Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 2107, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, a bill I introduced in April along with Senators Wyden, McCain and Reed. This bill has been added as an amendment to the Internet Tax Freedom Act and I want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings and Senator Thompson, 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. This bill 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. The bill also includes provisions to protect the private sector and ensure a level playing field for companies competing in the development of electronic signature technologies. It 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. This will ensure that no one industry or technology receives favorable consideration. The bill 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 people are going to send money or share private information with the government, they 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 any given 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 unless it has the prior consent of the individual. Also included is a provision establishing 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 this provision, electronic submission of sensitive documents would be impossible. Finally, Mr. President the Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires that Federal agencies send individuals 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 which conduct electronic business with the government. As much as individuals will benefit from this legislation, 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 6.6 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.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few observations regarding the state of the American economy and the steps policy makers should take to ensure continued prosperity in the future. Right now we have some good news about the state of the economy. Overall employment growth is strong. Unemployment is low at 4.5 percent nationally and an even lower 3.9 percent in my home state of Michigan. Family incomes continue to rise. And the technological and information age revolution continues to increase productivity and wealth throughout America. Hi-tech companies in particular are growing fast and creating thousands of spin-off jobs. Economist Larry Kudlow reports that the hardware and software industries combined account for about one third of real economic growth. What is more, this industry is increasing productivity throughout our economy in ways we can't even measure. So, on the surface things look pretty bright right now, Mr. President. But there are economic storm clouds on the horizon. Stock market investors are riding a roller coaster of volatility. The August Employment Report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a drop in manufacturing jobs of 55,000--indeed, the number of manufacturing jobs in this country has declined for 5 straight months. Bankruptcies have accelerated. On the international front, the Russian economy is in deep distress. And our Asian economic partners continue in a state of crisis that threatens our balance of payments and our general economic health. As Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan noted recently in a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, ``it is just not credible that the United States can remain an oasis of prosperity unaffected by a world that is experiencing greatly increased stress.'' I wholeheartedly concur in Chairman Greenspan's analysis. And that is why I believe it is necessary for us to look closely and seriously at our current economic policies so that we can face coming economic uncertainties from a position of strength. We must, in my view, address a number of problems in current policy, lest they undermine continued economic growth and prosperity. To begin with, Mr. President, we should consider the current state of our monetary policy. The Fed's recent quarter point cut in the federal funds (or overnight lending) rate was followed by a significant drop in the stock market. A number of analysts have observed that this may have been caused by investors' conviction that, even with the cut, short term interest rates remain too high, and that the Federal Reserve should seriously consider cutting them further. The fed funds rate remained at 5.5 percent for two and a half years despite a drop in inflation to 1.7 percent. Even at its current 5.25 percent, the real, after-inflation rate is about 3.5 percent--much higher for example than between 1992 and 1994, when it was only 0.6 percent. Chairman Greenspan, along with former Chairman Paul Volcker, deserve great credit for reducing inflation through sound monetary policies. But real interest rates have remained high in the face of indications that we may be entering an era of deflation, and this cannot continue if we are to maintain price stability and a strong economy. Gold prices have fallen by more than 30 percent since early 1996. Commodity prices have fallen to 21 year lows. Corporate profits have declined on a year-over-year basis for the first time in a decade. Farm prices are plummeting. What is more, Mr. President, a number of economies in recent months have experienced significant currency devaluations. These devaluations have produced increasing demands for U.S. dollars. But, by keeping short term interest rates high, the Fed has refused to supply these dollars, precipitating a liquidity crisis around the globe. I firmly believe that the best environment for business, workers, and consumers is one of price stability. Price stability allows for accurate planning and investment over the long term. But price stability requires that we avoid both extremes, of deflation as well as inflation. Monetary policy is a matter for Alan Greenspan and his colleagues at the Federal Reserve. But it is my hope that they will examine the overall economic picture and conclude that it is time to lower interest rates in the interests of long term price stability and global economic growth. We should not look solely to the Fed, however, in seeking to ensure prosperity for the future. In addition to excessively tight monetary policy, the American economy and the American people are being put at risk from too-tight fiscal policy. Specifically, Mr. President, the current high and rising federal tax burden is keeping the economy from reaching its full potential. In 1997 federal taxes took 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of this country, the highest percentage since World War II. Federal taxes on the American people increased by almost a third in just four years--going up from $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 1993 to $1.6 trillion over the course of President Clinton's first term. In 1997 Americans paid 45 percent more in income taxes than they had in 1993. And, unless we act, this burden will increase. During the fourth quarter of 1997 federal receipts approached a record 22 percent of GDP. Neither the American people nor the American economy can sustain this crushing tax burden. It discourages people from working, saving, investing, and engaging in the entrepreneurial activities that keep our economy growing. It must be lowered substantially, expeditiously, and in a way that encourages economic growth. Early on in the next Congress, Mr. President, I believe we should seriously consider significant pro-growth tax cuts, including: Using revenues from our