Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I, too, am committed to seeing to it that there is funding for these programs and a $1,000 fee is appropriate and would accomplish this goal. As the Ranking Member knows, I believe that as far as the shortage of highly skilled workers is concerned, we have both a short term and long term problem, and I believe these programs are an integral part of addressing our long term problem. I very much appreciation your ongoing willingness to work on these important programs for training and educating Americans so that they will be ready to take these jobs, and the leadership you have shown on these matters. I pledge to work with you, the other Members of this body, the business community, and other affected outside interests to seek ways to help fund these programs consistent with the principle you articulated.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I agree with the Ranking Member, and I support his objectives. I will work with Senator Kennedy to ensure that these institutions are excluded from the imposition of fees.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to support the passage of H.R. 3767, the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act. This legislation, as amended, is important not only because it facilitates travel and tourism in the United States, thereby creating many American jobs, but also because it benefits American tourists who wish to travel abroad, since visa requirements are generally waived on a reciprocal basis. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program authorizes the Attorney General to waive visa requirements for foreign nationals traveling from certain designated countries as temporary visitors for business or pleasure. Aliens from the participating countries complete an admission form prior to arrival and are admitted to stay for up to 90 days. The criteria for being designated as a Visa Waiver country are as follows: First, the country must extend reciprocal visa-free travel for U.S. citizens. Second, they must have a nonimmigrant refusal rate for B-1/B-2 visitor visas at U.S. consulates that is low, averaging less than 2 percent the previous two full fiscal years, with the refusal rate less than 2.5 percent in either year, or less than 3 percent the previous full fiscal year. Third, the countries must have or be in the process of developing a machine-readable passport program. Finally, the Attorney General must conclude that entry into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program will not compromise U.S. law enforcement interests. Countries are designated by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of State. Nations currently designated as Visa Waiver participants are Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Greece has been proposed for participation in the program. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program was established by law in 1986 and became effective in 1988, with 8 countries participating for a period of three years. The program has been considered successful and as such has been expanded to include 29 participating countries. Since 1986, Visa Waiver has been reauthorized on 6 different occasions for periods of one, two, or three years at a time. The time has come to make the Visa Waiver Pilot Program permanent and, in the process, to strengthen further current requirements. That is the purpose of this bill, which has been amended and worked out jointly with our House counterparts, in particular House Immigration Subcommittee Chair Lamar Smith, who I thank for his work on this bill. This legislation is very close to S. 2376, the Travel, Tourism, and Jobs Preservation Act, which I introduced earlier this year with Senators Kennedy, Leahy, DeWine, Jeffords, Akaka, Graham, Grams, Murkowski, and Inouye, all of whom I thank for their support. The legislation we are about to pass would accomplish a number of things. First, it would make the Visa Waiver Pilot Program permanent. This is important since no serious disagreement exists that the program should continue in place for the foreseeable future, and no significant problems have been raised with the fundamentals of how it has been operating for the past 14 years. To the contrary, failure to continue the program would cause enormous staffing problems at U.S. consulates, which would have to be suddenly increased substantially to resume issuance of visitor visas. It would also be extremely detrimental to American travelers, who would most certainly find that, given reciprocity, they now would be compelled to obtain visas to travel to Europe and elsewhere. Finally, there are costs to continuing to reauthorize the program on a short-term rather than a permanent basis, as it periodically creates considerable uncertainty in the United States and around the world about what documents travelers planning their foreign travel have to obtain. Second, the current requirement that countries be in the process of developing a program for issuing machine-readable passports will be replaced with a stricter requirement that all countries in the program as of My 1, 2000 certify by October 1, 2001 that they will have an operational machine-readable passport program by 2003 and that new countries have a machine-readable passport program in place before becoming eligible for designation as a Visa Waiver country. The bill also establishes a deadline of October 1, 2007 by which time all travelers must have machine-readable passports to come to the United States under Visa Waiver. The judgment of everyone involved in these issues is that the technology is now sufficient that it is time for everyone to move from the concept and planning stages to the prompt implementation of these requirements. Finally, the legislation, altered from the House-passed version, would allow for an ``emergency termination'' by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, of a country's Visa Waiver designation in an extreme and unusual circumstances. These circumstances are a ``war (including undeclared war, civil war, or other military activity on the territory of the program country; a severe breakdown in law and order affecting a significant portion of the program country's territory; a severe economic collapse in the program country; or any other extraordinary even in the program country that threatens the law enforcement or security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States.)'' Considering the impact of such a termination on U.S. foreign policy interests and the conduct of the State Department itself, it is my belief that the Secretary of State would exert considerable authority in determining whether such an ``emergency termination'' was warranted. Mr. President, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to offer my thanks to Senator Smith, the chairman of the Environment Committee and commend him for his successful effort to pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Included in this legislation is language I crafted with Representatives Ehlers and Camp to further clarify the extent of the Great Lakes Governors' authority over diversions of Great Lakes water to locations outside the basin. This amendment makes clear that both diversions of water for use within the U.S. and exports of water to locations outside the U.S. may occur only with the consent of all eight Great Lakes governors. Questions over the definition of ``diversion'' made this clarification necessary. Almost as important, this amendment demonstrates that it is the intent of the Congress that the states work cooperatively with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to develop common standards for conservation of Great Lakes water and mechanisms for withdrawals. Such cooperation is crucial if we are to have equal and effective programs for conserving these waters and maintaining the health of the Great Lakes. In closing, let me state that I regret that my colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan did not join me in this effort. We share differing opinions over the need for clarification of the 1986 act. And while I disagreed with his interpretation of the definition of ``bulk fresh water,'' because diversions of water for use within the U.S. are already distinctly covered in the 1986 act, I nevertheless modified the amendment at his request, and I share his commitment to protecting the tremendous resources for future generations.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, each year the Southeast Michigan Chapter of the March of Dimes recognizes a select group of individuals whose contributions to the Macomb County, Michigan, community have been invaluable. I rise today to recognize Mr. Philip E. Greco and Mrs. Donna Greco Issa, the winners of the 2000 Alexander Macomb Family of the Year Award. They will be presented this award at a dinner benefitting the March of Dimes on September 27, 2000. Mr. Greco and Mrs. Greco Issa hold the position of President and Treasurer, respectively, at the Philip F. Greco Title Company, which was founded by their father in 1972. The two learned the business working alongside their father, and helped the company establish three regional offices and five satellite businesses. Both Mr. Greco and Mrs. Greco Issa are very active within the Macomb County community. Mr. Greco is President of the advisory board for the St. John's North Shore Hospital. He is also a member of the Italian American Chamber of Commerce of Michigan, a past Commodore of both the North Channel Yacht Club and the Idle Hour Yacht Club, and has served on numerous charity golf committees. Mrs. Greco Issa contributes time to St. Joseph's Hospital, the Italian American Cultural Center, the Macomb Medical Society, and Toys for Tots. She has also always been very active in volunteering her time and effort to the March of Dimes. Since 1986, she has been involved with the Alexander Macomb Dinner and March of Dimes WalkAmerica. Indeed, due to her personal commitment and contributions to the March of Dimes, Mrs. Greco Issa has become a member of the March of Dimes Southeast Michigan Chapter Board of Directors. There is potential that this will not be the last time members of the Greco family are recognized for their charitable endeavors. Mr. Greco and his wife, Ida Marie, have two daughters, Leticia Greco and Christina Greco Ewald, and one son, Philip S. Greco. They also have one grandchild, Evan Thomas Greco Ewald. Mrs. Greco and her husband, Elias, have three sons: Nicholas P. Krause, Zachary Issa and Alexander Issa. I applaud Mr. Greco and Mrs. Greco Issa for the dedication they have shown toward improving Macomb County. They have turned community service into a family affair, and their efforts have found extraordinary success. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Mr. Philip E. Greco and Mrs. Donna Greco Issa on receiving the 2000 Alexander Macomb Family of the Year Award.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, each year the Southeast Michigan Chapter of the March of Dimes recognizes a select group of individuals whose contributions to the Macomb County, Michigan, community have been invaluable. I rise today to recognize Ms. Lillian Adams, who will receive an Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year Award at a dinner benefitting the March of Dimes on September 27, 2000. Ms. Adams has served as Executive Director of the Sterling Heights Area Chamber of Commerce for the past 24 years, after having held the same position on St. Clair Shores Chamber of Commerce for eight years. Her duties within these organizations have included small business advocacy, service as community ombudsman, and hosting local business cable programs. Ms. Adams is a devoted participant in the Macomb County Community Growth Alliance and the St. Joseph Mercy Community Foundation. She has been an active supporter of the March of Dimes and the Kiwanis Club and serves on the boards of the Otsikita Girl Scouts and the Macomb Symphony Orchestra. Ms. Adams also was a founding member of the Sterling Heights Foundation and the Shelby Township Community Foundation, and a past president of the Utica Community Schools Foundation for Educational Excellence. And, as dedicated as she has been to these many causes, Ms. Adams is even more dedicated to her two sons, Micheal and Brian, and her grandchild, Brigette. I applaud Ms. Adams on the dedication she has demonstrated to Macomb County, and the many successful efforts she has made to improve the quality of life for its citizens. