Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to address the topic of steel imports. The dramatic reduction in the price of imported steel poses a significant challenge to America's steel industry. In the first ten months of 1998 alone (October is the last month for which figures are available), Japan more than doubled the level of imports compared to their year-end total for all of 1997. Japan's 882,000 net tons imported in October appears to be an all-time monthly record. However, Japan is not solely responsible for the surge in imports. The total October 1998 steel import level was the second highest monthly total ever, with over 4.1 million net tons--an increase of 56% over October 1997 levels. Earlier this month, a representative of the United Steelworkers of America union claimed that 5,000 steelworkers had already received layoff notices and another 20,000 were working reduced hours because of these imports. More recent reports indicate the number of laid-off workers is fast approaching 10,000. The American Iron and Steel Institute recently released figures which demonstrate that U.S. domestic steel production had been nearly decimated by the unprecedented surge in imports. In November 1998, U.S. steel mills shipped approximately 7.4 million net tons. This represents a decrease of 12.8% from the roughly 8.5 million net tons shipped the previous November. Of even more concern is that November 1998 shipments were down 10.6% just from the previous month! And as the import figures outlined above indicate, the magnitude of the situation is growing, not diminishing. Mr. President, there are several factors behind this surge in low- priced steel imports. First, the general deflationary trends in the global economy have caused all commodity prices--including steel prices--to plummet. In my judgment, the Federal Reserve's tight monetary policy in 1997 and most of 1998 is to blame. While the Fed has taken corrective action to reduce short-term interest rates in recent months, commodity prices have yet to rebound. Second, the economic crisis in Asia and Russia has forced these countries to rely almost exclusively on exports to keep their economies afloat. Given the size of our manufacturing sector and our comparatively robust economic climate, the United States is an obvious, attractive export target for these nations. In many instances, the International Monetary Fund is to blame because it convinced these countries to either raise interest rates or devalue their currencies, which in turn allowed foreign steel to undercut American steel prices. Against this macroeconomic backdrop of generally falling prices, some foreign steel companies may have engaged in the practice of ``dumping''--that is, selling steel below the cost of production. While we are eager to offer economic assistance to these struggling countries--and in many cases we have offered direct and indirect economic assistance to them--there is no reason we should have to compromise or ignore our trade laws. So the question that confronts us today is: What do we--the Administration, the Congress--do about this serious problem? The Administration's lack of decisive action reportedly is due to their not wanting to risk subjecting the fragile economies in Asia, Russia and Brazil to further challenges. However, our willingness to assist our allies and trading partners ought not translate into requiring us to ignore unfair trading practices--and our own trade laws--or deleterious effects these practices have on our workers and domestic industry. On the macroeconomic level, the Federal Reserve should focus on achieving price stability--and that means addressing deflation as well as inflation. The Clinton Administration must take decisive action on this matter quickly. Promising to talk to our trading partners in the hope of getting their cooperation in cutting back the import levels is not sufficient at this late date. In the international arena, the Administration must be exert more leadership in arguing against currency devaluations. In the trade arena, the Administration must take firm action in enforcing our anti-dumping laws. To this end, I have cosponsored S. 61, a bill introduced yesterday by Senator DeWine, that would eliminate existing disincentives for fair trade in our trade laws. Specifically, under current trade law, duties and fines imposed on those engaged in dumping go directly to the U.S Treasury. However, under the DeWine bill, the duties or fines collected would be transferred to the affected industries, not to the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, continuation of unfair trade practices would result in the perpetrators of such activities effectively financially aiding their U.S. competitors. It is important to note that this legislation does not create new duties or penalties, nor does it increase existing duties or penalties. Frankly, this legislation will not mandate that importers raise the price of steel one single penny, and therefore, it should not directly affect the market for underpriced steel. However, in the long run, producers who engage in dumping will have to seriously rethink their unfair trade practices. Because by continuing such practices, they only succeed in subsidizing those among our domestic industries that are being hurt by their illegal actions. Mr. President, the recent surge in imported steel and the resulting job loss and scaled back production at U.S. steel plants may be a demonstration that current law does not effectively discourage unfair trade practices such as these. I have long been an ardent supporter of free and open trade. However, my support of free trade is prefaced on the notion that our trading partners will not engage in unfair trading practices, such as dumping, and that when our Nation is confronted by unfair trading practices, we will seek remedy, whether by invoking provisions in our own trade laws designed to combat such unfair trade practices or pursuing means of redress through international trade tribunals such as the World Trading Organization. As long as our trade laws prohibit dumping, it is imperative for the Administration to adhere to them and to implement them where and when the circumstances require it. To fail to do so will have consequences, both for American workers and industry and for the principle of free trade that I believe is so important. More and more steel workers may be laid off and steel plants may begin to shut down. Our domestic steel industry, which has done so much over the last two decades to modernize and become competitive on an international basis, could become irreparably harmed. If things deteriorate, we will see calls for quotas on steel imports. We will also see a political backlash against free trade, just at the time when we should be entering into free trade agreements with some of these very regions--Asia, Pacific Rim, and South America. This will only serve to set us back further from being the dominant player on the global marketplace in the next century. Finally, let me pay tribute to the individuals and groups that have travelled all the way to Washington, D.C. to attend today's ``Stand Up for Steel'' rally. These people are here to raise our consciousness about the steel import situation. In my office alone, we have already received an estimated 15,000 letters on this issue. My constituents are rightly concerned by the situation. It is my hope that after attending the rally held at the Capitol this afternoon and after learning of legislation being introduced by interested Senators, such as S. 61, that these people will return home knowing that we in Congress are not ignorant of this crisis or of their concern.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Georgia for organizing today's presentation. As he has already outlined, yesterday we on the Republican side offered an agenda which we think includes the key cornerstones for strengthening our Nation and moving forward into the 21st century. I am not going to talk about every one of those. I would like to address a couple of them, though, briefly, because I think it is very important for the public to understand exactly why these are at the top of our list. First, I want to talk about tax relief. As we learned last night from the State of the Union--and the Budget Committee hearing in the Senate has recently indicated--not only did last year mark the first time since 1969 that we ran a budget surplus, but it now appears as if we will run budget surpluses for the next 25 years, and potentially beyond. That is great news for our country. I think--I hope, at least--that it will address some of the cynicism that has existed in America towards the U.S. Congress because for so many years, no matter what we were claiming in our campaigns, we would come to the Senate and the House and not get the job done. But we have gotten the job done. Today, Americans are sending sufficient revenues so we have a surplus. That is going to be a very big surplus. In fact, it may be as much as multitrillion dollars of surplus over the next 10, 20, 25 years and beyond. The reason we have the surplus is in large measure--in fact, almost exclusively--because of two things: No. 1, our ability here in Washington to tighten belts with respect to some spending programs in recent years; and, much more importantly, the fact that American taxpayers are sending more money to Washington in tax revenue than we anticipated when we put in place the budget that we are working with today. Mr. President, obviously part of that is the result of the economy's strength, and it is thriving. But if the American taxpayers are sending more money to Washington than we even expected, than we even asked them for, and that they should be spending, it seems to me obvious that the time is here to let them keep some of those dollars that we didn't even ask for in the first place. So for that reason, the Republican agenda includes in every one of its key components an across-the-board tax cut for hard-working American families. We heard people say, ``Well, we shouldn't do a tax cut; we have so many other things to get done first.'' When we had a budget deficit, we were told we couldn't cut taxes now, that we have a deficit. Now we have a budget surplus and it is projected to go for 25 years. I would suggest that no matter what today's agenda items are that deserve priority over tax cuts, there will always be more. There will always be a new program, there will always be an old program, there will always be some rainy day down the road we are worried about, and the taxpayers consistently are told no, no, no, the time is not ripe yet for a tax cut. Well, I say it is. I think the families who are sending us the largest percentage of the GDP that we have ever seen sent to Washington in history deserve to keep some of those dollars and set their own priorities. And for that reason, we propose an across- the-board tax cut. We also believe that the families of America deserve protection in another sense. Here in this Chamber we ought to talk about children and the problems and the challenges that confront them and our desire to have policies that will protect the young people of America. The one thing we have to protect them against, in my judgment, and continue protecting them against, is the scourge of illegal drugs that continues to take an unhealthy and an increasing toll on young people. Over the last few years, the drug statistics have suggested that there has been a leveling out of the drug use in this country, that we may have at least peaked, and it may be even getting better a little bit. But the one area where we are not seeing improvement is with respect to the use of drugs by kids, kids as young as eighth grade, some even younger than that. Now, our drug plan, which is the second cornerstone of this agenda, will help us to achieve the goal of protecting our kids from these illegal drugs. It will include a wide array, a wide focus of programs, from interdiction on the one hand to treatment and prevention on the other. But a centerpiece that I want to briefly discuss before my time expires is that this proposal of ours provides tough sentences for the people who peddle drugs to our kids. The message we have to send to drug dealers and the symbol we have to set for kids in America is that the price of doing business in drugs is going up, not down. Now, this is an area where there is some disagreement between our legislation and the administration. I ask for an additional minute.