budget surplus to save Social Security and encourage investment by lowering the payroll tax and allowing workers to put some of their own money in Personal Retirement Accounts. Marriage penalty tax relief. A capital gains tax rate reduction, perhaps to 15 percent as proposed by Majority Leader Lott. Estate tax relief. Widening the current 15 percent income tax bracket to apply it to all middle class American families. Expanding tax free savings accounts for education, health care, and retirement. Reducing income tax rates across-the-board--perhaps up to 10 percent, and allowing businesses to more quickly write-off the costs for investment in plant and equipment. This pro-growth tax incentive would be especially beneficial to America's struggling manufacturing sector. These tax suggestions are neither new nor radical, Mr. President. But it is time for us to implement them. They would spur savings and investment, and encourage work and entrepreneurial activity, assuring economic growth. But they are not enough. Over the long term, Mr. President, we must move toward more fundamental tax reform. We need to design an income tax that applies a lower rate to income, reduces the current bias against saving and investment, lowers the tax burden on working families, simplifies the code, and reduces the cost of compliance. Only this kind of fairer, flatter, simpler and more investment-friendly tax system can give us the sound fiscal policy we need to build a bright, sustainable economic future. Congress needs to institute other pro-growth reforms as well. We must reform our tort system to lower the ``tort tax'' from frivolous lawsuits. The Rand Corporation recently reported that the average lawsuit costs a company $100,000. Thus even a frivolous lawsuit can put a small company out of business, and a good number of workers out of a job. We need to institute serious cost-benefit analysis for federal regulations and federal unfunded, private sector mandates. Regulations cost our economy $647 billion per year, according to the GAO, and that is simply too much. We have to do more to improve our children's education so that they can qualify for good paying jobs in our technological, information age economy. We have to bring in a limited number of highly trained immigrants to fill some of the important positions our high-tech companies cannot currently fill and to help us solve the year 2000 or ``Y2K'' problem before it damages our economy. And within the next few days the Senate will pass and President Clinton will sign the American Competitiveness and Workforce Enhancement Act. This legislation will increase the number of temporary high-tech visas and provide scholarships and job training so that more Americans can gain the skills necessary to fill these positions in the long term. We also must continue to build on America's pro-free trade tradition--by extending fast track negotiating authority, and aggressively negotiating trade agreements that open markets for American products. We must reform the lending policies of the International Monetary Fund. All too often, the Fund requires developing countries to raise taxes and devalue currencies as a condition for receiving loans. These anti-growth policies only worsen a developing country's economic and debt problems. The Fund should instead promote policies that spur economic growth in these countries--lower tax rates, free markets, the rule of law, and sound currencies. In general, Mr. President, we must do more to encourage hard work and entrepreneurship so that all of us can benefit from the income and the jobs they create. Through prudent steps ensuring price stability and reducing governmental burdens on the private sector, we can sustain economic growth for the foreseeable future. But the time to act is now. The warning signs are there for us to see. I hope we will not wait until it is too late. I plan to work for pro-growth reforms whenever and wherever possible. I believe it is my duty to the people of Michigan, as it is our duty to the people of America, to safeguard their economic security by unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit that built this nation, and that can build a bright future of growth and opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Higher Education Reauthorization Act that passed the Senate by a 96-0 vote last week. Mr. President, this legislation illustrates this Congress' strong support for education, particularly higher education. This bill will make strong investments in our future by increasing the availability of financial aid to students in need, thereby allowing more students to benefit from our higher education system. Specifically, the bill lowers students' five-year loan rate to the lowest it has been for 17 years. Congress was able to strike a balance of lowering the rates students pay on their loans to 7.46 percent while keeping commercial lenders in the market. This reduction in interest rates will result in a savings of $700 on the average debt of $13,000 and savings of more than $1,000 on a $20,000 debt. By striking this balance, the long-term stability of the student loan program will continue. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act also increases the maximum Pell Grant available to low-income students. Beginning in 1999, the maximum student Pell Grant authorization level will increase gradually each year from the current level of $3,000 to $5,800 in 2003. This change will enable low-income students to afford college and accumulate less debt. The bill also includes an important change to the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) program that is of particular importance to me. Under this legislation, the SSIG program was reformed and changed to the Special Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Program. Working with Senators Jeffords, Collins, and Reed, I was able to have language included under the LEAP Program to provide scholarships for low-income students studying mathematics, computer science, or engineering. I believe this language is particularly important given the current shortage of high-tech workers. Through the LEAP program, States are provided matching money from the Federal Government to provide grants for students entering various fields of study. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act makes a strong commitment to pre-K and K-12 education by creating a loan forgiveness program for students who earn a degree and obtain employment in the child care industry, as well as for students who gain teaching jobs in school districts serving large populations of low-income children. The loan forgiveness program will provide an important incentive for teachers to go into underserved areas and fields. Coupled with this provision, the Higher Education Act strengthens and promotes greater accountability within current teacher preparation programs. The legislation provides State and local partnerships with incentives to place a greater focus on academics and strong teaching skills for teacher certification programs. By focusing on teacher preparation, this bill increases the likelihood that students will be adequately prepared and able to succeed in our higher education system. In all, this legislation demonstrates the bipartisan nature of this Congress' commitment to education. This bill will impact thousands of college-bound students each year and will prepare thousands of school- age children for higher education in the years to come.