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Ms. Lillian Adams on receiving the 2000 Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year Award.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, each year, the Southeast Michigan Chapter of the March of Dimes recognizes a select group of individuals whose contributions to the Macomb County, Michigan, community have been invaluable I rise today to recognize the Honorable Peter J. Maceroni, who will receive an Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year Award at a dinner benefitting the March of Dimes on September 27, 2000. Judge Maceroni received his Bachelor of Arts Degree from Hillsdale College in 1962, and earned his Juris Doctor degree from Wayne State University Law School in 1965. He was in private practice for 35 years before being elected to the ninth Circuit Court Judgeship in 1990. In 1996, in addition to being reelected to this position, he was appointed to the Michigan Trial Court Assessment Commission by Governor John Engler. As Chief Judge, he not only presides over civil and criminal cases, but is also responsible for supervising the operation of the Court, including the Friend of the Court. His duties in these capacities include developing the annual budget, which he presents to the Macomb County Board of Commissioners. One of Judge Maceroni's most successful initiatives in the Macomb County Circuit Court has been a video arraignment program, which has reduced the cost of transporting prisoners from the jail for arraignment hearings and increased security by having fewer prisoners transported over public roads. Judge Maceroni has served as president of the Macomb County Trial Lawyers Association, president of the Italian American Bar Association, as well as Director of the Macomb County Bar Association. In 1997, he received the Outstanding County Elected Official Award from the Michigan Association of Counties. Outside the realm of the law, Judge Maceroni finds time to enjoy the company of his four children: Patricia, Peter, Jr., Patrick and James. I applaud Judge Maceroni on the dedication he has demonstrated to Macomb County, and the many successful efforts he has made to improve the quality of life for its citizens. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate the Honorable Peter J. Maceroni on receiving a 2000 Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year Award.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the vote I cast yesterday in support of H.R. 4444, the bill extending permanent normal trading relations to the Peoples' Republic of China. While the vote we cast yesterday was to grant China PNTR, it cannot be viewed separate from the question of China's accession to the WTO. In our negotiations with the Chinese over their entry in the WTO, we agreed to end the annual exercise of renewing NTR and to extend NTR to China permanently. In fact, if we do not grant China PNTR we will be the ones in violation of the WTO's rules when China is ultimately granted entry into the WTO. And, as a result, we will lose access to their markets and the beneficiaries of this will be our trade competitors in Europe, Asia, and South America. Most importantly, we have gained some very important trade concessions in our negotiations with the Chinese over their entry into the WTO, and we stand to gain even greater trade concessions from them once they join the WTO and become subject to its rules and dispute resolution procedures. By extending PNTR and allowing China entry into the WTO, the U.S. can expect to increase exports to China by an estimated $13.9 billion within the first five years. And according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, American farmers will account for $2.2 billion of that increase in exports to China. If our economy is to continue to grow and we are to continue to create more good-paying, skilled jobs so that unemployment remains low and Americans can take home more income, we must expand our economic opportunities. The best way to accomplish that is to find new markets for our products. And the most lucrative new market that exists is China. As our colleague from Texas, Senator Phil Gramm, pointed out in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter he circulated earlier this week, things in China are changing significantly, if perhaps not as quickly or as comprehensively as we wish. Senator Gramm quoted a report on China recently issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in which the observation is made: ``Beijing's billboards no longer spout ideology. They advertise consumer products like Internet service, cell phones, and credit cards.'' There can be little doubt that China is changing. The task left to us to decide is how best to effectuate positive change there. My primary concern, in evaluating how to vote on PNTR and China's accession to the WTO has always been: ``What is in the best interests of Michigan's workers and businesses?'' China was Michigan's 15th largest export market in 1998. That rank has almost certainly risen since then. Michigan's exports to China grew by 25 percent during the 5 years between 1993 and 1998, increasing from $211 million to $264 million. Businesses in the Detroit area accounted for $180 million of those exports in 1998, an 11 percent increase over its 1993 figure. Other areas of Michigan are seeing truly phenomenal growth in trade with China. Exports to China from businesses located in the Flint and Lansing areas grew by more than 84 percent from 1993 to 1998. And exports from Kalamazoo and Battle Creek businesses to China grew by an astounding 353 percent during that same period, according to the U.S. International Trade Administration. The growth in China trade outside of Detroit is due to the surprisingly high number of small and medium-sized businesses in Michigan that are exporting to China. According to the Commerce Department, more than 60 percent of the Michigan firms exporting to China in 1997 were either small or medium-sized companies. Of the 149 small and medium-sized Michigan businesses exporting to Michigan in 1997, as substantial majority of these were small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. This trend extends beyond Michigan as well. Nationwide, not only did small and medium-sized businesses in 1997 comprise 35 percent of all U.S. merchandise exports to China--up from 28 percent in 1992--but this 35 percent share of the Chinese market was higher than the share small and medium-sized businesses had of overall U.S. merchandise exports that year--31 percent. While Michigan's manufacturing sector certainly stands to benefit from passing PNTR and China's accession to the WTO, we must not overlook the tremendous benefits that Michigan farmers also stand to gain from these agreements. Agriculture is Michigan's second largest industry, and exporting is a vital component of the state's agricultural business. Michigan agricultural exports totaled almost $1 billion in 1998, but that figure was down almost $100 million from two years earlier. With increased competition in agriculture at home and abroad from the European Community and major S. American exporters such as Chile, opening up a massive new market such as China would be of tremendous benefit to a state like Michigan that relies so heavily on agriculture production and export. The agreement the U.S. negotiated with China, which includes PNTR, contains significant trade concessions by the Chinese in four areas critical to Michigan agriculture. Michigan exported $240 million worth of soybeans and soybean products in 1998, and China is the world's largest growth market for soybeans. China has agreed to lower tariff rates on soybeans to 3 percent with no quota limits. Michigan is also a large feed grains producer, exporting $163 million worth of feed grains and products in 1998. China has agreed to lower their quota to a nominal 1 percent within an agreed upon import quota schedule. However, that quota grows at a tremendous rate, starting at 4.5 million metric tons and growing to 7.5 million metric tons by 2004. By comparison, China imported less than 250,000 metric tons of corn from all countries in 1998. The circumstances are much the same for two other very important Michigan agriculture products--vegetables and fruit. On vegetables, China's tariff rates are scheduled to drop anywhere from 20 to 60 percent by 2004. With respect to fresh and processed deciduous fruit, China has committed to tariff reductions of up to 75 percent. To a state like Michigan, which is known for its cherries, apples, pears, and peaches, this is a significant breakthrough for our fruit growers. Of course, Mr. President, this is not the end of the story. While many of these tariffs will be substantially reduced and quotas are lifted or expanded considerably, tariffs and quotas will still remain on many U.S. goods--as they in fact will continue to exist on certain goods coming from China into the United States. But once China is a member of the WTO, the U.S. will continue to push to have Chinese trade barriers reduced even further and eliminated altogether. A critical element of this debate that too often gets overlooked is the degree to which our membership in the WTO helps us eliminate unfair trading practices amongst our trading partners. The WTO provides a forum to which we can take trade disputes with our trading partners involving unfair trading practices by them. One of the primary functions of the WTO is to provide procedures to settle trade disputes promptly, eliminating a significant deficiency of the previous GATT system in which the process often dragged out indefinitely. The WTO procedures are inherently more fair and more predictable--and that is to our benefit as the world's largest economy and as the world's foremost promoter of free and fair trade. The United States has filed more complaints to the WTO against other countries--49 of them as of April of this year--than any other WTO member country. The U.S. has also prevailed in 23 of the 25 complaints acted upon up to that time--clear evidence that the WTO is of tremendous assistance to us in getting other countries to stop their unfair trading practices. This is also why we can be confident that once China becomes a member of the WTO that we will be able to further reduce the remaining trade impediments they have against our goods and that we will be able to ensure that they live up to the commitments they have already made to us in exchange for PNTR and our support for them joining the WTO. While I have supported annual renewal of NTR each year I have been in the Senate, I have also been a severe critic of many of China's policies and actions and their human rights record. In 1997, I introduced the China Policy Act, in which I attempted to outline a new paradigm for dealing with the Chinese. Specifically, I felt it was unwise for us to use trade continually as our weapon of first resort each time an issue arose between our two countries, whether it be nuclear non-proliferation and missile sales to rogue nations, religious persecution, repression in Tibet, forced abortion, or threatening gestures towards Taiwan. I feel it unfair to American companies and farmers doing business in China to make them constantly bear the brunt of our efforts to get the Chinese to modify their behavior. I am also concerned about pursuing such a strategy when it would likely result in U.S. companies and farmers losing market share and market access in China to our trade competitors in Europe, Asia, and South America. The China Policy Act legislation I introduced in 1997 essentially said, ``Let us reserve using trade as a weapon only for those occasions when our dispute with China is trade related.'' My China Policy Act took a very tough stand on what I believe was unacceptable behavior by the Chinese in the area of missile sales and nuclear proliferation. In response to China's sale of 60 cruise missiles to Iran, which I viewed as a direct violation of the Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act of 