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In the last Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission put forth a proposal, embraced by the administration and the Department of Justice and the President, that would address this issue in what I consider to be the wrong fashion. That proposal suggests that because there is a wide difference between the drug sentences that powder cocaine dealers receive and the sentence that crack cocaine dealers receive, we ought to bring them more in line with each other by making the sentences on crack cocaine dealers more lenient. That is the wrong way to proceed, Mr. President. And our legislation goes at it the right way, by making the sentences meted out to people who sell powder cocaine tougher. That is an important part of this legislation, not only because we need to make those sentences tougher, because we don't want people at the top of the drug chain to be getting lighter sentences than those at the bottom. But it is also important because it is critical that we send a signal that we are not going to make anybody's drug sentences, if they are peddling crack cocaine to our kids, any lighter. This is important for a variety of reasons that I have spoken about here before, but I think it demonstrates the seriousness of the Republican proposal. And taken as a whole, that proposal, I believe, will have a tremendous impact on reducing the use of illegal drugs in this country and, most specifically, reducing the use of illegal drugs by young people. So for these reasons, I am very proud to endorse this agenda, and I will be working as a cosponsor on a number of these bills. I believe we can pass them in this Congress. I think we saw yesterday in the introduction of these bills the makings of the kind of solid foundation, as I said, the cornerstone for success, as we move our country to the 21st century. So I want to thank Senator Coverdell again for having put together today's special order. I look forward to working with him and under his leadership on a number of these issues, and I thank the Chair for allowing me a chance to proceed here today.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Pension Disclosure Act of 1999 which would require the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to disclose information relating to the pensions of Members of Congress. This legislation would require these officers to include in their semiannual reports to Congress detailed information relating to the Members pensions. The semiannual reports would then be available to the public for inspection. The reports would include the individual pension contributions of Members; an estimate of annuities which they would receive based on the earliest possible date they would be eligible to receive annuity payments by reason of retirement; and any other information necessary to enable the public to accurately compute the Federal retirement benefits of each Member based on various assumptions of years of service and age of separation from service by reason of retirement. The purpose of this legislation is to afford citizens their rightful opportunity to learn how public funds are being utilized. The taxpayers are not only entitled to know the various forms of compensation their elected officials are being paid, they are also entitled to make decisions about the reasonableness of such compensation. My bill would make this information conveniently available to the public. I believe that this bill would eliminate the present shroud of secrecy which has surrounded the congressional pension system and give the public better access to information regarding their representatives in Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and section by section analysis be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Grams and Roth in introducing S. 3, the Tax Cut for All Americans Act. This legislation will provide every American taxpayer with substantial tax relief by cutting all income tax rates 10 percent across the board, effective January first of this year. American working families need this tax cut, Mr. President. They are now taxed at a higher rate than at any time since World War II. Not even at the height of the Vietnam War have the American people seen such a large part of their pay taken away from them in the form of taxes. Since the current Administration came into office in 1993, federal taxes have gone up by over 35 percent, or over $600 billion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently told us what these sky-high taxes mean to the typical American family. First, they mean that the typical family now pays more in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing and shelter combined--spending more than 38 percent on taxes and only 28 percent on food, clothing and housing. Second, the typical American now works nearly three hours out of an eight hour day just to pay taxes. That American works from January 1 to May 10, the latest day ever, before he or she stops working for the government and starts working for him or herself. Washington currently takes 21 percent of the national income in taxes. That's $6,810 for every man, woman and child in this country. Mr. President, that is simply too much. Our high taxes place an undue burden on working families. They stifle entrepreneurial activity. They promise to put an end to our current era of sustained economic growth. But hard times born of high taxes are not inevitable. We can lighten the tax burden on our working families. We can encourage entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. We can cut taxes and thereby ensure prosperity well into the next century. Mr. President, when President Clinton passed the largest tax hike in American history, he did so on the grounds that budget deficits demanded increased federal revenue. There was indeed increased federal revenue after that tax hike. But it was fueled by a surprisingly strong economy, born of technological innovation and low inflation, factors strong enough to offset the dampening effects of higher taxes. Moreover, the excuse of budget deficits is no longer tenable. We have entered an era of budget surplus. And it is our moral duty as well as our fiscal responsibility to lower taxes on those hard working Americans who pulled us out of the era of budget deficits. What is more, by taking a small portion of our projected surplus and giving it back to the American people, we will ensure prosperity, economic growth, and healthy receipts for years to come. Mr. President, this across the board tax cut will leave the current tax structure's progressivity intact. It also leaves current deductions and credits intact. It is not intended as a final solution to all of the problems in our tax system. This tax cut is intended as a well- deserved down payment on the money Washington owes to the American people--the money earned by the American people that should stay with the American people, to save, invest and spend as they see fit. America's working families deserve a break. They also need it if they are to save and invest for their future and for the future of the American economy. It is time to give them that hard-earned tax break by cutting rates across the board by 10 percent. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation in the name of fairness and economic responsibility.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to seek my colleagues' support for the Wei Jingsheng Freedom of Conscience Act. This bill will grant lawful permanent residence to writer and philosopher Wei Jingsheng, one of the most heroic individuals the international human rights community has known. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in 1998 but was not acted upon in the House before the end of last session. Mr. President, when I first introduced this legislation I noted that, for years, Wei has stood up to an oppressive Chinese government, calling for freedom and democracy through speeches, writings, and as a prominent participant in the Democracy Wall movement. I also noted that his dedication to the principles we hold dear, and on which our nation was founded, brought him 15 years of torture and imprisonment at the hands of the Chinese communist regime. Seriously ill, Wei was released only after great international public outcry. Now essentially exiled, he lives in the United States on a temporary visa and cannot return to China without facing further imprisonment. Now more than ever, Mr. President, I believe that granting Wei permanent residence will show that America stands by those who are willing to stand up for the principles we cherish. It also will help Wei in his continuing fight for freedom and democracy in China. I would like to thank Senators Feingold, Allard, and Wellstone for cosponsoring this bill. I should note also that this legislation has been endorsed by important human rights groups such as the Laogai Research Foundation and Human Rights in China, two organizations devoted, at great risk to their members and their members' families, to combating oppression in communist China. I urge my colleagues to send a strong signal about America's commitment to human rights, human freedom, and the dignity of the individual by passing this bill to grant Wei Jingsheng lawful permanent residence in the United States. 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 to urge my colleagues' support for important legislation introduced by Senator Frist and Wyden, the Education Flexibility Act. This legislation would expand the popular ``Ed-Flex'' program to all 50 states. Currently, 12 states, including Michigan, participate in the program. Through the ``Ed-Flex'' program, the Department of Education delegates to the states its power to grant individual school districts temporary waivers from certain federal requirements if those requirements interfere with state and local efforts to improve education. To be eligible, a State must be able to waive its own regulations on schools. The State must hold schools accountable for results by setting academic standards and measuring student performance, requiring schools to publish school report cards, and intervening in low performance schools. This program does a great deal to reduce the regulatory burden for states trying to improve the education it provides to its citizens. This program has been a tremendous success in Michigan. The first benefit came to Michigan in simply applying for the program. It was during this process that the Governor's office realized it did not meet the two criteria necessary to apply for the waiver because the state could not waive its own regulations. As a result, the Governor's office worked with the State legislature and State Board of Education to prepare and obtain this authority. Another benefit of the ``Ed-Flex'' program came when the state put in place the Waiver Referent Group. This group is made up of representatives from the Department, local and intermediate school districts, private schools, parent organizations, advisory and professional groups, and business/community members. Through this collaboration, the State will receive input on potential regulations that may help reduce barriers to reform from the people most closely associated with the regulations that are hindering their ability to achieve real and lasting reform. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. I am confident that the ``Ed-Flex'' program will be as valuable of a tool to education reform for other states as it has been to Michigan's education reform efforts.