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Bill 2295. Senator John McCain introduced this bill to reauthorize the Older American's Act of 1965. This legislation will extend authorization for three years for America's senior citizen population. Today's seniors face issues and problems that will eventually effect every American. I watched my parents confront life as seniors, and I too am concerned about my life after retirement. Taxes, health care, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and quality of life issues are just a few of the areas in which our seniors face difficult challenges. The number of people 65 years of age and older is expected to grow more than three times as fast as the total population through the next thirty years. I believe the Older Americans Act provides essential programs for this growing population. The Older Americans Act includes senior programs such as the senior nutrition program, senior employment services, and the foster grandparent program, among others. Area Agencies on Aging throughout Michigan and the nation conduct various social and health related programs for seniors through the Older American's Act. These programs, when run effectively and efficiently, are a great service to our elderly population. The Older American's Act has been without reauthorization for too long. I supported this straight reauthorization to provide some stability to these important programs. I believe congress must take steps to ensure the health and well-being of the growing elderly population. For these reasons, I am proud to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a very important organization the state of Michigan. The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty is a unique resource dedicated to prosperity and progress and based in the virtues of religious liberty, economic freedom, and personal moral responsibility. The Acton Institute works hand in hand with church leadership, educational institutions, and individuals in business and the ministry, both in the United States and abroad, to promote an understanding of market principles and to encourage the economic freedom that creates opportunity for all. This organization has assisted both elected officials and scholars alike with its well written policy papers and newsletters. My colleagues and I truly appreciate their insight and dedication to the free market. The Acton Institute will be celebrating their eighth anniversary today, October 5, 1998 with their Annual Dinner Gala in Grand Rapids. The Institute's Board of Directors and the Eighth Anniversary Host Committee has a wonderful evening planned. It will undoubtedly be a great success. I extend my best wishes and congratulations to Father Robert A. Sirico, and everyone involved in making the organization a tremendous success. I wish the Acton Institute continued prosperity.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for Senate Bill 2426, ``The Uniformed Services Filing Fairness Act of 1998.'' I believe this legislation will work to give much assistance to our men and women abroad in uniform. As we continue to ask for increased responsibilities from our servicemembers, let us not punish these same stewards with unfair tax return deadlines. Due to the remote deployment of many in the uniformed service, these tax deadlines become nearly impossible to meet. In my view, this presents the Senate with an opportunity to provide a measure of relief to servicemembers already stretched to their limits by those repeated and remote deployments. In my view, this needed legislation is both fair-minded and fiscally responsible. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Would the Senator from Ohio provide a further clarification that the Senate intends that the committee created in the bill will provide its recommendations under the guidance and direction of the Council of Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission?

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss language that has been added to this legislation, the ``Government Paperwork Elimination Act.'' In May, I introduced S. 2107 to enhance electronic commerce and promote the reliability and integrity of commercial transactions through the establishment of authentication standards for electronic communications. S. 2107 was reported by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation last month. After the bill was reported, it was discovered that the bill was erroneously referred to the Commerce Committee and should have been referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. S. 2107 deals with Federal government information issues and, according to the parliamentarian, falls directly within the jurisdiction of Governmental Affairs. I understand a similar bill had been approved by Governmental Affairs last Congress. Obviously, this was discovered late in the session. Nevertheless, Senator Thompson, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, worked with me to develop language which combines language from the bill reported by his Committee last Congress and S. 2107. I want to thank my colleague from Tennessee for his help and insight. He spent a great deal of time assisting me with this legislation and, in my opinion, his language makes many improvements to the original bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify my position on the minimum wage vote that took place last week. In 1996, I voted to increase the minimum wage by a total of 90 cents. I did this with the understanding that the minimum wage has not been increased since 1989. As many are aware, the last increment of the 1996 increase went into effect on September 1, 1997. Senator Kennedy is now proposing to increase the minimum wage by another dollar one year after the last increase took effect. Mr. President, I believe this is simply too soon because the current U.S. economic situation is unstable. Given the wild fluctuations in financial markets, continued economic stagnation in Asia, and job losses in our manufacturing sector, imposing additional costs on the private sector--particularly the small business sector--is very risky at this time. I also have concerns about the effect that increasing the minimum wage has on low-skilled workers. Studies that examine the effect of the 1996 wage increase only heighten my concern. For instance, a recent review of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics concludes that the October 1, 1996, 50-cent minimum wage hike led to 128,000 lost jobs among teen workers and up to 380,000 lost jobs overall. According to a study done by the Employment Policies Institute, the employment rate of teenagers declined by 0.14 percent after the increase. The decline in employment for black teenage males was even worse--1.0 percent. Minimum wage jobs provide workers with valuable on-the-job training. A full 60 percent of today's workforce cites a minimum wage job as their first work experience. As we begin to move people from welfare to work, it will become increasingly important that they have positions available to them to gain this experience. Mr. President, I do not believe that this is the time to put the availability of low-skilled jobs at risk. Finally, Mr. President, this amendment was offered to the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act. I believe this legislation contained important reforms that needed to be passed this year. The Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998 