1972, my legislation required the President to impose the sanctions provided for by the 1972 act against China. In addition, because I believed the Chinese sale was so dangerous, my legislation suspended the President's ability to waive those sanctions. I have also taken other steps to thwart China's ability to export dangerous armaments and weapons of mass destruction. I voted for the Cochran amendment to the FY '98 DoD Authorization bill to control the export to China of supercomputers that could be utilized by them in their development of missiles and in exploiting nuclear technology. I also supported the Hutchinson amendment to the FY '99 DoD Authorization bill to study the development of U.S. Theater Missile Defense systems against potential Chinese ballistic missiles. Based on this track record and of my continuing concerns for China's actions in this area, I felt compelled to support the Thompson amendment because I believed it was the wisest approach to dealing with this very real threat to our national security. To those who argued that the Thompson amendment would undermine the very principles upon which PNTR was based, I would counter that Senator Thompson made a number of significant modifications to his legislation to address these very concerns. The Senator from Tennessee went to great lengths to ensure that American agriculture would be spared the brunt of any trade actions taken against China. This ensures that our farmers are not unfortunate victims of attempts by U.S. policymakers to punish the Chinese for their behavior in non-trade areas. Senator Thompson also gave the President greater flexibility to respond to crises by making sanctions against supplier countries under the act discretionary rather than mandatory. And the evidentiary standard in the legislation for imposing mandatory sanctions on companies identified as proliferators has been raised to give the President discretion in determining whether a company has truly engaged in proliferation activities. So I believe the most problematic areas of Senator Thompson's original legislation have been addressed responsibly and that made it worthy of support. While I remain a staunch supporter of PNTR for China and supporting China's accession into the WTO, I simply cannot ignore China's past practices in the area of missile sales to rogue nations and it's role in nuclear proliferation. The U.S. must maintain the ability to confront such aggressive arms practices abroad as a means of protecting its own national security. In conclusion, I am keenly aware of the deeply divided feelings Americans have over the questions of PNTR and China's accession to the WTO. There are few, if any, states in which feelings are more polarized on this subject than in Michigan. I respect the fact that sincere people can and will draw a conclusion different from mine. To those who came to a different conclusion, I say that we here in Congress have promised to pay close attention to the reports issued by the Congressional-Executive Commission on Human and Labor Rights created in this legislation. If China's behavior does not improve and if they do not abide by the agreements they have signed, I am sure that Congress will respond accordingly. I certainly intend to. As many of my colleagues may know, both my wife and I grew up in union households. Her father was a member of the United Auto Workers. And my father was a UAW member as well. That is not an uncommon situation in a state like Michigan, as you can well imagine, where a significant percentage of the population is employed either by one of the automakers or one of the various supplier companies. But like most Michiganders who grew up in a union household or are currently living in one I know what it's like to see a father or mother come home celebrating a raise or some benefits they had secured in a recently ratified contract. And I also know the pain and stress that goes with layoffs or plant closings, things my state has had all too much experience with in the not too distant past. Many current union workers and their families have come up to me in the past year and said they were scared about what will happen if we pass PNTR and allow China into the WTO. They fear that the Chinese will not live up to the commitments they have made with respect to eliminating trade barriers or that American companies might choose to move their operations overseas leaving workers here unemployed and without any available jobs or careers into which to move. Those are very real fears. And I take those concerns very seriously and to heart. China will open its markets in the very near future. The question is: Will U.S. firms be among those competing for these new markets, competing for a portion of the one billion new consumers that are going to be available in China? Or are we going to cede those new opportunities to our competitors in Europe, Asia, and South America? Likewise, the question is not whether U.S. companies will eventually do business in China. The question is whether it will be on our terms or on China's. Will companies be forced to move over to China in order to avoid high tariffs, quotas on U.S. produced goods, or other restrictions which make it difficult for them to do business there? Or will we attempt to eliminate such barriers to market access now through negotiation, so that U.S. companies can continue to operate here in the States, employing U.S. workers and paying U.S. Taxes, and still export goods and services to China in a competitive environment with our trading competitors? I think when most workers consider the options we face, they will agree that the best course for our nation is to join with the other nations of the world in accepting China into the WTO and attempting to work with the procedures available there to open their markets further and ensure they live up to the commitments they have already made. That is the conclusion to which this Senator has come. That is why I voted for permanent normal trade relations for the Peoples' Republic of China. That is why I support China's accession to the WTO.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in 1982, the United States Department of Education initiated its Blue Ribbon Schools Program. In each year since, the Department has recognized schools throughout the country which excel in all areas of academic leadership, teaching and teacher development, and school curriculum. In other words, Blue Ribbon Schools are recognized because they are the finest public and private secondary schools our Nation has to offer. They are the schools that set the standard for which others strive. I am very proud to report that nine of the 198 Blue Ribbon Schools named by Secretary Richard W. Riley for 1999-2000 are located in the State of Michigan, and I rise today to recognize Byron Center High School in Byron Center, Michigan, one of these nine schools. Over the past eight years, Byron Center High School has transformed itself from a school rooted in the curriculum of the 1950's to one prepared for the constantly changing information age of the 21st Century. A graduate of Byron Center is now technologically, academically, and culturally literate. The key to this transformation has been a shift of focus, as administrators stopped tinkering with curriculum and teaching strategies and rather developed a comprehensive restructuring model, which enabled them to more effectively address the entire educational process that Byron Center students are put through. With the new restructuring model, Byron Center faculty and administrators have focused their efforts on four areas: providing effective guidance to all students by improving and promoting career awareness programs; forming strong partnerships and effective working relationships with local business and community leaders; hiring quality teachers and allowing them to be the leaders in the effort to improve; and constantly monitoring student performance, not only on state and national tests, but also by conducting one year and five year follow up surveys of Byron Center graduates, and collectively employing this information to determine where improvements could occur within Byron Center High School to better prepare students find success in a rapidly changing world. The success of the transformation can clearly be seen in the new Byron Center High School facility, which students and staff moved into the fall of 1998. Dr. Robert Burt, who visited Byron Center to make the assessment for the Blue Ribbon Award, said that administrators ``built the school around a structure of technology,'' which provided him a ``dramatic opportunity to learn about the new age of high schools.'' Indeed, the facility was designed to support the curriculum, teaching strategies and information technology systems that have played such a vital role in the overwhelmingly successful development of Byron Center High School. Mr. President, I applaud the students, parents, faculty and administration of Byron Center High School, for I believe this is an award which speaks more to the effort of a united community than it does to the work of a few individuals. With that having been said, I would like to recognize Dr. William Skilling, the Principal of Byron Center High School, whose dedication to making his school one of the finest in our Nation has been instrumental in creating this community. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Byron Center High School on being named a Blue Ribbon School for 1999-2000, and wish the school continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 125th Anniversary of the Wyandotte, Michigan, Boat Club, which will be celebrated on September 23, 2000. Established in 1875, the club is revered in the annals of rowing, and for 125 years it has been a staple of the Wyandotte community, encouraging the citizens of Southeastern Wayne County to flourish physically, mentally and morally. The Wyandotte Boat Club is located on the Detroit River, approximately 15 miles ``downriver'' of Detroit. It was formed in 1875 when a group of Wyandotte men, led by Mr. John McKnight, officially organized and together purchased a ten-oar barge. The first home of the club was at the foot of Pine Street in a shed behind the summer home of a resident of Wyandotte. And though the club has come a very long way since this time, in a literal manner it has not moved an inch, for on January 14, 1997, the club moved back to the foot of Pine Street, into a state of the art, multi-million dollar facility. The boat club has come to play a very large role in the lives of Wyandotte citizens. Its more than 700 members assist in the coaching, maintenance and administration of the club's activities and regattas. They teach rowing programs to individuals of all ages. Furthermore, in the mid 1940's, the club began to sponsor a program offering rowing to area high school students. In its 50 plus years, the program has now expanded to include elementary and middle school students as well as high school students. The school programs are open to all students and there is no charge to the student or the school for participation. Many of the high school oarsmen who have participated in the program have become known both nationally and internationally as top competitors in the rowing arena. Mr. President, I applaud the members of the Wyandotte Boat Club for the many beneficial things they do for the citizens of Wyandotte on a daily basis. In particular, to sponsor rowing for children of all ages, which not only provides these children with a lifelong hobby, but also helps to teach them some of life's most basic and important lessons. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate the Wyandotte Boat Club on 125 successful years, and wish the group continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 25th Anniversary of The Antique and Classic Boat Society (ACBS), which will be celebrated from September 21-24, 2000, at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island, Michigan. For 25 years, the ACBS has united individuals with an interest in historic, antique and classic boats, allowing them to share fellowship, information, and experiences. The ACBS is an international organization headquartered on the St. Lawrence River in the Thousand Islands region of Clayton, New York. It currently has 44 chapters worldwide, and a membership of over 6,500 individuals. The organization was founded not only to unite individuals with an interest in antique and classic boats, but also to protect and promote the heritage of boating. It does this through the preservation and restoration of historic boats, as well as by encouraging members to share their love and enjoyment of all aspects of historic, antique and classic boating with both other members and the general public. I think it is important to note here the large role that the State of Michigan has played in the growth and development of the recreational boating industry. Beginning as early as the 1920's, and continuing through the 1970's, the four most recognized American boat builders were headquartered in Michigan: Chris Craft in Algonac; Gar Wood in Marysville; Hacker Craft in Mount Clemens; and Century in Manistee. Thus, I think that it is only right that the 25th Anniversary of the Antique and Classic Boat Society be celebrated in the Water Wonderland State of Michigan. Mr. President, I applaud the ACBS for having grown into the world's largest organization dedicated to the preservation and enjoyment of historic, antique and classic boats, a fact which pays tribute to the many people who have devoted themselves not only to promoting the heritage of boating, but also to promoting the ACBS and the many wonderful things it does to preserve this heritage. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate the Antique and Classic Boat Society on its 25th Anniversary, and wish the organization continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Deputy Chief Charles L. Bidwell of the Brighton, Michigan, Area Fire Department, who will be honored for 50 years of fire service to the City of Brighton at a dinner on September 19, 2000. Deputy Chief Bidwell has been an active or on-call firefighter since September 14, 1950. He spent his entire career with the City of Brighton Fire Department until July 1, 1998, when the City of Brighton Fire Department and the Brighton Township Fire Department merged to form the Brighton Area Fire Department. Deputy Chief Bidwell is retired from the General Motors Proving Grounds in Milford, Michigan. He has held the position of Deputy Chief since 1988, and remains one of the most active members of the Brighton Area Fire Department. For the past decade, he has led the department in alarm response. From June 27, 1994 until January 15, 1995, Mr. Bidwell acted as interim Chief of the City of Brighton Fire Department. He was named the City of Brighton's Firefighter of the Year in 1987, and, at the annual conference of the Michigan State Firemen's Association in Ludington earlier this year, he was selected as Michigan's Firefighter of the Year in honor of this remarkable achievement. Mr. President, I applaud Deputy Chief Bidwell on his extensive firefighting career and his dedication to the City of Brighton. He is one of the State of Michigan's true role models, and I am glad that the City of Brighton and the Brighton Area Fire Department have taken this opportunity to recognize his many contributions. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Deputy Chief Charles L. Bidwell on 50 years of service, and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 30th birthday of Harbor Tower Apartments in Escanaba, Michigan, which was officially celebrated on July 13, 2000. For thirty years, the presence of Harbor Tower Apartments has enabled the Escanaba Housing Commission, in coalition with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to provide low-income housing to members of the Escanaba community. Harbor Tower, an 18 floor, 175 apartment building, was built in 1970. The official dedication of the building took place on July 13th of that same year, and was attended by Miss America Pamela Anne Eldred. The Harbor Tower Apartments are managed by the Escanaba Housing Commission, a group comprised of five full-time employees and a five member Board of Commissioners appointed by the City Council of Escanaba. To qualify to live in Harbor Tower Apartments, individuals must meet the income guidelines set out by HUD. If they qualify under these guidelines, their rent is determined by their income, with HUD providing subsidy funds. Harbor Tower Apartments is considered a high performer by HUD's PHMAP scoring system. The PHMAP is a grade given to the management and staff on their performance and upkeep of the building. Perhaps the most important element of Harbor Tower Apartments, at least to the Escanaba Housing Commission, is to make residents feel as if they are a part of a community. They can participate in a variety of activities, including a weekly Rosary, monthly church services, a monthly club meeting, a summer picnic, and other special dinners. In addition, membership in the Harbor Tower Club is available to any resident for only $6 per year. The club's activities include a monthly catered dinner and dance, an annual Christmas Bazaar, and special holiday parties. Mr. President, I congratulate all of the people whose hard work over the years has made this 30th birthday possible. It is because of their dedication that quality housing remains an option to Escanaba citizens of all income levels. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I wish the Harbor Tower Apartments continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on August 25, 2000, Mrs. Patricia Jankowski of Garden City, Michigan, took office as National President of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars at the organization's 87th National Convention. On September 23, 2000, there will be a Homecoming celebration in her honor at the Marriott Hotel in the Detroit Renaissance Center, and I rise today to offer my congratulations to Mrs. Jankowski as she returns to Michigan. Mrs. Jankowski is a Life Member of Northville Auxiliary #4012. Since becoming a member of the Ladies Auxiliary to the VFW, she has been actively involved on all levels of the organization. She has served served as Auxiliary President, District #4 President, and in 1990-91 was selected the Outstanding President of the Year in her membership group when she served as State President. On the national level, Mrs. Jankowski has served as National Flag Bearer, National Cancer Aid and Research Director, and National Director for the VFW National Home program. As a member of Blazzette Color Guard for five years, she holds two Bronze and one Silver Medal for competition at National VFW Convention. In 1989, she earned National Aide-de-Camp status for recruiting members. And just last year, as National Senior Vice-President, she represented the Auxiliary on a tour of Europe. Mrs. Jankowski's election to this national office is the highlight of a career dedicated to public service. During her term in office, she will encourage fellow members to raise $3 million for the Auxiliary Cancer Aid and Research Fund for the 13th consecutive year, with her ultimate goal being to top all previous program records. Mr. President, I applaud Mrs. Jankowski for the wonderful work that she has done for the Ladies Auxiliary to the VFW. Her supreme dedication to that cause and her unending desire to help our Nation's veterans is both admirable and inspirational. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Mrs. Jankowski on taking office as National President of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and wish her great success as she leads this outstanding organization.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, from 1950-80, a large part of the Empire, Michigan community revolved around its Air Force Base, and the men and women who not only worked there, but also lived and raised families together in the surrounding community. To commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the opening of the base, as well as the relationships that developed between the families, several former Air Force Airmen have coordinated a reunion for everyone who served during the 30 years the facility was open. The event will occur in Traverse City from September 20-23, and I rise today to recognize the Empire Air Force Station Reunion 2000. Empire Air Force 752 Aircraft Control and Warning Squadron opened in 1950, having become necessary as an outgrowth of the Cold War. The primary mission of the base was to protect nearby metropolitan areas, including Detroit and Chicago, from enemy bombers, as well as to provide assistance to commercial aviation. When the station opened, it was a completely manual operation and thus had over 300 personnel assigned. The first personnel assigned to the base were housed in the Village of Empire. Eventually, in 1956, nine family housing units were completed, and soon thereafter servicemen and their families moved into these units. As the Air Force Base expanded in size, so too did the residential area. Between 1960-62, recreational facilities, including a two-lane bowling center, two recreation courts and a softball field, were completed. These did not serve just to provide the feel of a community, they truly created a community, providing children with places to play together and families with places to congregate with one another. In 1965, the Federal Aviation Administration assumed the maintenance of much of the radar equipment, and with the steady advancement of technology, the FAA ultimately took control of the Air Force Station in 1980. During the many years that the FAA and the Air Force shared the station, the relations between the two groups were congenial, which was a tribute to both parties. The reunion includes many outstanding events. There is a banquet Friday evening at the Park Place Hotel in Traverse City, as well as a hospitality suite at the hotel that will be open from noon on Wednesday, September 20th until noon on Saturday, September 23rd. There is also an open house at the Air Force Base on Saturday, hosted by the FAA. Mr. President, as I extend greetings to all those gathered for the Empire Air Force Reunion, I also congratulate Mr. Don Ostendorf and Mr. Lowell Woodworth, the Reunion Coordinators, on the job they have done putting this reunion together. Their hard work and dedication have surely paid off. On behalf of the entire United States, I hope that everyone enjoys a wonderful four days, and I welcome all those individuals who have left the Wolverine State back home.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in October of 1993, the State of Michigan Family Independence Agency commemorated the first anniversary of its landmark welfare reform initiative, To Strengthen Michigan Families, by naming its first Achiever of the Month. In each month since, the award has been given to an individual who participates in the initiative and has shown outstanding progress toward self- sufficiency and self-improvement. I rise today to recognize Ms. Bobbie Davidson, the recipient of the award for the month of August, 2000. Ms. Davidson is the single mother of two children, ages 8 and 11. She is dyslexic, and because of this feared she was unable to work. Having received ADC/FIP and Medicaid since 1993, in 1999 she applied for SSI. Though she was ultimately denied, while her application was pending Ms. Davidson was referred to Michigan Rehabilitation Services. That agency helped her to enroll in West Shore Community College in order to improve her math and reading skills. With assistance from the Work First and the Project Zero coordinators, Ms. Davidson obtained a job at Burger King in Ludington, Michigan, in March of this year. She continues to be employed there, which has resulted in the closure of her FIP case. As a result of her determination to improve her life, not only for herself but also for her children, Ms. Davidson has become independent of the welfare system. Eventually, she would like to attend culinary school and become a chef. Mr. President, I applaud Ms. Bobbie Davidson on being named Achiever of the Month for August of 2000. It is an honor for which she has worked very hard and that she truly deserves. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Ms. Davidson, and wish her continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 28 individuals with connections to the State of Michigan who will be representing our Nation at the XXVII Olympic Summer Games in Sydney, Australia. While I know that this is a very proud time for them and for their families, it is also a proud time for all Michiganians, and, on behalf of my constituents, I congratulate these 28 men and women on having been selected to coach or to compete as part of the United States Olympic Team. I have many hopes for these individuals, Mr. President. My first hope is that while in Sydney they will do their best not only to bring home a medal, but also to enjoy their experience as Olympians. It goes without saying that it is an incredible honor to be an Olympian, and that these men and women have dedicated a great portion of their lives to attaining this goal, and also to winning a medal. I hope they will remember, however, that a medal is only one of many things they can take away from their time in Australia. Secondly, Mr. President, I hope that as they compete they do not forget the millions and millions of Americans who are offering their support from the other side of the world. More importantly, I hope they do not forget the nearly 10 million Michiganians, myself included, who will be cheering just a little bit harder than the rest of them. My final hope, Mr. President, is that these 28 Olympians achieve above and beyond the goals they have set for themselves and for their teams, whatever these goals might be, and I wish them the best of luck in doing so. With that having been said, I ask to print their names, hometowns, and the sports they will compete in or coach, in the Record: Dave Simon, West Bloomfield, Rowing; Todd Martin, Lansing, Tennis; Steven Smith, Detroit, Basketball; Kate Sobrero, Bloomfield Hills, Soccer; Ann Marsh, Royal Oak, Fencing; Shelia Taormina, Livonia, Triathlon; Nick Radkewich, Royal Oak, Triathlon; Teodor Gheorge, Davison, Table Tennis; Jasna Reed, Davison, Table Tennis. Margo Jonker, Mt. Pleasant, Softball; Shane Hearns, Lambertville, Baseball; Jon Urbaneck, Ann Arbor, Swimming; Karen Dennis, East Lansing, Track & Field; Steven Mays, Kalamazoo, Wrestling; Daryl Szarenski, Saginaw, Shooting; Mike Kinkade, Livonia, Baseball; Phil Regan, Byron Center, Baseball. Rudy Tomjanovich, Hamtramack, Basketball; Serena Williams, Saginaw, Tennis; David Jackson, Marquette, Boxing; Jermain Taylor, Marquette, Boxing; Brian Viloria, Marquette, Boxing; Clarence Vinson, Marquette, Boxing; Ann Trombley, Saginaw, Cycling; Jame Carney, Detroit, Cycling; Jonas Carney, Detroit, Cycling; Martin Boonzaayer, Kalamazoo, Judo; Torrey Folk, Ann Arbor, Rowing.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, Medicare, that's what seniors and health care providers in Michigan talked about with me over the August recess--Medicare. Whether it was prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries, Medicare reimbursement restoration so that health care providers can continue to provide quality health care for beneficiaries, or reining in the excesses in this Administration's crusade to ferret out Medicare fraud and abuse, even where it does not exist, I have heard the message of my constituents, and that is that Medicare needs to be modernized, reformed, and refocused on providing the best health care possible for seniors and the disabled. Nowhere has the national debate on Medicare focused more clearly than on prescription drug costs. The increased reliance on prescription drugs in health care treatments in recent years means seniors are paying a much higher portion of their income on drugs. As new drugs come on the market that allow doctors to treat illnesses without surgery, or even allow them to treat illnesses for the first time, the result is that health care has shifted from inpatient hospital services for surgical treatment to outpatient care that utilizes more, better, and more specific drugs. The result is that while per unit costs of drugs are expected to increase by an average of 3.2 percent over the next five years, overall drug expenditures are expected to rise by almost 14.5 percent per year as the number of prescriptions per senior shoots up by more than 20 percent. But Medicare, developed in the late 1960's, and little changed since then, is still geared primarily towards the antiquated focus on intensive, inpatient care, and continues to miss the fundamental shift towards modern care techniques, including prescription drugs. Comprehensive Medicare reform, such as that outlined in the recommendations of the Bipartisan National Commission on the Future of Medicare that embodies choice, competition, and modernization, would allow Medicare to continue its guarantee of health coverage, while providing the type of health coverage that a modern senior needs. Unfortunately, apparently due to the election cycle games of this Administration, the necessary super-majority could not be mustered to report these proposals to Congress. So, America's seniors continue to be denied without a modern Medicare system, including prescription drug coverage. But these political realities do not lessen the immediacy of the problem, nor the need for this Congress to move now on providing a prescription drug benefit. I believe we must move on passing a prescription drug coverage plan for Medicare seniors, and pass it now. I hear the cry of my colleagues who say this will take the wind out of the sails for needed overall Medicare reform, but that assumes comprehensive reform is possible during this session of Congress. Given the politically charged nature of this election, and the fact that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to find new excuses every week for why they can't vote for even the most non-controversial of the appropriations bills, I doubt that will happen. In the short term, Medicare will remain solvent and will be able to provide adequate medical care for seniors. However, Michigan seniors need prescription drug coverage as soon as possible, and I intend to see that happen. Twice this summer, once on my own, and once with a bipartisan group of 12 other Senators, I have called upon the Senate Leadership to bring to the Senate floor a meaningful prescription drug plan that will not only cover these increasingly expensive drugs, but also ensure that such a plan does not impose additional costs on our seniors, additional costs that would wipe out any savings the coverage would provide. It makes little sense to me to establish a prescription drug plan that pays for 50 percent, or even 100 percent, of a senior's drug expenses, which average about $550 per year, but then saddle them with $600 in new premiums, and have them end up with greater out-of-pocket expenses than if they never had the coverage in the first place. That's not what I hear Michigan seniors say they want in a prescription drug plan. No, what I hear them say is that they want a prescription drug plan that will actually reduce their out-of-pocket expenses, allow them the most freedom and choice in determining their own coverage, and protect them from unexpectedly high drug expenses, expenses that can make their daily choice one between food and drugs. That's why I am so excited about the prescription drug plan on which I have been working with Senators Hagel and McCain as well as the other cosponsors, the Medicare Rx Drug Discount and Security Act of 2000, S. 2836. Of all the plans we have seen presented before this and the other Chamber, I believe this bill most directly addresses the major issues of prescription drug coverage. First, unlike any other bill currently before Congress, it provides broad and deep discounts for prescription drugs, on average 30-39 percent discounts, through multiple, competing drug discount buying plans. Much has been made over the last few years about the relative price difference American seniors pay for their prescription drugs as compared to those paid by their Canadian counterparts, where prices are fixed by the Government. But those comparisons are of the retail price. When the prices paid by Canadian seniors are compared to the prices paid by American seniors that are in group buying plans, the American senior pays less. And these plans are not uncommon. In fact, 71 percent of all prescription drugs paid for by third parties have been administered by these group buying plans, such as with the Michigan National Guard's drug insurance coverage plan. Furthermore, many group buying plans are offered outside of insurance programs, such as those innovative programs being offered by Macomb and Wayne Counties in Michigan, where price savings of as much as 70 percent on drugs are obtained. But as I've pointed out before, Medicare beneficiaries can't take advantage of these savings because the Medicare system still employs the antiquated priorities and structures of the days in which it was born. For the average American senior with drug expenses of about $670 per year, in 2002, our plan would provide an immediate savings of $235 per year. And, depending upon the drugs they have prescribed, savings could be as high as 70-85 percent for the more common drugs where usage is higher and competing brands more plentiful. Furthermore, there would be even greater market pressure for lower prices under our plan because multiple, competing drug discount plans would be available from which seniors could choose. If the particular drugs a senior uses were cheaper under another plan, that senior could shift over to that plan, and enjoy those better discounts. By allowing the market to drive down prices we can provide robust market price discounts that no other plan before Congress can beat, and which are substantially better than those offered under almost every Democrat plan which I've seen. In fact, because almost every plan that has been offered by Democrats in both the Senate and the House allows for only a single entity to control the price discounting for Medicare seniors, there will be little competitive pressure to pass along savings to Senior consumers, and little incentive to even try to get prices down. The Congressional Budget Office recognized this during their analysis of the President's prescription drug proposal, and determined that drug discounts would only average 12.5 percent, or about a third of those that would be seen under the Hagel-Abraham plan. But reducing the price of drugs is only half of the prescription drug equation. The other half is ensuring that Medicare provides the needed protections for Seniors against expensive drug treatments that may force them to decide between putting bread on the table or taking a life-saving drug. And the Hagel-Abraham bill does just that with the best catastrophic drug coverage of any bill before Congress. By tiering the coverage to income, we assure all seniors they will not be financially devastated by drug expenses for some of the new treatments that can approach $500 per month. Here is how the prescription drug costs caps break down under the Hagel-Abraham plan. Seniors earning less than 200 percent of poverty, $16,700 for a single and $22,500 for a couple, would pay no more than $1,200 annually. All drug expenses after that would be covered by the Federal Government. For those seniors that earn more than that, but below 400 percent of poverty, $33,400 for singles and $45,000 for couples, costs would be limited to $2,500 annually. And Seniors above 400 percent of the poverty level, up to $100,000 for singles and $200,000 for couples, would pay no more than $5,000 annually. Although some of my colleagues may believe that prescription drug insurance should be available to all Medicare beneficiaries, and that the government should subsidize the insurance of even the wealthiest Americans, I don't think it makes sense to subsidize the drug expenditures for those single seniors making more than $100,000, and those couples making more than $200,000, especially considering they have much easier access to private insurance coverage. What makes this proposal particularly attractive, in my opinion, is that it does not require seniors to pay hundreds of dollars in new Medicare premiums, premiums that could be greater than their actual drug expenses. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that when the President's prescription drug proposal is fully implemented, seniors will have to pay more almost $600 per year in new Medicare premiums, on top of the $88 per month they will have to pay for their existing Part B Medicare coverage. I can't see how that can be a good deal for America's seniors. CBO also recently scored the drug proposal offered by Senator Robb as an amendment to the Senate's Labor- HHS Appropriations Bill. That proposal would, according to CBO, increase Medicare's financing gap between revenues and outlays by 25 percent, while imposing new premiums of $80 per month, or $960 per year! Forcing America's seniors to pay almost $1,000 per year, just to have the privilege of participating in this big-government drug program, is wrong, flat-out wrong. And it will most likely wipe out any savings they would gain from the coverage in the first place. I believe by the time these plans were fully implemented, Michigan seniors would be wishing for the ``good ol' days'' where the government wasn't providing them such ``great'' coverage that forced them to spend more than they did before. I am not merely railing against these plans because they represent a big-government view of legislating. No, it's that I am deeply concerned with the record of the Health Care Financing Administration and its existing prescription drug programs. The fact of the matter is that HCFA's centralized, top-down, bureaucratic method of providing it's current inpatient drug benefit has led to drug rationing, cutbacks in coverage, and price fixing. Just recently this Administration announced that it intends to cut back coverage of cancer-fighting drugs administered in doctors' offices and set the price for those drugs by Executive fiat, even while it says that it's proposed additional drug coverage will not result in these same things. There is no escaping the fact that when the government controls all aspects of prescription drug insurance the quality of care and access are placed in jeopardy. It has been happening in Canada and we cannot allow that to happen to whatever new prescription drug coverage we provide. But we are taking action to stop the Administration's attempts to cut back cancer drug coverage for sick seniors. I am cosponsoring with Senator Ashcroft the Cancer Care Preservation Act, which will guarantee that HCFA cannot implement any reductions in Medicare reimbursements for outpatient cancer treatment unless those changes are developed in conjunction with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and representatives of the cancer care community, provides for appropriate payment rates for outpatient cancer therapy services, and is specifically authorized by an act of Congress. Furthermore, I am sending a letter to the President of the United States today, calling upon him to rescind HCFA's plan until such time as such changes can be fully examined by the cancer care community and Congress. To think that the Medicare system could stop covering the most effective cancer treatments simply by it's own edict should be a clear warning to all of my colleagues on the dangers in having a single agency control the access to our senior's prescription drugs. And that leads me to the second problem I've been hearing about in Michigan the issue of how HCFA and this Administration manage Medicare, especially with regard to reimbursement rates. When I first came to the Senate, Medicare was going broke quickly, and was bound for bankruptcy by 2001. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 implemented necessary changes to contain the growth in Medicare spending to extend the system's solvency until 2015, giving us time to implement necessary structural and market-based reforms in Medicare, reforms that can make the program viable for generations to come. But those modest reductions in the rate of growth for Medicare have become full-blown cuts in the face of this Administration's refusal to spend the money Congress has authorized them to spend. In fact, this Administration has short-changed Medicare by $37 billion in the last two years. The Congressional Budget Office's July 2000 Budget Projection update indicates that Medicare spending this year will be $14 billion below what Congress budgeted, following last year's spending by the Administration of only $209 billion for Medicare versus the $232 billion Congress provided. The fact of the matter, is that most reimbursement rates are set by the Administration and HCFA, and this Administration has repeatedly refused to spend the money on Medicare that Congress has given them. In fact, while the original Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was expected to reduce Medicare growth by $103 billion between 1998 and 2002, this Administration's relentless ratcheting down of reimbursements over and above that authorized by Congress has pushed those cuts to almost $250 billion. And between 2001 and 2005, the cuts are expected to be even more dramatic, climbing from $163 billion to $457 billion, 280 percent greater than Congress originally intended. The consequences for Michigan's health care industry are devastating. According to the March 2000 Michigan Health and Hospital Association report, ``The Declining State of Michigan Hospitals'' HCFA's implementation of BBA 97 has cost Michigan hospitals an average of $8.5 million each. As a result, 68 percent of the hospitals have been forced to eliminate at least one service, ranging from urgent care and rural health clinics, to rehabilitation and pain management centers, to screening and preventative health services. Forty-five percent of all the hospitals have eliminated at least two of the services, and more than half of those who haven't yet eliminated services yet are considering it for 2000. Previous reports have put the statewide total lost hospital revenue at $2.5 billion, or just over $13.5 million per hospital. But hospitals are not the only health care provider hit by the effects of BBA 97 and the voracious appetite of HCFA bureaucrats. Home Heath Care agencies have been particularly hard hit by HCFA policies seemingly intent on driving them all out of business. Home health care spending was expected to grow by $2 billion even after BBA 97 cost containment measures, but have dropped by $9 billion, a 54 percent drop in just two years. In fact, the number of home health care claims have dropped by 50 percent in just two years, and the average payment per patient lowered by 38.5 percent, far lower than originally projected with BBA 97. CBO stated this unexpected drop in reimbursements as the primary reason that total Medicare spending dropped last year. Over the four years covered by BBA 97, CBO now expects home health care spending to be reduced by $69 billion, over four times the original $16 billion that they originally estimated. Like hospitals, home health care has been decimated. Over 2,500 home health agencies have closed or stopped serving Medicare patients. Moreover, HCFA estimates that nearly 900,000 fewer home health patients received services in 1999 than in 1997. Finally, I think we need to look at the effects of this Administration's policies on reimbursements to skilled nursing facilities. Under BBA 97, the rate of growth for skilled nursing facility reimbursements was to be slowed by $19.8 billion between 1998 and 2004. However, since that original projection, reimbursements are now expected to fall by an additional $15.8 billion. This even takes into account the $2 billion in reimbursement restorations provided by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. For Michigan, the numbers are equally disconcerting. Michigan has lost $643 million in nursing facility reimbursements, over and above those projected with BBA 97, over 75 percent more than originally projected. Is it any wonder then, that 25 percent of all skilled nursing facilities serving Medicare patients are operating in bankruptcy and that why the number one problem for hospital discharge coordinators is that they can't find nursing facilities for their patients needing them? We have provided some important reimbursement relief in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. But it was only a first step and by no means a complete response to the Administration's policies. While Medicare reimbursements over the next five years are projected to be cut by $295 billion more than originally projected, BBRA 99 only restored about $16 billion of that, or less than 5 percent of the additional cuts. Containing the growth of Medicare was necessary to ensure Medicare did not go bankrupt, but this continuous, unsustainable ratcheting down of reimbursements is simply wrong, and we must reverse it now. That is why this body must bring to the floor real, substantive, Medicare reimbursement restoration legislation. And we must do it very soon. We cannot wait until next Congress, or even until next month. We must do it now. Ensuring Medicare's fiscal solvency on the backs of Medicare providers is not only wrong, but counterproductive, and will ultimately lead to the insolvency of Medicare's health care guarantees as we know it. I have been working very hard to provide specific reimbursement relief for Michigan's health care providers. First, Senator Hutchison of Texas and I have been fighting for two years now to improve the inpatient reimbursements for hospitals. Our American Hospital Preservation Acts of 1999 and 2000 would do just that. This year's version will restore the entirety of the Market Basket Indicator inflation adjustment for inpatient hospital reimbursement rates, returning over $6.9 billion to hospitals over the next five years, and $13.5 billion over the next 10. That will in turn mean more than $536 million in increased reimbursements for Michigan hospitals over the next ten years, or more than $3.4 million per hospital. Likewise, I have joined 53 of my colleagues in cosponsoring S. 2365, the Home Health Payment Fairness Act to eliminate the automatic 15 percent reduction to home health payments currently scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2001. The home health care industry cannot survive with the current reimbursement reductions, let alone another 15 percent across-the-board cut. Finally, I am working closely with a number of my colleagues to craft a bill that will provide for adequate nursing home reimbursements through a refinement of the inflation adjustment factors. We believe appropriate legislation will be available this week or next, and if any of my colleagues are interested in joining this effort, I encourage them to contact me immediately. The third concern I hear from Michiganians about Medicare, is that even with the steps we have taken to improve its financial standing and the quality of care, it is still headed towards bankruptcy in the very near future. Seniors in Michigan are scared, scared that they will lose their Medicare benefits because we cannot modernize Medicare so that it will stay solvent for generations to come. But it looks like things are getting better with Medicare and that at least in the short term, we have the fiscal breathing room to make the necessary changes to avoid a train wreck down the way. This summer the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund issued a correction to their 2000 Annual Report. In it, the Trustees reported that the financial projections were more favorable than those made in 1999, that the Trust Fund income exceeded expenditures for the second year in a row, and that the Fund now met the Trustees' test of short-range financial adequacy. In fact, income is now projected to continue to exceed expenditures for the next 17 years, a substantial increase over previous estimates. Now 2017 is still too soon for us to rest in our efforts to ensure the permanent solvency of Medicare through market-based modernization and reform, as well as provide seniors' access to the full spectrum of health care options. First, we need to shift Medicare from a centrally- controlled government system to a market-based system, one that maximizes choice and can best respond to changing medical care needs, such as recommended by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. Second, to ensure that we don't raid the Medicare Trust Funds to pay for non-Medicare spending, as repeatedly proposed by this Administration, we need to wall off the Medicare Trust Fund surpluses so that they can only be used for Medicare. I have been proud to vote for a Medicare lockbox