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for the Collegiate Learning and Student Savings, or ``CLASS,'' Act. This legislation will help Americans as they seek to secure, for themselves and for their children, the increased opportunity and earnings potential available only to college graduates in this country. Mr. President, America is the land of opportunity. But that opportunity comes at a price. More and more that price comes in the form of an increasing cost of a college education. College graduates on average earn 40 percent more than do those who have not graduated from college. But the increased opportunity college provides keeps getting more and more expensive. College costs have risen dramatically--5 to 6 percent every year over the past decade. According to the College Board, the average annual cost for tuition, room and board at a public university is now $7,472. At a private college the cost is a whopping $19,213 per year. If costs continue rising as they have been, a four-year college education will cost $75,000 at a public university and $250,000 at a private college by the time the average newborn begins attending in 2016. Costs like these can send families deeply into debt. American families have already accrued more college debt in the 1990's than during the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's combined. Yet, according to a 1997 poll conducted for the Student Loan Marketing Association, only about 18 percent of families start saving for college before their child begins high school. Why aren't more families saving for their children's college education? Clearly one important reason is the fact that Washington subsidizes student debt while penalizing savings. Student loans are offered at low, federally subsidized rates in order to help more kids afford college. But families that try to save in advance for college face a situation in which their income is taxed before it goes into a savings account, and the interest they earn on their education savings are then taxed again every year. It is time for Washington to stop punishing working families for planning ahead for their children's future. It is time to help middle class kids and their parents afford a college education. Mr. President, this is why The Collegiate Learning and Student Savings, or ``CLASS,'' Act is so important. This legislation will help more than 2.5 million students afford a college education. It would extend tax-free treatment to prepaid tuition plans sponsored by States and private institutions. Currently, 39 States, including my own State of Michigan, have prepaid tuition plans that allow parents to save for their children's college education. Now, a nationwide consortium of more than 100 private schools, in 32 different States, have launched a similar plan. These plans overwhelmingly benefit working, middle income families. For example, families with an annual income of less than $35,000 purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold by Pennsylvania in 1996. In Kentucky, the average monthly contribution to a family's college savings account was $43 in 1995. By making all of these plans tax-free, we can help families afford the ever-increasing cost of a college education. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Grams and Roth in introducing S. 3, the Tax Cut for All Americans Act. This legislation will provide every American taxpayer with substantial tax relief by cutting all income tax rates 10 percent across the board, effective January first of this year. American working families need this tax cut, Mr. President. They are now taxed at a higher rate than at any time since World War II. Not even at the height of the Vietnam War have the American people seen such a large part of their pay taken away from them in the form of taxes. Since the current Administration came into office in 1993, federal taxes have gone up by over 35 percent, or over $600 billion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently told us what these sky-high taxes mean to the typical American family. First, they mean that the typical family now pays more in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing and shelter combined--spending more than 38 percent on taxes and only 28 percent on food, clothing and housing. Second, the typical American now works nearly three hours out of an eight hour day just to pay taxes. That American works from January 1 to May 10, the latest day ever, before he or she stops working for the government and starts working for him or herself. Washington currently takes 21 percent of the national income in taxes. That's $6,810 for every man, woman and child in this country. Mr. President, that is simply too much. Our high taxes place an undue burden on working families. They stifle entrepreneurial activity. They promise to put an end to our current era of sustained economic growth. But hard times born of high taxes are not inevitable. We can lighten the tax burden on our working families. We can encourage entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. We can cut taxes and thereby ensure prosperity well into the next century. Mr. President, when President Clinton passed the largest tax hike in American history, he did so on the grounds that budget deficits demanded increased federal revenue. There was indeed increased federal revenue after that tax hike. But it was fueled by a surprisingly strong economy, born of technological innovation and low inflation, factors strong enough to offset the dampening effects of higher taxes. Moreover, the excuse of budget deficits is no longer tenable. We have entered an era of budget surplus. And it is our moral duty as well as our fiscal responsibility to lower taxes on those hard working Americans who pulled us out of the era of budget deficits. What is more, by taking a small portion of our projected surplus and giving it back to the American people, we will ensure prosperity, economic growth, and healthy receipts for years to come. Mr. President, this across the board tax cut will leave the current tax structure's progressivity intact. It also leaves current deductions and credits intact. It is not intended as a final solution to all of the problems in our tax system. This tax cut is intended as a well- deserved down payment on the money Washington owes to the American people--the money earned by the American people that should stay with the American people, to save, invest and spend as they see fit. America's working families deserve a break. They also need it if they are to save and invest for their future and for the future of the American economy. It is time to give them that hard-earned tax break by cutting rates across the board by 10 percent. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation in the name of fairness and economic responsibility.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to seek my colleagues' support for the Wei Jingsheng Freedom of Conscience Act. This bill will grant lawful permanent residence to writer and philosopher Wei Jingsheng, one of the most heroic individuals the international human rights community has known. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in 1998 but was not acted upon in the House before the end of last session. Mr. President, when I first introduced this legislation I noted that, for years, Wei has stood up to an oppressive Chinese government, calling for freedom and democracy through speeches, writings, and as a prominent participant in the Democracy Wall movement. I also noted that his dedication to the principles we hold dear, and on which our nation was founded, brought him 15 years of torture and imprisonment at the hands of the Chinese communist regime. Seriously ill, Wei was released only after great international public outcry. Now essentially exiled, he lives in the United States on a temporary visa and cannot return to China without facing further imprisonment. Now more than ever, Mr. President, I believe that granting Wei permanent residence will show that America stands by those who are willing to stand up for the principles we cherish. It also will help Wei in his continuing fight for freedom and democracy in China. I would like to thank Senators Feingold, Allard, and Wellstone for cosponsoring this bill. I should note also that this legislation has been endorsed by important human rights groups such as the Laogai Research Foundation and Human Rights in China, two organizations devoted, at great risk to their members and their members' families, to combating oppression in communist China. I urge my colleagues to send a strong signal about America's commitment to human rights, human freedom, and the dignity of the individual by passing this bill to grant Wei Jingsheng lawful permanent residence in the United States. 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 to introduce the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999.'' This legislation, which I am introducing today 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 Western Hemisphere. This is actually the second time Senator Daschle and I have introduced this bill. Last year, after receiving considerable support from the environmental community, this legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, time ran out for equal consideration in the House. Nevertheless, we are back again with renewed determination and I believe the effort in the 106th Congress will prove successful. 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 real 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. In recent years, the population of this distinctive bird has been estimated at approximately 200 nesting pairs. That number has recently increased to an estimated 800 nesting pairs, but this entire species spends half of the year in the Bahamas. Therefore, the significant efforts made by Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and concerned residents will not be enough to save this bird if its winter habitat is degraded or destroyed. Not surprisingly, the primary reason for most declines is the loss of bird habitat. 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 have 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 three 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 interest, 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 U.S., the nonfederal match can be made with in-kind contributions. This will encourage volunteerism and local interest in communities that lack the financial resource to contribute currency. Since domestic organizations and communities are more financially secure, the matching portion of grants awarded within the U.S. 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 American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. 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 urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Levin, Ashcroft, and DeWine that would freeze the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards--known as CAFE--at current levels unless changed by Congress. This issue is attracting an increased amount of attention as automobile manufacturers continue to increase car and light truck efficiency and as Americans begin to understand the consequences of increased fuel economy standards: less consumer choice, more dangerous vehicles and reduced competitiveness for domestic automobile manufacturers. Perhaps, Mr. President, some of these repercussions could be easier to accept if the supposed benefits of increased CAFE standards were ever realized, but this has not occurred. In the two decades since CAFE standards were first mandated, this Nation's oil imports have grown to account for nearly half our annual consumption and the average number of miles driven by Americans has increased. Mr. President, last session 15 Senators from both sides of the aisle joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Given the importance of the automobile industry to the continued economic health of the country, the preference for increased capacity that American consumers have demonstrated and the producers' continuing trend toward more efficient engines, it is time for the setting of CAFE standards to once again reside with elected officials. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1999. I have long supported restitution for crime victims, and have long been convinced that justice requires us to devise effective mechanisms through which victims can enforce restitution orders and make criminals pay for their crimes. I was very pleased when we enacted mandatory victim restitution legislation in the 104th Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I supported that legislation and very much appreciated the efforts of my colleagues, particularly Senators Hatch, Biden, Nickles, Grassley, and McCain, to ensure that victim restitution provisions were included in the antiterrorism legislation. Those victim restitution provisions--brought together as the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996--will significantly advance the cause of justice for victims in federal criminal cases. The Act requires federal courts, when sentencing criminal defendants, to order these defendants to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes. It also establishes a single set of procedures for the issuance of restitution orders in federal criminal cases to provide uniformity in the federal system. Inclusion of mandatory victim restitution provisions in the federal criminal code was long overdue, and I am pleased that the 104th Congress was able to accomplish that. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that victims can actually collect those restitution payments and to provide victims with effective means to pursue whatever restitution payments are owed to them. Even if a defendant may not have the resources to pay off a restitution order fully, victims should still be entitled to go after whatever resources a defendant does have and to collect whatever they can. We should not effectively tell victims that it is not worth going after whatever payments they might get. That is what could happen under the current system, in which victims have to rely on government attorneys--who may be busy with many other matters--to pursue restitution payments. Instead, we should give victims themselves the tools they need so that they can get what is rightfully theirs. The victim restitution provisions enacted in the 104th Congress consolidated the procedures for the collection of unpaid restitution with existing procedures for the collection of unpaid fines. Unless more steps are taken to make enforcement of restitution orders more effective for victims, we risk allowing mandatory restitution to be mandatory in name only, with criminals able to evade ever paying their restitution and victims left without the ability to take action to enforce restitution orders. In the 104th Congress, I introduced the Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1995. Many components of my legislation were also included in the victim restitution legislation enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The legislation I introduce today is similar to the legislation I introduced in the 104th Congress as Senate Bill S. 1504 and again in the 105th Congress as S. 812, and is designed to build on what are now current provisions of law. All in all, I hope to ensure that restitution payments from criminals to victims become a reality, and that victims have a greater degree of control in going after criminals to obtain restitution payments. Under my legislation, restitution orders would be enforceable as a civil debt, payable immediately. Most restitution is now collected entirely through the criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as directed by the probation officer, which means restitution payments cannot begin until the prisoner is released. This bill makes restitution orders payable immediately, as a civil debt, speeding recovery and impeding attempts by criminals to avoid repayment. This provision will not impose criminal penalties on those unable to pay, but will simply allow civil collection against those who have assets. This will provide victims with new means of collecting restitution payments. If the debt is payable immediately, all normal civil collection procedures, including the Federal Debt Collection Act, can be used to collect the debt. The bill explicitly gives victims access to other civil procedures already in place for the collection of debts. This lightens the burden of collecting debt on our Federal courts and prosecutors. My bill further provides that Federal courts will continue to have jurisdiction over criminal restitution judgments for five years, not including time that the defendant is incarcerated. The court is presently permitted to resentence or take several other actions against a criminal who willfully refuses to make restitution payments; the court may do so until the termination of the term of parole. Courts should have the ability to do more over a longer period of time, and to select those means that are more likely to prove successful. Under my bill, during the extended period, Federal courts will be permitted, where the defendant knowingly fails to make restitution payments, to modify the terms or conditions of a defendant's parole, extend the defendant's probation or supervised release, hold the defendant in contempt, increase the defendant's original sentence, or revoke probation or supervised release. My legislation will also give the courts power to impose pre-sentence restraints on defendants' uses of their assets in appropriate cases. This will prevent well-heeled defendants from dissipating assets prior to sentencing. Without such provisions, mandatory victim restitution provisions may well be useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases in which a defendant has the means to pay full restitution at once, if the court has no capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill- gotten gains or other assets prior to the sentencing phase, there may be nothing left for the victim by the time the restitution order is entered. The provisions permitting pre-sentence restraints are similar to other provisions that already exist in the law for private civil actions and asset forfeiture cases, and they provide adequate protections for defendants. They require a court hearing, for example, and place the burden on the government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that pre-sentence restraints are warranted. In short, I want to make criminals pay and to give victims the tools with which to make them pay. In enacting mandatory victim restitution legislation in the 104th Congress, we demonstrated our willingness to make some crimes subject to this process. I believe we must take additional steps to make those mandatorily issued orders easily enforceable. This legislation is supported by the National Victim Center and by the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask unanimous consent to have placed in the Record letters of support from those victims' rights organizations. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, which will empower victims to collect on the debts that they are owed by criminals and which will improve the enforceability of restitution orders. I also ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act of 1999.'' This legislation would toughen federal policy toward powder cocaine dealers by reducing from 500 to 50 grams the amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing in order to receive a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence. I am convinced, Mr. President, that we need tougher sentences for powder cocaine dealers so that we may protect our kids from drugs and our neighborhoods from the violence and social breakdown that accompany drug trafficking. We have seen a disturbing trend in recent years, a reversal, really, of the decade long progress we enjoyed in the war on drugs. For example, over the last six years the percentage of high school seniors admitting that they had used an illicit drug has risen by more than half. This spells trouble for our children. Increased drug use means increased danger of every social pathology of which we know. It must stop. Ironically, at the same time that we are learning the disturbing news about overall drug use among teens, we also are finding heartening news in our war on violent crime. The F.B.I. now reports that, since 1991, the number of homicides committed in the United States has dropped by 31 percent. Also since 1991, the number of robberies has fallen 32 percent. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, robberies fell a stunning 17 percent in 1997 alone. This is good news, Mr. President. And there is widespread agreement among experts in the field that the principal cause of this decline in violent crime is our success in curbing the crack cocaine epidemic and the violent gang activities that accompany that epidemic. The New York Times recently reported on a conference of criminologists held in New Orleans. Experts at the conference agreed that the rise and fall in violent crime during the 1980s and 1990s closely paralleled the rise and fall of the crack epidemic. At the same time, there is a warning signal here. The most recent ``Monitoring the Future'' Study done by the University of Michigan, which tracks drug use and attitudes by teenagers, showed an increase in the use of both crack and powder cocaine this year. This is in contrast to its finding that the use of other drugs by kids may finally be leveling off, albeit at unacceptably high levels. Yet surprisingly, despite these developments, in last year's Ten Year Plan for a National Drug Control Strategy, the Administration proposed making crack sentences 5 times more lenient than they are today. Why? The Administration say we need to reduce crack dealer sentences because they are too tough when compared to sentences for powder cocaine dealers. And it is true that it does not make sense for people higher on the drug chain to get lighter sentences than those at the bottom. But going easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school yards and playgrounds--is not the solution. Crack is cheap and highly addictive. Tough crack sentences have encouraged many dealers to turn in their superiors in exchange for leniency. Softening these sentences will remove that incentive and undermine our prosecutors, making them less effective at protecting our children and our neighborhoods. The Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act rests on the conviction that there is a better way to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences more in line. First, it rejects any proposal to lower sentences for crack dealers. Second, it makes sentences for powder cocaine dealers a good deal tougher than they are today. Mr. President, this legislation will reduce the differential between the amount of powder and crack cocaine required to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1--the same ratio proposed by the Administration. But this legislation will accomplish that goal, not by making crack dealer sentences more lenient, but rather by toughening sentences for powder cocaine dealers. At this crucial time we may be making real progress in winning the war on violent crime in part because we have sent the message that crack gang membership is no way to live and that society will come down very hard on those spreading this pernicious drug. At the same time our kids remain all too exposed to dangerous drugs, far more exposed than any of us can probably really imagine. In light of these two trends, it would be a catastrophic mistake to let any drug dealer think that the cost of doing business is going down. As important, Mr. President, it will be nearly impossible to succeed in discouraging our children from using drugs if they hear we are lowering sentences for any category of drug dealers. I ask my colleagues to send a strong message to drug dealers and to our kids, the message that drugs are dangerous and illegal, and those who sell them will not be tolerated. This legislation will send this message, and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay homage to Sergeant Dennis W. Finch of the Traverse City Police Department. Sergeant Finch was not only a great family man, police officer, and Michigander, he was a great American. The day of May thirteenth 1998 will forever be a day of mourning for the Traverse City community, a tragic day that will leave an indelible change on the fabric of life in Traverse City. Sergeant Finch lost his life in the line of duty, protecting a community that he loved. His dedication and pride is a testament to the extremely difficult and admirable role that police officers play in this country. Sergeant Finch protected us proudly with the shield of the Traverse City Police Department, and we will be forever thankful. Sergeant Finch lived the life of hero, before becoming a Traverse City Police Officer, Dennis served proudly in the United States Marine Corps in Vietnam. Dennis distinguished himself as a soldier, and was a decorated combat veteran. In his thirty years of service to the Traverse City Police Department, Sergeant Finch was the Department's most seniored Sergeant. He was a command officer in both the Investigative Services Division and the Patrol Division for twenty-four years. During this difficult time, my thoughts and prayers go out to Sergeant Finch's family, friends and all police officers who risk their lives every day in this country. Thank you and God bless.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Clover Technologies as they celebrate the Grand Opening Ceremonies for their new 93,000 square foot headquarters in Wixom, Michigan. Established in 1952, Clover Technologies' new headquarters makes Clover one of the largest employers in Wixom with over 400 employees. With the high-tech industry playing an increasingly important role in the Michigan economy, expansions such as this serve as a testament to the competitiveness of Michigan-based industries in the global market. Clover Technologies has proven that the right combination of quality and dedication can lead to a prosperous future. The vision and leadership of Clover has made them an industry leader, and has enabled them, the employees of Clover, and others in the community to continue in sharing the American dream. Their worldwide commitment to excellence in the automotive industry and customer service is to be commended. I want to express my congratulations to Clover Technologies in recognition of the dedication of their new headquarters which was held on October 29, 1998. I send them best wishes in their future endeavors.