received bipartisan support and passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a 16-2 vote. I was concerned that adding this amendment would stop the underlying bill from passing this Congress. For all of the above mentioned reason, I chose to vote to table the minimum wage increase amendment at this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to announce an agreement between the White House and supporters of the American Competitiveness Act which I hope and expect will insure passage and implementation of legislation to safeguard the competitive edge of American business. Mr. President, the American Competitiveness Act was designed to address a growing shortage of skilled workers for certain high technology positions important to American business. This shortage threatens all sectors of our economy. Economist Larry Kudlow reports that high technology companies account for about one third of real economic growth. Overall, electronic commerce is expected to grow to $80 billion by the year 2000. But high technology firms are running into 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, our universities will not produce the graduates needed to fill those positions. In fact, it is estimated that the shortfall will be very, very substantial. If they are to keep their major operations in America, firms must find workers with the skills needed to fill important positions in their companies. This requires that we do more as a nation to encourage our young people to choose high-technology fields for study and for their careers. In the long term this is the only way we can stay competitive and protect American jobs. As I said, the shortfalls clearly demonstrate the need for us to grow more talent here at home. In fact, you need only look at the high-tech companies that are feeling this shortage. When I visit manufacturing companies in my State, they indicate that they are having increasing trouble finding sufficient information technology workers to meet their needs. This is because so many of our industries are now, in one form or another, dependent on technology jobs. For the long term, the solution clearly must rest here at home, with American workers being trained to fill these jobs, with college students being given incentives to study in the areas where the next century's job creation will take place. However, over the short term, until we are producing more qualified high technology graduates we must do more to fill the gap between high technology needs and high technology skills. This has required that we allow companies to hire a limited number of highly skilled workers from overseas 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. Mr. President, in the history of this program, that 65,000 limit was never breached until last year when we hit the 65,000 annual limit at the end of August. The limit was hit this year in May. It is projected that if we do not change the limit, it will be hit next year as early as February. What that means, in short, as so many of my colleagues know, is that since May of this year not one American company, regardless of the emergency circumstances and the needs, has been able to bring in a highly skilled foreign worker to fill a job slot. As a consequence of that, we have lost opportunities and economic growth is paying a price. This is dangerous for our economy. And that is why my American Competitiveness Act, in addition to providing significant incentives for Americans to enter the high technology sector, will add a limited number of additional H-1B visas so companies can 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. Let me be specific, Mr. President. In the absence of an increase in these numbers, if we can't find the people to fill the jobs here in this country, what is going to happen is American companies are going to shift operations overseas, and that means not only the loss of the particular job which an H-1B worker might fill, but it means the loss of other jobs in the division of the company where the H-1B position is vacant. Let me just quickly outline the compromise agreement reached by the White House with our office. First, the bill provides increased access to skilled personnel for American companies and universities. It will do this by increasing the number of H-1B temporary worker visas from 65,000 now to 115,000 in fiscal year 1999, 115,000 in fiscal year 2000, and 107,500 in fiscal year 2001. The visa limit will then return to 65,000 in the year 2002. In addition, Mr. President, the bill provides new funding for college scholarships and job training for American workers. 10,000 scholarships per year will be provided to low income students in math, engineering and computer science through the National Science Foundation, with training provided through the Jobs Partnership Act. This program will be funded by a $500 fee per visa petition and a $500 fee for visa renewals, which combined will raise an estimated $75 million each year. Further, Mr. President, this legislation provides three types of layoff protection for American workers. Let me add that throughout the process of working on this legislation, we have been very mindful of the concerns people have that somehow these H-1B temporary workers might end up filling a position where an American worker could have filled the slot. Our goal is to make sure that does not happen, and we have built protections into this agreement which we and the administration feel will accomplish that objective. First, any company with 15% or more of its workforce in the United States on H-1B visas must attest that it will not lay off an American employee in the same job 90 days or less before or after the filing of a petition for an H-1B professional. Second, an H-1B dependent company acting as a contractor must attest that it also will not place an H-1B professional in another company to fill the same job held by a laid off American 90 days before or after the date of placement. Third, any employer, whether H-1B dependent or not, will face severe penalties for committing a willful violation of H-1B rules, underpaying an individual on an H-1B visa and replacing an American worker. That company will be debarred for 3 years from all employment immigration programs and fined $35,000 for each violation. Penalties for other violations also will be substantially increased. In addition, Mr. President, H-1B dependent companies must attest that they recruit according to industry-wide standards and that the H-1B- holding individual was as, or more, qualified than any American job applicant. An American not hired can file a complaint with an arbitration panel, which can fine employers violating this provision. Penalties and enforcement will be increased from those under current law. The Department of Labor will be given authority to investigate suspected willful and serious violations of H-1B visas if it receives specific and credible evidence of such violations and receives the personal sign-off of the Secretary of Labor. The purpose of this authority is to respond to situations of potentially egregious wrongdoing where a complaint had not been filed. This new authority sunsets with the increase in the visas, which will give Congress the opportunity for close scrutiny of whether or not DOL acts responsibly. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation eliminates any financial incentive for companies to hire under-compensated foreign temporary workers by permanently reforming the prevailing wage attestation that is required prior to the hiring of anyone under the H-1B program. Under this legislation, employers must offer benefits and the opportunity to earn bonuses to H-1B employees if those benefits and bonuses are available to that company's similarly-employed American workers. In short, it will not be possible to bring in a foreign worker under the H-1B program to fill a job where that person is not being paid the prevailing wage inclusive of potential benefits and other forms of compensation. In addition, this legislation provides sanctions for violations of new whistleblower protections and contains provisions against unconscionable contracts and against so-called benching. I am convinced, Mr. President, that this legislation is crucial to maintaining American economic competitiveness and to protect American jobs. It will increase the skills and employability of American workers while making certain that no qualified American worker is replaced by any immigrant worker. It gives our high technology companies the tools they need to compete in world markets without sacrificing in any way the economic opportunities and well-being of American workers. Indeed, by keeping America competitive it will increase economic growth and the ability of all Americans to achieve and maintain economic security and prosperity. And as we move this bill through the final process--first, of course, in the House and then hopefully here soon--I will be urging my colleagues to support the legislation. In closing, Mr. President, let me just summarize as follows: We have a serious crisis confronting our high-tech industries. We need to have more skilled workers on a longer-term basis. We need the scholarship and job training programs contained in this legislation to achieve the technology worker goals that we have set, but until those programs are adequate to meet the demand, we need to fill the gaps that exist today. This legislation will increase on a temporary basis the number of temporary workers who can come to this country which will help us meet that challenge. In short, it will allow us to keep the economy going and at the same time prepare us for the future. Most importantly, it will protect American workers so that this program cannot be exploited in any fashion that would cause somebody to lose a job or lose the chance to be hired for a job because a foreign worker was being selected for that assignment. So there are safeguards for workers. There are the long-range education and job training components and there is the temporary increase in the number of workers who can come into this country to meet the immediate crisis. It is a balanced approach. It is one that, I think, deserves our support. In closing, let me say thanks to those in the administration with whom we have been working. But also I would like to thank a number of our colleagues who have worked with me throughout this process, including Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Gorton, who has had a special interest in this for a variety of reasons relating to his interest in high-tech companies; the majority leader, who has been very supportive; Senator Phil Gramm, who worked with me on a number of the negotiations; Senator Lieberman, who played a very active role throughout the process, both here in the Senate and in the recent deliberations; Senator Bob Graham, who was an early and active supporter of this effort; and especially to the chairman of the Commerce Committee who worked with me as we moved this legislation forward, both here in the Senate and in the intervening timeframes. Senator McCain, whose commitment to this type of an approach of making sure on a variety of fronts that America is ready to enter the digital age and the digital economy, has given the kind of leadership I think we all admire. I thank him especially for his efforts. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, although I agree with the economic case for lower interest rates made by the Senator from Iowa, I must vote to table this amendment. While Members of Congress and Senators certainly have the right to express their opinions about the conduct of monetary policy, it is highly inappropriate for the Congress as an institution to take formal legislative action designed to influence decisions made by the Federal Reserve board members. To do so would undermine the political independence of the Fed and thus the stability of our financial and monetary system. Having said this, Mr. President, I am concerned about the volatility and uncertainty enveloping worldwide financial markets and the role that U.S. monetary policy is playing in our global financial system. There are proliferating signs of deflation that many economists suggest are at least partially responsible for the recent market turmoil. Gold prices have fallen by more than 30% since early 1996, commodity prices have fallen to 21-year lows, the yield curve has now inverted and real interest rates remain very high. Chairman Greenspan himself has said in the past that these indicators were important signals of the direction of inflationary pressures. Nonetheless, rather than focusing on these market indicators, some members of the Fed appear to have placed more focus on the unemployment rate, rising stock prices and wage growth. In the meantime, corporate profits have declined on a year-over-year basis for the first time in a decade, farm prices are plummeting, bankruptcies have accelerated and now the stock market is reflecting slower growth ahead. Mr. President, in my judgment, the best environment for business is an environment of price stability. Price stability should be the Federal Reserve's number one priority. And this means avoiding both inflation and deflation. Today, it appears that the risks of deflation have risen excessively. History clearly shows that when monetary policy is focused on managing stock markets, wages or unemployment, mistakes can be made. I do not believe that higher rates of economic growth creates inflation. In my view, rising stock prices, rising wages, and falling unemployment reflect the incredible wealth creating capacity of a free market system, not the artificial result of an easy monetary policy. In today's high-tech world of higher productivity, using discredited models of the economy, based in the Phillips Curve, seems archaic. The recent currency devaluations in emerging economies has also increased deflationary pressures. As these currencies decline in value, the worldwide demand for U.S. dollars has dramatically increased. However, because there has been no matching increase in the supply of dollars, the global economy faces a severe liquidity squeeze. And as Mr. Greenspan said during his recent remarks at the University of California, Berkeley, `` it is just not credible that the United States can remain an oasis of prosperity unaffected by a world that is experiencing greatly increased stress.'' Given the mounting evidence of deflation and the growing global financial difficulties, I believe the Federal Reserve should seriously consider reducing short-term interest rates at this juncture. The ``real'' federal funds rate has steadily increased as inflation has declined, implying a continued tightening of monetary policy. A rate cut would provide much needed liquidity to global economy, stabilize world-wide financial markets, and ensure continued non-inflationary economic growth. Mr. President, in summary, while I personally believe that the economic case for lower interest rates is strong, I do not believe it is the proper role of the Congress to dictate that the Fed implement a specific monetary policy action through formal legislative action.