated. It is coming faster than the IRS can count it. It is building up a surplus that is wholly unconnected to Social Security. The question is, What should we do with some of those dollars? This budget sets aside a very substantial amount of money, but certainly not all of that money, for tax relief. Some say this isn't right; the money should be used for more spending programs, new spending programs, or it should go in some way to reduce the tax burden of people who are already paying the taxes. We don't agree. We think this money constitutes an overpayment. It is more money than we expected. If you make an overpayment, you ought to get a refund. That is what this budget reflects. The refunds ought to go to the people who are making the overpayment. In my judgment, at least in some way, it ought to reflect approximately the percentage of their overpayment. To treat this as suddenly a tax break for a special interest group is simply missing the point. We didn't just shut down a program to be able to finance a tax cut. We didn't make a transfer from one beneficiary group to another in order to be able to afford a tax cut. We said we are taking the money that is coming in and returning it to the American public. The Finance Committee, not the Budget Committee, will make that decision. We think at least a very substantial part of those surplus dollars ought to be used to help allow the people who created this surplus the chance to keep a little bit more of what they earn. Finally, I want to talk about Medicare briefly, because I find the repeated comments with respect to this budget's failure to address Medicare to be so erroneous that they require a response. This budget puts more money into Medicare over the next 5 years than I believe was proposed by the President, and I will defer, again, to the Budget chairman when I have a chance here to clarify that. Unlike the President, we don't cut Medicare over the next 5 years. Furthermore, we set aside over $130 billion in this budget to be used precisely on things like fixing Medicare, that so many of our colleagues seem interested in doing. The one thing we haven't done here that I want to address, we didn't say that we are just sort of going to use general tax revenues in order to stabilize and offset or postpone the insolvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund. We didn't do that here. I don't think that would be an appropriate precedent for us to set. We need to fix the Medicare Part A trust fund to make it work. It is broken. We all know that. There was a Medicare commission and 10 out of 17 people, on a bipartisan basis, agreed that there was a way to do that--in fact, a way that wouldn't even cost as much with respect to Medicare expenditures. They couldn't get 11 votes for that final outcome, but they got 10--including two Members of this body, including the Member selected by the President to chair the Medicare commission, and in my judgment--I am sorry, four Members of this body and two on each side of the aisle. The point is this, Mr. President. The idea that instead of putting together a plan to reform and make Medicare work, the idea to say we are simply going to throw more money into this without any concrete proposal as to how to spend the money, I think is a mistake. In any event, I think this budget addresses the priorities. It locks away money for Social Security and every single penny that Social Security generates in surplus. It increases our investment in education and in national security. It allows us to give people who have paid more taxes than we expected the chance to get a little bit of that back. Finally, it sets aside considerable amounts of money to address our Medicare problems. For that reason, I support it. How much time do I have left?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, 15 minutes. I believe I can make an opening statement and comments on the amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.