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during debate on final passage of the Omnibus Appropriations bill, in which the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act was included as Title IV of Subdivision C, I asked unanimous consent to have a number of documents printed in the Record. These included two documents I received from the Administration during the negotiations, whose inclusion I was seeking to help illuminate the meaning of some of the provisions of the legislation. One of the key points about these documents is the changes from the July 30 version to the September 14 version. On the copies that I submitted, these changes were marked by redlining markings. Unfortunately, however, because I submitted a copy of the only version I had, which was a copy of a fax, these markings appear to have had the effect of making the September 14 version unintelligible, resulting in the printing of a garbled text that also did not contain the markings showing the changes. Accordingly, I ask that the corrected version of these documents that I am now submitting appear in the final issue of the Record of the 105th Congress. On the copy of the September 14 document that I am submitting, material that appeared in the July 30 version but was deleted in the September 14 version is in black brackets and material that was not included in the July 30 version and was added in the September 14 version is printed in italic. The corrected version follows: July 30, 1998--Proposed Administration Revisions to H.R. 3736 (the July 29, 1998 Version) 1. Require either a $500 fee for each position for which an application is filed or a $1,000 fee for each nonimmigrant. Fee to fund training provided under JTPA Title IV. In addition, a small portion of these revenues should fund the administration of the H-1B visa program, including the cost of arbitration. 2. Define H-1B-dependent employers as: a. For employers with fewer than 51 workers, that at least 20% of their workforce is H-1B; and b. For employers with more than 50 workers, that at least 10% of their workforce is H-1B. 3. The recruitment and no lay-off attestations apply to: (1) H-1B dependent employers; and (2) any employer who, within the previous 5 years, has been found to have willfully violated its obligations under this law. 4. H-1B dependent employers attest they will not place an H-1B worker with another employer, under certain employment circumstances, where the other employer has displaced or intends to displace a U.S. worker (as defined in paragraph (4)) during the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date the placement would begin. 5. DOL would have the authority to investigate compliance either: (1) pursuant to a complaint by an aggrieved party; or (2) based on other credible evidence indicating possible violations. 6. Establish an arbitration process for disputes involving the laying-off of any U.S. worker who was replaced by an H-1B worker, even of a non-H-1B dependent employer. This arbitration process would be largely similar to that laid out in H.R. 3736 except that it would be administered by the Secretary of Labor. The arbitrator must base his or her decision on a ``preponderance of the evidence.'' 7. Reference in the bill to ``administrative remedies'' includes the authority to require back pay, the hiring of an individual, or reinstatement. 8. There must be appropriate sanctions for violations of ``whistleblower'' protections. 9. Close loopholes in the attestations: a. Strike the provision that ``[n]othing in the [recruitment attestation] shall be construed to prohibit an employer from using selection standards normal or customary to the type of job involved.'' b. Clarify that job contractors can be sanctioned for placing an H-1B worker with an employer who subsequently lays off a U.S. worker within the 90 days following placement. c. Do not exempt H-1B workers with at least a master's degree or the equivalent from calculations of the total number of H-1B employees. d. Define lay-off based on termination for ``cause or voluntary termination,'' but exclude cases where there has been an offer of continuing employment. 10. Consolidate the LCA approval and petition processes within DOL, rather than within INS. 11. Broaden the definition of U.S. workers to include aliens authorized to be employed by this act or by the Attorney General. 12. Include a provision that prohibits unconscionable contracts. 13. Include a ``no benching'' requirement that an H-1B nonimmigrant in ``non-productive status'' for reasons such as training, lack of license, lack of assigned work, or other such reason (not including when the employee is unavailable for work) be paid for a 40 hour week or a prorated portion of a 40 hour week during such time. 14. Increase the annual cap on H-1B visas to 95,000 in FY 1998, 105,000 in FY 1999, and 115,000 in FY 2000. After FY 2000, the visa cap shall return to 65,000. 15. Eliminate the 7500 cap on the number of non-physician health care workers admitted under the H-1B program to make the bill consistent with our obligations under the GATS agreement. September 14, 1998--Administration Package 1. Require [either] a $500 fee for each position for which an application is filed or [a $1,000 fee for each nonimmigrant] renewed. Fee to fund training provided under JTPA Title IV. In addition, a small portion of these revenues should fund the administration of the H-1B visa program, including the cost of [arbitration] enforcement. 2. Define H-1B-dependent employers as: a. For employers with fewer than 51 workers, that at least 20% of their workforce is H-1B; and b. For employers with more than 50 workers, that at least [10%] 12% of their workforce is H-1B. 3. The recruitment and no lay-off attestations apply to: (1) H-1B dependent employers; and (2) any employer who, within the previous 5 years, has been found to have willfully violated its obligations under this law. 4. H-1B dependent employers attest they will not place an H-1B worker with another employer, under certain employment circumstances, where the other employer has displaced or intends to displace a U.S. worker (as defined in paragraph (4)) during the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date the placement would begin. 5. DOL would have the authority to investigate compliance either: (1) pursuant to a complaint by an aggrieved party; or (2) based on other credible evidence from a source which is likely to have knowledge of an employer's practices, employment conditions, or compliance with the labor condition application indicating possible violations. [6. Establish an arbitration process for disputes involving the laying-off of any U.S. worker who was replaced by an H-1B worker, even of a non-H-1B dependent employer. This arbitration process would be largely similar to that laid out in H.R. 3736 except that it would be administered by the Secretary of Labor. The arbitrator must base his or her decision on a ``preponderance of the evidence.'' [7. Reference in the bill to ``administrative remedies'' includes the authority to require back pay, the hiring of an individual, or reinstatement.] 8. There must be appropriate sanctions for violations of ``whistleblower'' protections. 9. Close loopholes in the attestations: a. Strike the provision that ``[n]othing in the [recruitment attestation] shall be construed to prohibit an employer from using selection standards normal or customary to the type of job involved.'' Sen. Abraham would have a colloquy or there would be report language clarifying the intent of the recruitment attestation. b. Clarify that job contractors can be sanctioned for placing an H-1B worker with an employer who subsequently lays off a U.S. worker within the 90 days following placement. c. Do not exempt H-1B workers with at least a master's degree or the equivalent from calculations of the total number of H-1B employees. d. Define lay-off based on termination for ``cause or voluntary termination,'' but exclude cases where there has been an offer of continuing employment. 10. [Consolidate the] Maintain status quo with regard to LCA approval and petition processes [within DOL, rather than within INS.]. 11. Broaden the definition of U.S. workers to include aliens authorized to be employed by this act or by the Attorney General. 12. Include a provision that prohibits unconscionable contracts (with civil fines). 13. Include a ``no benching'' requirement that an H-1B nonimmigrant in ``non-productive status'' for reasons such as training, lack of license, lack of assigned work, or other such reason (not including when the employee is unavailable for work) be paid for a 40 hour week or a prorated portion of a 40 hour week during such time. 14. Increase the annual cap on H-1B visas to 95,000 in FY 1998, 105,000 in FY 1999, and 115,000 in FY 2000. After FY 2000, the visa cap shall return to 65,000. 15. Eliminate the 7500 cap on the number of non-physician health care workers admitted under the H-1B program to make the bill consistent with our obligations under the GATS agreement. 16. Three-year debarment for willful violation plus a $35,000-$40,000 fine. In addition, we would require the prevailing wage attestation be permanently changed to the following:

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to register serious concern over a provision in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, included as I understand it over the protest of the Senate. This is a legislative provision appended to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations portion of the bill that subjects federal prosecutors and other ``attorneys for the Government'' to State laws and rules governing attorneys ``to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.'' Now please understand, Mr. President. I think I am as much of a believer in federalism as anyone here. But federalism does not mean that control of all matters should be ceded to the States. One area where I think it is pretty clear that the national government should be the principal source of law is in setting rules of professional conduct for its own officers. To leave that question to the States, it seems to me, is to cede a very large portion of the control for how federal law is to be enforced to the States. That power can then be used to frustrate the enforcement of federal law. The risk that this will happen is significantly greater where the power is being turned over not to the States' elected representatives, but to bar associations vested with the States' powers, but without the accountability to the people of the States that elections generate. I believe that we can be pretty sure that this provision imposing State laws and rules on federal prosecutors will be used to frustrate federal law simply by looking at the rules the State bars already have adopted that will have this effect. I believe this trend will only accelerate once those opposed to certain aspects of federal law know, as a result of our adoption of this provision, that they have this new tool at their disposal. For many years members of the criminal defense bar have been sponsoring rules adopted in State codes of professional responsibility that trench upon legitimate and essential practices of federal prosecutors. The best known example involves rules of States such as California, Missouri, and New Mexico, as well as the District of Columbia, that limit prosecutors' contacts with represented persons in a way that can seriously complicate undercover investigations. The problem with this prohibition is that a low-level member of an organized crime ring may well be represented by counsel retained by the leaders of the ring. As a result, counsel's principal interest may be in preventing his or her ``client'' from giving useful information about those leaders to law enforcement--even if doing so would be in the client's interest because the client might get less prison time. But the ``represented parties'' context is not the only one where State rules governing attorneys raise problems. Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee have ``ethics'' rules requiring prior judicial approval of subpoenas of attorneys, even though federal case law has (for good reason) adopted no such requirement. Colorado also has a rule requiring submission of exculpatory evidence to grand juries, which it adopted shortly after the Supreme Court found in United States versus Williams that federal courts could not use their ``supervisory powers'' to impose such an obligation. And, at least according to the 10th Circuit's vacated Singleton opinion, it is an ``unethical'' practice, under Kansas state rules, for an Assistant U.S. Attorney to offer leniency in exchange for truthful testimony. Even assuming the 10th Circuit does not reinstate that portion of the panel opinion when it rules en banc, hardly an inevitable outcome, the suggestion the opinion made will continue to chill any federal prosecutor practicing in Kansas. It will continue to do so regardless of what the 10th Circuit does, since Kansas could adopt this theory even if the Tenth Circuit abandons it. Indeed, any State bar will be free to declare that offering leniency to accomplices to obtain their testimony is ``unethical'' and, under the provision we have unwisely adopted, that rule will control federal prosecutions. The result will be a drastic reduction in the effectiveness of federal efforts to combat crime. State bar associations have adopted the rules I have described despite previously grave doubt about their legal authority to make these rules binding on federal prosecutors. It seems to me that now that we have established as a matter of federal law that six months from now, rules like this will indeed govern federal prosecutors' conduct, these rules will only multiply further. For example, States could ban as unethical the forfeiture of cash intended to pay a defense lawyer--indeed, the ABA came very close to doing just that in an attempt effectively to overrule the Supreme Court's holding Caplin & Drysdale. States could rule it ``unethical'' to examine a witness in the grand jury room without his attorney being present, or to adduce evidence of one party-consent tape recordings--proposals the Senate, of course, rejected last month during the CJS debate. The potential list is limited only by the criminal defense bar's imagination. To be sure, the Department of Justice can argue its case to the bar associations considering such rules. But that is no solution. At best, it will require an inordinate expenditure of effort and resources that could instead be used to lock up dangerous criminals. At worst, and more likely in my view, the Department will lose the argument much of the time, and we will end up with constraints on federal officers that bear no connection with the federal policies those officers are charged with enforcing. This is not to say that I am opposed to requiring that lawyers who work for the federal government behave professionally. I am not. In fact, I am strongly for it. But I believe that it makes no sense to have the judgment about what ``professional conduct'' consists of be made by State bar associations. Of necessity these associations have little or no stake in securing the enforcement of the federal laws with which these federal government lawyers are charged; and it is easy to imagine instances where a number of their members may have an affirmative stake in frustrating that enforcement. Perhaps my concerns will turn out to be misplaced. I understand that one important concession the Senate obtained in the negotiations leading up to the inclusion of this provision in the omnibus legislation is a 6 month delay in the provision's effective date. This will give us some opportunity to see whether the result of the adoption of this provision is a greater effort by the State bars to accommodate federal interests, or the opposite. It will also give us a better opportunity to assess what the real impact of applying existing State rules in the context of federal prosecutions will be. In the long run, however, it seems to me that the right answer here is not for the federal government to abdicate to State bars the important responsibility of establishing these rules, but, at least with respect to its own officers, to perform that responsibility itself.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, as part of the omnibus appropriations bill the Senate today will pass the ``American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act.'' This legislation represents a bipartisan compromise resulting from tough negotiations between the House and the Senate, and between Congress and the White House. The bill will be included in this form rather than being adopted freestanding because of a last minute objection from Senator Harkin that has prevented it from being brought to the floor on its own. Given the 78 to 20 vote for the American Competitiveness Act prior to the agreement with the White House, and the 288 to 133 vote in the bill's favor just a few weeks ago in the House of Representatives, it is clear the legislation would have passed with overwhelming support in the Senate had it been permitted to come to a separate vote. I believe that the passage of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act today is a great victory for American workers and for the businesses that employ them. This legislation will protect the competitiveness of American business in the global marketplace and improve economic and career opportunities for American citizens. Let me start by describing the history of this legislation. This past February, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing at my request to examine high technology labor market needs. We heard from leaders at America's top high technology firms that they simply could not find enough qualified professionals to fill the jobs they needed filled. They also emphasized that many of the individuals they hired on H-1B temporary visas not only filled important jobs, but also typically created jobs for many Americans through their skills and innovations. At that time, the 65,000 cap on H-1B visas was projected to be reached as early as June. Instead, it was reached the first week of May. In March, I introduced S. 1723, the American Competitiveness Act, to increase the cap on H-1B visas for foreign born professionals. In April, that bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 12 to 6 bipartisan vote. Then in May, the bill passed on a 78 to 20 vote of the full Senate. Some time after that, the House Judiciary Committee passed out an H- 1B visa bill as well. However, many who supported the increase in principle found that the House version included so many conditions on the use of H-1B visas that they would have more than negated the benefits of raising the cap. Negotiations ensued between the House and Senate over these provisions, brokered by the leadership of both chambers. The hope was to find a compromise. In the end, a compromise was reached that retained the core features of the Senate bill but also found common ground with the House by focusing increased attention and requirements on employers, more than 15% of whose workforce are in this country on H-1B visas. The compromise also imposed a fee to be paid by the employer on each visa, the proceeds of which would be used for job training and scholarships. On account of this last provision, the compromise bill was required to originate in the House. Accordingly, it was incorporated into a proposed amendment, whose text was worked out by me and by House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Smith--a proposed amendment which Chairman Smith was going to offer as a substitute to H.R. 3736, the bill that had passed out of House Judiciary. As the House was preparing to take that bill up before the August recess, however, the White House issued a public veto threat and listed 15 changes it was seeking to the bill. At that point, I was deputized to attempt to negotiate the remaining issues with the Administration, in consultation with Chairman Smith and the House and Senate leadership. After several weeks of negotiations, we reached agreement at 7:00 p.m. on September 23. We and the Administration were able to reach an accommodation on most of the points it had raised. The Administration withdrew the remaining two points, points 6 and 7, that in our view could not be accommodated within the existing structure of the bill and the H-1B program. We instead agreed on a different approach with regard to the concerns underlying these two points, one that focused instead on clarifying current program requirements and toughening sanctions for willful violations of these requirements. Because the bill was scheduled to be taken up on the House floor the following day, the results of the agreement had to be quickly incorporated into a new substitute amendment to H.R. 3736. The substitute had to be filed by Chairman Smith that evening before the House went out at 8:30 p.m. so that it could be printed in the Congressional Record and be made available for Members to review the following morning. We met this deadline, the amendment was filed, and on September 24 the amendment was adopted and the bill passed by the House with the support of a majority of both the Republican and Democratic caucuses. That bill, with some technical corrections necessitated by a few omissions that resulted from the tight deadline under which the original version was produced, is now incorporated into Title IV of Division C of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, titled The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act. Let me now turn to the reasons why I believe this bill remains needed and indeed timely. Mr. President, throughout this session of Congress I have come to the floor repeatedly to urge that we address the growing shortage of skilled workers for certain positions in our high technology sector. I have done this because I believe that the continued competitiveness of our high-tech sector is crucial for our economic well being as a nation, and for increased economic opportunity for American workers. The importance of high-tech for our economy is beyond doubt. The importance of high-tech for our economy is beyond doubt. According to the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, high technology companies contributed over one-quarter of America's real economic growth between 1992 and 1997. Moreover, the declining prices of computers, software, and semiconductors have made a substantial contribution to our nation's low level of inflation, thereby improving the standard of living enjoyed by millions of Americans. Without IT industries to keep prices down, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the inflation rate would have been much higher in 1997--3.1 percent versus the actual level of only 2.0. But high technology firms are experiencing serious worker shortages. A study conducted by Virginia Tech estimates that right now we have more than 340,000 unfilled positions for highly skilled information technology workers. And, while Department of Labor figures project our economy will produce more than 1.3 million information technology jobs over the next 10 years, estimates are that our universities will not produce nearly that number of graduates in related fields. And this is not only what academic studies are telling us. Firms across the nation and across my home State of Michigan have been clamoring for people to fill these skilled positions. Of course, this issue is not only about shortages, it is about opportunities for innovation and expansion, since people with valuable skills, whatever their national origin, will always benefit our nation by creating more jobs for everyone. Mr. President, we want and need American companies to keep and expand major operations in this country. We do not want to see American jobs go overseas. But, if they are to keep their major operations in the United States, firms must find workers here who have the skills needed to fill important positions in their companies. To make that happen in the long term, we must do more as a nation to encourage our young people to choose high technology fields for study and for their careers. In the long run this is the only way we can stay competitive and protect American jobs. Through scholarships and job training, the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act will help us achieve this goal. It will provide money and training to low income students who choose to study subjects, including math, computer science and engineering, that are important to our high-tech economy. In this way the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act will help bridge the gap between current job skills and the requirements of high paying, important positions in our economy. However, over the short term, until we are producing more qualified high technology graduates, we must also take other steps to bridge the gap between high technology needs and high technology skills. We currently allow companies to hire a limited number of highly skilled foreign born professionals to fill essential roles. To do this they must go through a fairly onerous process to get one of the 65,000 ``H-1B'' temporary worker visas allotted by the INS. Unfortunately, last year our companies hit the 65,000 annual limit at the end of August. This year that limit was hit in May. This bill, in addition to providing significant incentives for Americans to enter the high technology sector, will temporarily raise the number of H-1B visas available for the next three years. These additional visas will enable companies to find the workers they need to keep facilities and jobs in the United States, and keep our high-tech industry