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I want to thank my colleague from Maine for this opportunity to answer important questions on the Child Custody Protection Act. The intent of this legislation is to protect state- passed parental involvement laws. Residents of the states have supported and passed parental involvement laws and they deserve to have their will protected. The Child Custody Protection Act would have no effect on Maine's parental consent law as it applies to minors who reside in Maine. It would in no way override or supersede that law with respect to Maine minors, families, or others. The only effect of legislation would be to restrict a non-parent, non-guardian from transporting a minor from another state where the minor resides to Maine in order for the out-of-state minor to obtain an abortion in Maine and avoid the minor's home state parental involvement law.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes with respect to the vote which just transpired.

Mr. ABRAHAM. This is an important point to clarify. The violation of this act is not the performance of an abortion. The violation of this act is the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without involving that minor's parent as required by the law of her home state. The abortion provider would only be in violation of this act if the provider actually conspired to transport or assisted in transporting the minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without the parental involvement that the minor's home state required. Providers who had not engaged in any such activities related to the transport of a minor would not incur any criminal liability or face any new legal responsibilities under this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the vote which has just occurred on the effort to bring cloture on the Child Custody Protection Act. Obviously, as the sponsor of the legislation, I am disappointed we will not be moving forward at this time. As I think the Presiding Officer is aware, as our fellow Members are aware, we have been trying to work with the interested parties on both sides since the bill came out of committee to try to limit the number of amendments so we might have a piece of legislation that could move through here in a reasonable period of time. Unfortunately, we could not get to that point. Our hope had been to limit, through the unanimous consent offer that was made earlier today, the amendments to those that have been filed that were germane. That was not agreed to. Unfortunately, as is certainly every Member's prerogative here, there was the desire for people to bring amendments that were wholly unconnected to the child custody protection issue. Obviously, given the calendar of the Senate as we look forward to the next few weeks, much business remains for us to complete, so the likelihood we will be able to continue with respect to this legislation during this Senate session seems very unlikely. I certainly remain receptive to any counteroffers from the minority with regard to the possibility of limiting amendments and time. Realistically, that does not seem like it is potentially going to occur this year. I think this is very important legislation. Across this country, every day families who live in States that have enacted parental consent laws are finding that those laws mean nothing because minor children are being transported across State lines without parental involvement or consent for the purpose of abortions being committed. This is wrong. People in my State, where we have enacted such legislation, have the right to rely on this legislation, to believe that their children will be safe and protected, and that they will participate in the important decisions of their children's lives. I hope if we can't resolve this issue and bring this bill back to the floor this year that our colleagues will work together with me next year so that we might be able, early in the session, to move ahead. The House passed this legislation overwhelmingly. I believe if it came to a final vote of passage in the Senate it would likewise pass overwhelmingly. I believe it would move legislatively in a direction that is good not only for the young children affected by this legislation, but for our families, as well. I want to thank the people who voted for cloture today. I want to encourage those who wish to bring amendments that are not germane to this legislation to consider other vehicles to possibly include those amendments so that we might still have a chance this year to move ahead on this legislation and do so in an expeditious timeframe. If not, I certainly want to send out a welcome to anybody who wants to work with me because I do not intend to end this effort this year. I intend to continue until we pass the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important event which is taking place in the state of Michigan. On September 25, 1998, the Arab-American Chaldean Council and Henry Ford Health System will celebrate the official dedication of the ACC and Henry Ford Medical/Social Services Center. The Center will create a fully comprehensive Medical/Social Services facility and will become the ACC's new Detroit Headquarters. With an organization as successful as the ACC, supported by the excellent reputation and resources of the Henry Ford Health System, the future looks bright. I extend my best wishes and congratulations to Dr. Haifa Fakhouri, the President and CEO, and everyone involved with making the ACC and Henry Ford Medical/Social Services Center possible. I am confident their partnership will be a success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I want to acknowledge that the Senator from Vermont and others on the Judiciary Committee, who are on the minority side, have worked with us. I think we did have, as the Presiding Officer knows, a very fair and I think thoughtful debate about the Child Custody Protection Act in committee. Let me just make a couple of points as to where, it seems to me, the situation currently stands. First of all, we have had a list of potential amendments submitted. We have not seen language for any of those that are new. Some were in fact offered in committee. But the new ones we have not seen, and it would be very helpful, from the standpoint of moving the process forward, if we could get a better sense of what those are and how many, therefore, might be acceptable. Second, I point out to all Members that amendments that were offered in committee, a number of which constitute the list we have seen, would remain relevant amendments postcloture on the bill because in fact they would stay in play. So even if cloture were invoked on the bill, it would not preclude those amendments from being considered and voted on here. The fundamental problem is the Presiding Officer and, frankly, all Members are aware that what we confront now is a time problem. And if we can come up with an agreed upon list of amendments with reasonable time limits, I think we can move forward on this bill in the same productive way here in the full Senate that we did in the committee. But I think to get there we really require a couple of things. One is a little more information about some