proposal. But recent analysis by conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, and liberal groups such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have raised serious questions about the efficacy of each of these proposals, and so I will be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially my fellow Budget Committee Members, to draft a Medicare lockbox that not only protects the Medicare surpluses, but also enhances our ability to provide for the long-term solvency of the system. Even after providing for a new prescription drug benefit, and after providing for healthier reimbursements for health care providers, we will still have about $110 billion in Medicare surpluses available to fund this reform. Given that the Bipartisan Medicare Commission's reform proposal would actually end up costing less than the current Medicare system through competition and choice, I believe this is more than adequate to fix our problems with Medicare. Regardless, the Medicare lockbox will ensure those surpluses are still there when the need comes for any funds to finance reform. Third, I believe we need to allow Americans to prepare for their retirement health care needs outside of Medicare through Medical Savings Accounts, or MSAs, long-term care insurance, and existing health care benefit flexibility. Today's able-bodied workers will be tomorrow's seniors, and to the extent that we can set in motion now provisions that will allow them more choices, more options, and more access to quality health care, the healthier our entire retirement health care system will be, including Medicare. As we all know, MSAs are a market-based alternative for quality health care. They offer maximum flexibility for the self-employed, employees, and employers while reducing the out-of-pocket cost of insurance. MSAs are an alternative health insurance plan with real cost-control benefits for the millions of Americans who have been forced into managed care and feel they have lost control of their health care decisions. By establishing these MSAs now, tomorrow's seniors will have sizable balances available in their retirement years to supplement whatever coverage is available under Medicare. To that end, I believe we should make MSAs permanent and affordable by removing eligibility restrictions, including allowing Federal employees to have MSAs, lowering the minimum deductible, permitting both employer and employee MSA contributions, and allowing MSAs in cafeteria plans. Furthermore, I believe we should also waive the 15 percent penalty tax on non-medical distributions if the remaining balance at least equals the plan deductible. As for long-term care insurance, I support legislation phasing-in 100 percent deductibility of long-term care insurance premiums, when they are not substantially subsidized by an employer. Under my plan, individuals age 60 and older would not be subject to such a phase-in period, and would qualify for 100 percent deductibility immediately. I believe we should also allow long-term care insurance to be offered as a cafeteria plan benefit. By providing for more accessible long-term care options, retirees can build insurance against the catastrophic expenses of long-term home and nursing facility care that is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain under Medicare. Finally, we should allow for greater health insurance plan flexibility, especially with regards to the multipurpose Flexible Spending Accounts. Flexible Spending Accounts and cafeteria plans have become a popular means of providing health benefits to employees, but under current law, unused benefits are forfeited. This ``use it or lose it'' rule has limited the appeal of these plans as well as forfeiting substantial amounts of money that could be available for retirement health care needs. I support legislation which will allow transferring up to $500 in unused Flexible Spending Account balances from one year to the next, or to roll-over that amount into an IRA, 401(k) retirement plan, or a Medical Savings Account. All of these proposals will help retirees better plan for and provide for their health care needs. But regardless of these supplemental programs, Medicare will still be at the base of any retirees health care program. That's why it's even more heartening to see in the corrected Medicare Trustees' report that some of the more drastic measures we once thought would be required are no longer necessary to keep Medicare sound. For example, in 1997, when Medicare was on the verge of bankruptcy by 2001, many of us, on a bipartisan basis, voted in favor of a limited move to raise the retirement age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 years of age starting in 2003 and phased-in over the following twenty-four years. We did that on a near emergency basis, because the Medicare system was threatened. But I noted at the time, if the situation improved, such a change would not be necessary. In my opinion, that is now the case, and that kind of approach no longer needs to be considered in light of the improved financial condition of Medicare and the emergence of significant Medicare trust fund surpluses. In fact, at the time I cast my vote on this question, I entered into the Record on July 14, 1997, a number of prerequisites which I indicated would have to be met in order for me to support the actual implementation of the proposal. In that none of these prerequisites-- the development of a viable system for low- and middle-income seniors to obtain and maintain affordable health care until eligible for Medicare, as well as concurrence by the National Bipartisan Medicare Commission on the Future of Medicare on raising the eligibility age-- have been addressed in the two to three year time-frame that I set forth in my statement, I have withdrawn my support for raising the eligibility age. I no longer believe this change is necessary in light of the improved financial status of Medicare, or prudent in light of the failure of its sponsors to adequately address the concerns I raised. Finally, the fourth Medicare issue on which I have been inundated with complaints is how hard it is to navigate the regulatory complexity of the Medicare system. I have heard from doctors and hospital administrators, home health care agencies and skilled nursing facilities, about how even a simple mistake, or even a difference of opinion, can embroil them in legal controversies that take years to resolve, and many times more in legal bills than the amount of the originally contested bill. HCFA has now produced over 111,000 pages of Medicare regulations, three times the size of the incredibly complex Internal Revenue Code. These regulations make it nearly impossible to operate efficiently, and make simple administrative errors appear to be criminal fraud. In fact, on August 10th, 1998, Dr. Robert Walker, president emeritus of the Mayo Foundation, told the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, ``The public has been led to believe that the, Medicare, program is riddled with fraud, when in reality, complexity is the root of the problem. This has contributed to the continuing erosion in public confidence in our health care system. We must all have zero tolerance for real fraud, but differences in interpretation and honest mistakes are not fraud.'' Recently, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons conducted a survey of its members as to the impact of HCFA regulations on their ability to treat patients. They found that it costs on average 27 percent more to process a Medicare claim as it does a private health insurer claim, and that doctors and their staffs spend more than a fifth of their time on Medicare compliance issues. Furthermore, more than half of all doctors say they will retire from active patient care at a younger age because of ``increased hassles with Medicare.'' This is bad news for Medicare seniors, as further pointed out by the survey. Almost a quarter of all doctors are no longer accepting new Medicare patients, and of those that do, 34 percent are restricting services to those patients, such as difficult surgical procedures or comprehensive medical work-ups. Last, these are not changes simply to stop previously fraudulent activity. Thirty-eight percent of all doctors surveyed stated they submitted Medicare claims that they knew were for less than for which they were entitled, or ``downcoding'' in the Medicare regulatory parlance, but did not want to subject themselves to the potential of erroneous HCFA reviews and claim denials. Similar ``downcoding'' results have been found with hospitals who deny patients the most appropriate regimen of care in complex cases because they do not believe they will be fully reimbursed by Medicare if they submit such a complex care claim. That is why on July 27, I introduced S. 2999, the Health Care Providers Bill of Rights, a bill aimed at addressing the numerous regulatory and law enforcement abuses in the Medicare system that have brought to my attention by Michigan health care providers. This bill addresses many of the specific regulatory ``hassles'' experienced by doctors and providers everyday as they try to provide the best possible care for our Seniors. The bill is divided into six titles: Title I--Reform of HCFA Regulatory Process; Title II--Reform of Appeals Process; Title III-- Reform of Overpayment Procedure; Title IV--Reform of Voluntary Disclosure Procedure; Title V--Criminal Law Enforcement Reforms; and Title VI--Provider Compliance Education. Provisions that should be of particular interest to my colleagues are those that rescind HCFA's ability to withhold future reimbursements in order to offset alleged prior underpayments, a strict 180 day time line for completion of the Medicare administrative appeals cases, placing program participation terminations and suspensions in abeyance while appeals are pending, prohibiting the use of sample audit results to reduce future reimbursement rates, stopping overpayment collections while appeals are pending, and establishing voluntary disclosure procedures that also bring the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys into the process, as well as providing safe harbor from prosecution for those that enter into and abide by the voluntary disclosure requirements. Some further provisions that were specifically recommended by providers include requiring HCFA, fiscal intermediaries, and carriers to all spend a portion of their Medicare funds on provider education, requiring them to provide legally binding advisory opinions on Medicare coverage, billing, documentation, coding, and cost reporting requirements, as well as extending the current anti-kickback, civil monetary penalty, and physician self-referral advisory opinion requirements that are set to expire August 21st of this year. A number of organizations have expressed their strong support for this legislation, including the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association for Home Care, the American Federation of Home Care Providers, the Healthcare Leadership Council, and the American Health Care Association. I ask unanimous consent these letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I am continuing to reach out to additional organizations to garner their support, as well as to my colleagues in the Senate to join Senators Cochran of Mississippi and Senator Grams of Minnesota as cosponsors. Furthermore, Members of the other body will soon introduce companion legislation to S. 2999 in the hope that we can incorporate these necessary reforms in a Medicare reimbursement restoration bill or other reform legislation that may pass this Congress. Finally, I am joining Senator Craig in calling on the Senate Finance Committee to hold immediate hearings on this legislation, and the broader issue of HCFA regulatory complexity. With this legislation, I believe we can break down one of the primary obstacles to assuring access to quality health care in this country, the seemingly unfettered abuses of Medicare bureaucrats against doctors and providers alike. I urge my colleagues to join me on this important measure. I believe I have laid out a comprehensive and sensible policy for ensuring the continued viability of Medicare. Medicare has provided millions of seniors access to quality health care where