competitive in the global marketplace. The legislation also includes a number of provisions ensuring that companies will not replace American workers with foreign born professionals, including increased penalties and oversight, as well as measures eliminating any economic incentive to hire a foreign born worker if there is an American available with the skills needed to fill the position. I would like to thank the members of my staff who worked long hours negotiating this compromise. I would also especially like to express my personal gratitude to my colleagues for their support for this important legislation. I would like to thank in particular Majority Leader Lott, Senator Hatch, Senator McCain, Senator Gramm, Senator Gorton, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Graham, as well as the many cosponsors of the bill, for their crucial support at key moments in this process. I am also grateful to Senator Kohl and Senator Feinstein for their support for this legislation in Committee. Finally, I would like to thank the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Senator Kennedy, for the cooperation he showed in moving forward this piece of legislation despite disagreement with some aspects of the bill's content. In the House, I would like to extend special thanks to Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Armey, and Chairman Smith for helping to reach a compromise that has achieved a true consensus on this issue. Representatives David Dreier, Jim Rogan and David McIntosh also provided leadership and help at significant junctures in this process and I am also grateful for their important efforts. Because much of this legislation was developed after the conclusion of the regular Committee process, I have also prepared an explanatory document that performs the function commonly performed by the Committee Report of describing the legislation and the purpose and interrelationship of its various provisions in detail. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record, along with a few pages of other materials to which the document makes reference.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I concur with my colleagues. The development and production of alternative fuels provides a real opportunity for the country to improve the environment while ensuring a constant, reasonably priced fuel supply. But recent efforts to provide such assurances have been hampered. For example, in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Congress extended the placed-in-service date for facilities producing synthetic fuels from coal, and gas from biomass for eighteen months. However, progress in bringing certain facilities up to full production has been hampered by the Administration's 1997 proposal to shorten the placed-in-service date and because, in many cases, the technology used to produce the fuels is new. Such delays have created uncertainty regarding the facilities eligibility under the placed-in- service requirement of Section 29 While it is important that the Congress consider again this issue in the 106th Congress, I would also urge the Secretary to consider the facilities I mentioned qualified under Section 29 if they met the Service's criteria for placed-in-service by June 30, 1998 whether or not such facilities were consistently producing commercial quantities of marketable products on a daily basis.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise on the occasion of the Senate's passage, by unanimous consent, of Senate Resolution 298, condemning the terror, vengeance, and human rights abuses against the civilian population of Sierra Leone. I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly the members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, for their support, as well as their quick action on this important legislation. While the resolution speaks for itself in its condemnation of atrocities and insistence that all people abide by international standards of decency, allow me to make just a few points. On a number of occasions, Mr. President, I have come to the floor to insist that America's status as the world's first free nation, and the continuing leader of the free world, imposes certain responsibilities on us. Most important, our status imposes on us the duty to speak out and where possible act to prevent gross violations of basic human rights. Yet at this very moment there is a crisis in the Sierra Leone of tragic proportions, in which truly unbelievable atrocities are being committed against the civilian population. Mr. President, we should not permit this tragedy to go unnoticed and we should not permit the war crimes being committed there to be committed with impunity. I learned about the Sierra Leone crisis from concerned individuals and in my capacity as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, which has oversight of refugee matters. I have spoken to Secretary of State Albright about the Sierra Leone crisis, both because of the situation of current refugees and more broadly because I believe we may have a unique opportunity to help stop the war in Sierra Leone so that more lives are not wasted or shattered and more innocent people not turned into refugees. Over 500,000 Sierra Leonean refugees currently reside, often in conditions of incredible poverty and deprivation, outside of their country. This number includes something like 350,000 in Guinea and 182,000 in Liberia. The majority of these people have fled Sierra Leone over the past year, with over 250,000 fleeing in the past six months. All are fleeing armed conflict and civil war. Let me briefly rehearse the events that have produced this tragic situation. In May of 1997, the democratically elected president of Sierra Leone, President Tejan Kabbah, was overthrown in a military coup, leading to a large outflow of refugees and the evacuation of our own and other foreign embassies in the capital of Freetown. For nine months, the country was ruled by a coalition of rebel groups including the AFRC (Armed Forces Revolutionary Council) and the RUF (Revolutionary United Front). In February 1998, the West African peacekeeping force (ECOMOG, a regional force principally composed of Nigerians) secured control of Freetown and restored Kabbah to power. ECOMOG controls the area surrounding Freetown and is continuing offensives in the interior of the country to try to regain control. Starting in February and March, rebels (also referred to as the junta) began to retaliate through a campaign of terror directed at the population. This has led to the massive exodus of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, was captured by ECOMOG and is scheduled to be tried for treason in Freetown. Last month, his second in command threatened to wipe out the remaining population if Foday Sankoh is tried. Speaking on BBC radio, he declared that, if Foday Sankoh is tried, the rebels will launch ``operation spare no soul,'' killing ``every living thing, including chickens.'' His past conduct proves that his threats are not empty. Unbelievable atrocities have been committed against the Sierra Leoneans. Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea and Liberia also face severe shortages of food and medical care. Reports of violence include killings, amputations of body parts with machetes, rapes (including of young girls), and other torture. On occasion, violence has been targeted at Kabbah supporters. Some amputee victims have had notes pinned to their chests warning Kabbah of further violence, and others are told to tell Kabbah to give them their hands back. In other cases the violence appears indiscriminate and designed to terrorize the population. Villages have been evacuated and destroyed on a large scale as Sierra Leoneans try to flee the rebels. Mr. President, I introduced this resolution because the violence is not over. Unfortunately, it may have just begun. Fighting continues in Sierra Leone, and the refuges need help. West African states have committed their soldiers to help achieve peace in Sierra Leone. But they need logistical and other support--support we can provide without placing American lives at risk. Our leadership can make a difference here in ending the horrors in Sierra Leone and assisting the victims of war. We should not look the other way. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lieutenant William James Lenaghan, II, who is retiring from the Canton Township Police Department in the state of Michigan after 20 years of dedicated service. Lieutenant Lenaghan joined the Canton Township Police Department after serving in various governmental jobs. He started his career in 1962, when he joined the United States Navy. He was stationed at the Naval Air Station in Grosse, IL, where he was assigned as a Fire Fighter Instructor. After serving in the military, he began his police officer career as a patrolman. He served in this capacity as well as Special Investigator, Arson Investigator, a member of the Tactical Response Team, Narcotics/Intelligence Team Commander and Instructor for five years in the Michigan cities of West Bloomfield and Redford Township. Next, he became a Special Agent in the United States Treasury Department Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) where he fulfilled the duties of Instructor and Arson Explosives Team Member. As the burden of traveling with three small children at home became too much, he left his position at the BATF and went to work for Bloomfield Township Police/Tri Cities Fire Department. Here, he continued to expand his experience by becoming Fire Marshal, Tactical Team Officer and Arson Team Member. Longing to once again work for the United States Government, he went to work for the United States Department Bureau of Customs in Detroit, Michigan. Among the many duties that he partook in, he was a Patrol Supervisor and Intelligence Liaison with DEA. In 1978, he began his final expedition as a sergeant for the Canton Township Police Department. Beginning his career as a patrolman, he climbed the ranks to eventually become Senior Lieutenant. While advancing his record as a civil servant, he also took on the responsibilities of shift commander, Emergency Preparedness Director and Community Policing Coordinator. Throughout his career, Lieutenant Lenaghan has received a great deal of recognition for his excellent service. One example that did not go unrecognized was an event occurring on June 23, 1984. While attending to his own responsibilities, he extended much needed aid to help out a fellow officer who was struggling with a mentally deranged person. Responding to the scene, he assisted by providing physical support bringing the subject under control. His actions undoubtedly prevented further injury to his fellow officer and prevented further danger to the citizens in the area. His decisions ad judgements were certainly a credit to himself and his department. This brave act is only one example of the many citations he has received over his career. With over 30 years' experience in public safety and law enforcement at the local and federal levels, Lieutenant Lenaghan has provided quality leadership in public safety management. His extensive training in police, emergency, fire protection, and supervision enabled him to perform multi-level tasks essential to the efficient operation of public safety and police department duties. On behalf of his wife Lois of 31 years, his seven children, his seven grandchildren, the State of Michigan and myself, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge his excellent service, dedication, winning personality and commitment to those with whom he worked. Again, I extend my warmest congratulations to him on his retirement.