of the amendments that have been offered, particularly those that do not appear to be relevant amendments, and then some cooperation with respect to reaching an agreement on time limits for the amendments. I do not think this is a situation that has to go to a cloture vote if we can resolve some of this. I again urge my colleagues to note, to the extent of the amendments that have been proposed, at least the ones we do know about because of they having been offered in committee, they will remain relevant amendments postcloture. I think the majority leader and the full Senate understand the limited time we have. We cannot have this legislation on the floor for too long a period of time given all the other important pieces of legislation that demand our attention. But if we can limit the time and move to the amendments, I think it is possible to move forward. But even if we were to invoke cloture, it would not preclude many of these amendments. It would presumably eliminate some that truly are not relevant to the bill. And this is, I think, where we find ourselves. So our staff, certainly on the majority side, is anxious to continue working with the ranking member and his staff to see if we can come to some agreement, hopefully, by the end of the day on Tuesday. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the St. Clair Shores Civic League, in St. Clair Shores, Michigan on its 60th Anniversary. The mission of the League, ``to maintain a high standard of civic life . . . by activities designed to stimulate citizen participation in government and to promote the cultural growth of the city'' is very respectable and has led the organization to be very successful. The Women's St. Clair Shores Civic League has grown tremendously over the course of over six decades. The committee of six women that eventually became the League, was formed in 1930 to aid the youth of the community and assist in civic improvements. In an effort to better handle their increasing tasks, the committee became the Women's St. Clair Shores Civic League in 1939. Some the League's projects over the years have included consolidating three school districts, building a municipal park, and incorporating St. Clair Shores. These achievements, few among many, are testament to the devotion and hard work of the Women's St. Clair Shores Civic League. I am proud to congratulate this special organization on 60 years. The Women's St. Clair Shores Civic League will undoubtedly enjoy continued success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I begin by thanking the Senator for the work he has done on this legislation. This is, obviously, an issue of great importance, one of the most important issues we have dealt with in this Congress. His leadership on this issue has, I think, been a great motivation to many people here. He has had a great deal of influence in the national debate on this issue. I compliment him for what he has done and what I know he will continue to do between now and the vote on this tomorrow morning. I am here to urge my colleagues to override the President's veto of the ban on partial-birth abortion. The abortion issue has been a difficult and a divisive one for this country. The unfortunate procedure of partial-birth abortion need not be. The vast majority of Americans--even those who call themselves pro-choice--oppose partial- birth abortion. This overwhelming opposition helped produce legislation to ban that procedure. Unfortunately, the legislation was vetoed by President Clinton. Now is the time for the Members of this body to stand up and to say no to the unnecessary, dangerous and morally troubling procedure of partial-birth abortion. We now know that this practice is not rare and that it is not undertaken only in cases of severe fetal deformity. Literally thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed in this country every year. Abortion lobbyist Ron Fitzsimmons has said at least 3,000 to 5,000 partial-birth abortions are performed nationwide each year. According to the prominent abortion doctor, W. Martin Haskell, over 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions he performs are purely elective. Ron Fitzsimmons reports that in the vast majority of cases the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus. I know that not everyone shares the pro-life position. But in my view, it is clear that any reservations about restricting abortion need not, and should not, apply to partial-birth abortion. Regardless of where one stands on the broader abortion debate, all of us should be able to see partial-birth abortion for what it is--an unjustifiable and wholly unnecessary tragedy. People on the other side of the pro-life debate often say that the decision of whether or not to undergo an abortion should be left to a woman and to her doctor. Shouldn't we then listen to the official position of the American Medical Association, the official professional association of doctors in America? The AMA has come out unequivocally against partial-birth abortion in endorsing this legislation. Dr. John Seward, executive vice president of the AMA, referred to partial-birth abortion as a procedure ``we all agree is not good medicine.'' The AMA has made a professional judgment based on the medical expertise of its members that partial-birth abortion is simply not good medicine. Further, our former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, has observed that: . . . partial-birth abortion is never [and that is his emphasis] never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true. The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and fertility. Those are quotes from Dr. Koop. Earlier today, we heard from the Senate's only physician Member, Dr. Frist, who spoke, I thought, both eloquently and with great insight based on his own scientific knowledge and his background as a physician, essentially reaching the same conclusions as the American Medical Association and Surgeon General Koop: There is simply no valid reason for this procedure to exist. It saves no lives. It puts mothers at increased risk for sterility and other complications, and it is in and of itself, in my judgment, morally unacceptable. I reference a recent story from the Associated Press that shows just how dangerous this procedure can be. According to the AP, on June 30 of this year, Dr. John Biskind delivered a full-term baby girl. Unfortunately, this little girl was almost killed. She suffered cuts to her face and a skull fracture. Luckily, this little girl survived and was adopted by a loving couple. But she literally came within a hair's breadth of being killed on the threshold of life. This little girl has survived, but we should not lose track of the cause of her injuries. Dr. Biskind attempted to perform a partial-birth abortion. The 17- year-old mother had come to Dr. Biskind's A to Z Women's Center seeking an abortion. The clinic performed an ultrasound, determining what they had was a 23\1/2\-week fetus, and decided to perform a partial-birth abortion. Dr. Biskind thought he was performing this procedure on a fetus two-thirds of the way to term; that would be bad enough. But, in fact, the clinic had made a mistake in the ultrasound. The girl actually was approaching full term and Dr. Biskind did not realize this fact until he had already begun aborting her. This is astounding. According to Dr. Gerster, a Phoenix physician, a 24-week-old fetus weighs an average of 2 pounds, whereas a 36-week-old fetus weighs, on the average, about 6\1/2\ pounds. As Dr. Gerster commented: I don't know how such a grave error could be made in estimating the size. There shouldn't be that kind of discrepancy in an ultrasound. It is horrendous. Horrendous, indeed, Mr. President. Yet, this is the kind of situation we are attempting to address with this legislation. I think cases like this are why it is time for us to override the President's veto and pass this bill. As I have said throughout my discussion here today, there are reasonable differences--we understand that--in this Chamber and across this country over the substantive issue of abortion rights. Even those who advocate abortion rights are frequently saying--including the President of the United States--that abortion should be safe and legal and rare. It is hard for me to believe that these types of abortions, partial-birth abortions, don't fit outside that definition. Mr. President, we all have to come to these decisions in our own way, and I am not here today to tell people who have reached different conclusions that they are in any way going about it in the wrong fashion. But I think that this issue is one that is so important, an issue that I think the country is so united behind, that it is time for us to take ourselves out of the context of the debate on abortion rights and look at this from the perspective of what is morally right. In my judgment, Mr. President--and I know not what decisions others are going to make tomorrow--it is just not morally right to allow this kind of procedure to continue. Each of us here has our own stories, and I respect the stories of my colleagues on both sides. In our own family, we have had several instances of children born very early. In my own case, we have twins who were born several weeks early. We were fortunate; they did not have serious complications, but they were in a neonatal unit of a hospital for about 3 weeks. While we were there, we saw less fortunate situations around us. We saw children that were much smaller, born much earlier than our babies, clinging to life, children that were born weighing less than 2 pounds, children that were born 10 and sometimes 12 weeks early. The fight those children all made to survive left me with an indelible impression about life that I really hadn't had before that experience. Yes, I was pro-life, but I had never touched or felt or seen in that fashion exactly what is at stake. The notion that some of those babies we saw fighting for life, who had been born in the very timeframe that partial-birth abortions are occurring, the knowledge that these tiny infants were real people, the realization of that, left me with a memory that I will never forget and left me committed to support the efforts Senator Santorum has led here today, which I hope will finally result in the end of this practice. Mr. President, I intend to vote to override tomorrow. I hope that enough of my colleagues will join in that effort so we are successful. I recognize that this is an issue that people have different views on. I hope that finally, at the end of this debate, we can come together and move forward with something that I think is in the best interest of our country, and more importantly, in the best interest of our children. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I seek my colleagues' support for the Wei Jengsheng Freedom of Conscience Act. This bill will grant lawful permanent residence to writer and philosopher Wei Jengsheng, one of the most heroic individuals the international human rights community has known. For years, Mr. President, 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. 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. Mr. President, 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 woul like to thank Senators Hatch, DeWine, Hutchinson, and Brownback for cosponsoring this bill. I should note also that this legislation has been endorsed by important human rights groups such as Laogai Research Foundation and Human Rights in 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 Jengsheng lawful permanent residence in the United States.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I seek my colleagues' support for the Wei Jengsheng Freedom of Conscience Act. This bill will grant lawful permanent residence to writer and philosopher Wei Jengsheng, one of the most heroic individuals the international human rights community has known. For years, Mr. President, 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. 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. Mr. President, 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 woul like to thank Senators Hatch, DeWine, Hutchinson, and Brownback for cosponsoring this bill. I should note also that this legislation has been endorsed by important human rights groups such as Laogai Research Foundation and Human Rights in 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 Jengsheng lawful permanent residence in the United States.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a very special group of young men. On August 6, 1998 the Georgetown Major Boys Baseball Little League Team won the Michigan state little league championship in Ishpeming, Michigan. They then continued on to win the central region championship in Indianapolis. They competed in the Sanctioned Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania from August 20-30. Getting to the World Series is testament to the great talent and efforts of this team. The following 14 boys who make up the team, have undoubtedly made the city of Jenison, Michigan, very proud: Jesse Barfelz, Brandon Button, Tony Clausen, Kevin Hogan, Adam Kretz, Sean Markle, Brett Meyer, Billy Miller, Casey Robrahn, John Sheeran, Derek Stempin, Peter Vanderkalk, Ben VanKlompenberg and Cody Fennema. At this time I would also like to recognize the coaches, Tom Meyer, Tom Button and Dick LeFever. It is a combination of good coaching and talent that leads a team to the kind of success this team has enjoyed. As an avid fan of baseball it is my pleasure, once again, to congratulate the Georgetown Major Boys little league team on their state Championship. It is very encouraging to see young people strive for such excellence. This team has made Georgetown Charter Township and the entire state of Michigan very proud.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the heroic actions of Sgt. James Turner and Sgt. Adam Pasciak of the Redford Township Police Department in Michigan. On June 10, 1998 both gentlemen were patrolling the South end of Redford Township when they made a routine traffic stop. It was discovered upon investigating that the driver of the vehicle had a revoked driver's license. Sgt. Turner and Sgt. Pasciak approached the car to place the driver under arrest. As Sgt. Pasciak began to pat the subject down, the subject pulled out a gun and began to shoot. Sgt. Pasciak was critically wounded while Sgt. Turner shot back to protect himself and Sgt. Pasciak. Further gunfight ensued between Sgt. Turner and the subject ending in the subject being mortally wounded. The lives of both Sgt. Turner and his partner were saved. Sgt. Turner and Sgt. Pasciak displayed tremendous bravery on June 10, 1998. They are true heroes whom Redford Township and the State of Michigan should be very proud of. It is my pleasure to honor both of them. I also send my warmest ``get well'' wishes to Sgt. Pasciak who is recovering from his gunshot wounds at home.