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a recent article in the Washington Times dealing with the large proportion of Nobel Prize winners in the United States who are immigrants. As reported in this article, while only approximately 8 percent of the American population was foreign-born as of 1990, approximately one third of American winners of the Nobel Prize have been immigrants. The Times also reports that, according to the National Research Council, ``immigrants have won 32 percent of the U.S. Nobel Prizes for physics, 31 percent of the medicine and economics prizes, and 26 percent of the chemistry prizes.'' This year, Austrian-born American Walter Kohn won the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Daniel Tsui, born in China, won the Nobel Prize in Physics as a naturalized American. Mr. President, I believe every American should take great pride in these gentlemen's accomplishments. By keeping American society free and open we attracted them to our borders. Through our willingness to seek out and hire the most talented people available we gave them the opportunity to excel. By rising above considerations of national origin and family background all of us have benefitted from the discoveries, the intelligence and the hard work of literally millions of immigrants--from my own grandparents to the ancestors of our Founding Fathers to the latest immigrant, intent on making a better life for himself and his family. I ask that the full text of the article from the Washington Times be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Times, Oct. 17, 1998] Immigrants Help U.S. Bring Home Nobel Bacon (By Ruth Larson) This week's announcement of the Nobel Prizes for science continued America's long-standing dominance of the prestigious awards, thanks in large part to a wealth of foreign-born talent. A National Research Council report last year found that about a third of all U.S. Nobel Prizes were won by scientists born overseas. Immigrants have won 32 percent of the U.S. Nobel Prizes for physics, 31 percent of the medicine and economics prizes, and 26 percent of the chemistry prizes. Although the report does not state where the immigrants were born, the last 16 winners since 1987 have come from places like Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, Canada, Mexico and Korea. ``There's no doubt about it: Immigrants represent a very high proportion of Nobel Prize winners,'' said Cato Institute economist Stephen Moore. The number of foreign-born Nobel Prize winners is all the more striking, given that the U.S. foreign-born population reached just 8 percent in 1990, the report said. The Nobel Prizes, considered the ultimate symbols of scientific achievement, show how America in the 1990s has become a high-tech melting pot, recruiting science and engineering talent from around the world to fuel the growth of industries from computers and electronics to pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. In 1993, 23 percent of those holding science and engineering doctorates were born overseas, according to the National Science Foundation's latest figures. Shirley Malcom of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, ``The best and the brightest come here because there has been a tremendous research establishment built up in this country.'' Mr. Moore agreed: ``If you're one of the world's top scientists, you want to be at Stanford or Harvard or MIT, where they have some of the bsst academic research facilities. History has helped, too. Obviously, World War II played a major role, with many of the more repressive regimes discriminating against scientists of a particular heritage or background,'' Ms. Malcom said. ``In many cases, scientists had no choice but to leave. They came to the U.S. because they were offered opportunities to pursue their life's work without regard to those extraneous issues.'' Roald Hoffman, a 1981 winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry, fled with his family in 1949 from their native Poland. ``I was one of the last generations of Hitler's gifts to America,'' he said. A wave of Central European scientists, including physicists Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi, fled the rise of Nazism and anti-Semitism and came to America. The scientific research structure established after World War II flourished, with the help of a strong economy and generous government funding from agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, he said. ``The freedom to do the scientific research you want . . . is tremendous, as is the ease of interaction with other scientists,'' Mr. Hoffman said. Success then breeds success: ``Once you have built up a good reputation in a particular area, it attracts other scientists, as we've seen in the biomedical field.'' Ms. Malcom predicted that a similar influx of scientists fleeing the former Soviet Union would be reflected in future Nobel winners. ``Not just because of the Cold War, either,'' she said. ``They've lost much of the infrastructure needed for research and development, as well.'' But wars and repressive regimes cannot account for the success of immigrants once they arrive on American soil. ``We're getting people with the motivation and ambition that leads to high achievement,'' Mr. Moore said. ``There's a certain amount of risk-taking associated with success.''

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Omnibus Appropriations bill that the Senate is about to consider contains the full text of S. 2107, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, a bill I introduced in April along with Senators Wyden, McCain and Reed. I want to thank Senators McCain, Lott, Wyden, and Hollings for taking the time and effort to work with me in advancing this legislation. Without their active support and participation, this bill would not have progressed as far as it has. Senators Wyden, McCain and Reed joined me in introducing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act in May of this year. On July 15, 1998, I chaired a hearing on this legislation before the full Commerce Committee. Two weeks later, S. 2107 was marked up in the Committee with several modifications. On a voice vote, the bill as amended was ordered to be reported. When the Senate returned to session after the August recess, a unanimous consent agreement was propounded on S. 2107. This unanimous consent request brought the bill to the attention of Senator Thompson, the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee. Senator Thompson had concerns with the bill because of the extent to which it dealt with Federal agencies. Despite the time constraints--the session was expected to end in two weeks--Senator Thompson generously offered to work with me to address some of his committee's concerns and ensure that the bill as offered did not conflict with current mandates on the Executive. Over the course of the last week in September, Senator Thompson and I modified S. 2107 to address the concerns raised in his committee. On Tuesday, October 7, S. 2107 as amended was added as an amendment to S. 442 by unanimous consent. The Internet Tax Freedom Bill passed the Senate on October 8 and was sent to the House for consideration. However, because the House did not agree with some of the language contained in the bill, House Members proposed adding the text of the House passed Internet Tax Freedom Bill to the omnibus rather than passing S. 442 as amended. On October 15th, the Senate passed S. 2107 independent of other vehicles. On the same day, the text of S. 2107 was included in the omnibus appropriations bill. The next day, October 16th, the Omnibus Appropriations bill was passed by Congress with the text of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act included therein. This legislation amends the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 to allow for the use of electronic submission of Federal forms to the Federal government with the use of an electronic signature within five years from the date of enactment. It is intended to bring the federal government into the electronic age, in the process saving American individuals and companies millions of dollars and hundreds of hours currently wasted on government paperwork. In order to protect the private sector and ensure a level playing field for companies competing in the development of electronic signature technologies, this legislation mandates that regulations promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration be compatible with standards and technologies used commercially in order to ensure that no one industry or technology receives favorable consideration. It also requires Federal agencies to accept multiple methods of electronic submission if the agency expects to receive 50,000 or more electronic submittals of a particular form. This requirement will ensure that no single electronic signature technology is permitted to unfairly dominate the market. This legislation also takes several steps to help the public feel more secure in the use of electronic signatures. If the public is going to send money or share private information with the government, people must be secure in the knowledge that their information and finances are adequately protected. For this reason, my bill requires that electronic signatures be as reliable as necessary for the transaction. If a person is requesting information of a public nature, a secure electronic signature will not be necessary. If, however, an individual is submitting forms which contain personal, medical or financial information, adequate security is imperative and will be available. This is not the only provision providing for personal security, however. Senator Leahy joined me to help establish a threshold for privacy protection in this bill. The language developed by Senator Leahy and I will ensure that information submitted by an individual can only be used to facilitate the electronic transfer of information or with the prior consent of the individual. Also included is legislation which establishes legal standing for electronically submitted documents. Such legal authority is necessary to attach the same importance to electronically signed documents as is attached to physically signed documents. Without it, electronic submission of sensitive documents would be impossible. Finally, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires that Federal agencies to send an individual an electronic acknowledgement of their submission when it is received. Such acknowledgements are standard when conducting commerce online. A similar acknowledgement by Federal agencies will provide piece-of-mind for individuals who conduct business with the government electronically. As much as individuals will benefit from this bill, so too will American businesses. By providing companies with the option of electronic filing and storage, this bill will reduce the paperwork burden imposed by government on commerce and the American economy. It will allow businesses to move from printed forms they must fill out using typewriters or handwriting to digitally-based forms that can be filled out using a word processor. The savings in time, storage and postage will be enormous. One company, computer maker Hewlett-Packard, estimates that the section of this bill permitting companies to download copies of regulatory forms to be filed and stored digitally rather than physically will, by itself, save that company $1-2 billion per year. Efficiency in the federal government itself will also be enhanced by this legislation. By forcing government bureaucracies to enter the digital information age we will force them to streamline their procedures and enhance their ability to maintain accurate, accessible records. This should result in significant cost savings for the federal government as well as increased efficiency and enhanced customer service. Each and every year, Mr. President, Americans spend in excess of $6 billion hours simply filling out, documenting and handling government paperwork. This huge loss of time and money constitutes a significant drain on our economy and we must bring it under control. The easier and more convenient we make it for American businesses to comply with paperwork and reporting requirements, the better job they will do of meeting these requirements, and the better job they will do of creating jobs and wealth for our country. That is why we need this legislation. The information age is no longer new, Mr. President. We are in the midst of a revolution in the way people do business and maintain records. This legislation will force Washington to catch up with these developments, and release our businesses from the drag of an obsolete bureaucracy as they pursue further innovations. The result will be a nation and a people that is more prosperous, more free and more able to spend time on more rewarding pursuits. I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate for their support and urge the House to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of intent for the Government Paperwork Elimination Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. As he pointed out, the American Competitiveness and Workplace Improvement Act, includes a provision to provide math, engineering and computer science scholarships to needy students and a provision to provide additional worker training programs. There are a number of pilot programs being developed around the country to provide high-tech training to American workers. As Senator Durbin mentioned, DePaul University has developed just such a pilot program to address the shortage of qualified U.S. high-tech workers that might well serve as a good model for other programs across the country. Programs like the one developed by DePaul University are what we had in mind when the training provisions were drafted. national security