otherwise they would go without. But more must be done, and must be done soon: we must modernize Medicare so that it provides for coverage of prescription drug expenses; we must improve reimbursements to providers so that reform and cost containment does not come at the expense of the very access to health care Medicare is trying to provide; we must implement comprehensive Medicare reform that improves beneficiaries choices in their health care decisions, mirrors the health care needs of the modern senior, and is fiscally sound for generations to come; and we must rein in the abusive and incredibly complex bureaucratic behemoth that has crippled health care providers' ability to operate efficiently in the Medicare system. We can do all of this, but time is running very short. Our seniors need these changes, and the time to act is now. I ask unanimous consent a section-by-section analysis of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Farmington Public School District of Farmington, Michigan, for its outstanding achievement in music education. It was ranked number one (along with Coppell, Texas) on the list of 100 best communities in America for school music programs. This is a very special honor which emphasizes the importance of arts education to the lives of our children. The rankings were the result of a first-ever nationwide survey of more than 5,800 public schools and independent teachers, district administrators, school board members, parents, and community leaders representing communities in all 50 states. The web-based survey assessed many aspects of music education, such as funding, participation, student-teacher ratios, and quality of facilities. The results indicate that superior programs exist both in areas that possess a wealth of monetary and material resources, as well as in those that must rely on more innovative means of funding and implementing ambitious educational endeavors. The key element of success, found in each of the top 100 communities, is the dedication and support of parents, teachers, school decision-makers, and community leaders. This landmark survey highlights the efforts of people who truly value quality music education and strive to make it a reality for today's youth. The partnership that sponsored the study was comprised of the country's top organizations devoted to music and learning. National School Boards Association President, Clarice Chambers, commented on the significance of the results: ``We already know that students who participate in music programs tend to be high achievers. Now we can use the data generated by this survey to identify the common characteristics of exemplary music programs. This information will be invaluable to school boards and communities as they go about the work of raising student achievement in their own school districts.'' Scientific research has revealed the impact of music education on a child's cognitive abilities, self-discipline, communication, and teamwork skills. The self-confidence gained through artistic accomplishment encourages kids to avoid drugs and alcohol and channel their energy into positive activities. Farmington's musical education program will serve as a model for shaping young lives in school districts across the nation. I applaud the City of Farmington for the wonderful music education program that it has established. It has truly earned its status as America's best place for music education, and I am sure will be a leader in the cultivation of musical talent for many years. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate the City of Farmington, and wish the music education program continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to join with the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Massachusetts, and the Senator from California in introducing the Consumer Privacy Enhancement Act. This legislation will provide Americans with some basic--but critically important--protections for their personal information when they are online. Privacy has always been a very serious issue to American citizens. It is a concept enshrined in our Bill of Rights. As persons from all walks of life become increasingly reliant on computers and the Internet to perform everyday tasks, it is incumbent upon policymakers to ensure that adequate privacy protections exist for consumers. We must ensure that our laws evolve along with technology and continue to provide effective privacy protection for consumers surfing the World Wide Web and using the Internet for commercial activities. The American people are letting it be known that they have mounting concerns about their vulnerability in this digital age. They are very concerned about the advent of this new high-tech era we've entered and the new threats it potentially poses to our personal privacy. And I believe there is a consensus building in Congress to begin to tackle the question of ensuring adequate privacy protections for individuals using the Internet. Whether we can find a similar consensus on a particular legislative proposal remains to be seen. However, I think it is imperative that we begin to address this topic now and not simply wait until Congress reconvenes next year before we take the issue up. So I have joined my colleagues here in introducing legislation that I think accomplishes several important objectives. The most important provision, I believe, is its most elemental concept: We require that before consumers are asked to provide personal information about themselves, they must be given an opportunity to review the website's privacy policy in order to learn how their information will be utilized. While many websites have privacy policies, including the vast majority of those websites receiving the most traffic, there are still many websites out there that do not offer privacy policies or adequate protections for consumers. In addition, many of the privacy policies that do exist are very lengthy and often quite confusing to consumers. There are pages and pages of ambiguous legalese and often seemingly contradictory claims about how protected your information truly is. So our bill also calls on the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that privacy policies are ``clear, conspicuous, and easily understood,'' and that any consent mechanisms shall be ``easy to use, easily accessible, and shall be available online.'' Finally, this legislation recognizes the importance of allowing the Internet industry to continue to promote greater self-regulation and to develop new technology means for to continue to evolve and to help us address legitimate consumer privacy concerns. There have been several initiatives undertaken by industry leaders to get websites to develop and post privacy policies and to give consumers the option of when to provide information and for what uses. This legislation is designed to allow such efforts to continue and to provide for technological advances in the area of privacy to benefit consumers. For instance, Ford and other companies have been participating in the Privacy Leadership Initiative whereby companies engaged online are working to establish industry guidelines and protocols for protecting consumers privacy. Nothing we do here today should inhibit such industry efforts. So with those critical features addressed, I believe the legislation we introduce today will be an important stepping stone along the path of ensuring that Americans can be confident of having their personal information will be protected when they go online. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and to support our efforts to protect consumers against unwarranted intrusions into their personal privacy when they are using their computers and surfing the Internet. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to join with the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Massachusetts, and the Senator from California in introducing the Consumer Privacy Enhancement Act. This legislation will provide Americans with some basic--but critically important--protections for their personal information when they are online. Privacy has always been a very serious issue to American citizens. It is a concept enshrined in our Bill of Rights. As persons from all walks of life become increasingly reliant on computers and the Internet to perform everyday tasks, it is incumbent upon policymakers to ensure that adequate privacy protections exist for consumers. We must ensure that our laws evolve along with technology and continue to provide effective privacy protection for consumers surfing the World Wide Web and using the Internet for commercial activities. The American people are letting it be known that they have mounting concerns about their vulnerability in this digital age. They are very concerned about the advent of this new high-tech era we've entered and the new threats it potentially poses to our personal privacy. And I believe there is a consensus building in Congress to begin to tackle the question of ensuring adequate privacy protections for individuals using the Internet. Whether we can find a similar consensus on a particular legislative proposal remains to be seen. However, I think it is imperative that we begin to address this topic now and not simply wait until Congress reconvenes next year before we take the issue up. So I have joined my colleagues here in introducing legislation that I think accomplishes several important objectives. The most important provision, I believe, is its most elemental concept: We require that before consumers are asked to provide personal information about themselves, they must be given an opportunity to review the website's privacy policy in order to learn how their information will be utilized. While many websites have privacy policies, including the vast majority of those websites receiving the most traffic, there are still many websites out there that do not offer privacy policies or adequate protections for consumers. In addition, many of the privacy policies that do exist are very lengthy and often quite confusing to consumers. There are pages and pages of ambiguous legalese and often seemingly contradictory claims about how protected your information truly is. So our bill also calls on the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that privacy policies are ``clear, conspicuous, and easily understood,'' and that any consent mechanisms shall be ``easy to use, easily accessible, and shall be available online.'' Finally, this legislation recognizes the importance of allowing the Internet industry to continue to promote greater self-regulation and to develop new technology means for to continue to evolve and to help us address legitimate consumer privacy concerns. There have been several initiatives undertaken by industry leaders to get websites to develop and post privacy policies and to give consumers the option of when to provide information and for what uses. This legislation is designed to allow such efforts to continue and to provide for technological advances in the area of privacy to benefit consumers. For instance, Ford and other companies have been participating in the Privacy Leadership Initiative whereby companies engaged online are working to establish industry guidelines and protocols for protecting consumers privacy. Nothing we do here today should inhibit such industry efforts. So with those critical features addressed, I believe the legislation we introduce today will be an important stepping stone along the path of ensuring that Americans can be confident of having their personal information will be protected when they go online. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and to support our efforts to protect consumers against unwarranted intrusions into their personal privacy when they are using their computers and surfing the Internet. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Daniel C. Wall, who will leave his elected position as Commander of The Sons of The American Legion, Detachment of Michigan, in August. For the last year, Mr. Wall has led the Michigan Detachment of the S.A.L. with wisdom and with grace, and has used his time in this position to aid the Veterans of the United States Armed Forces in an exemplary fashion. Mr. Wall has served in the Sons of The American Legion for many years, and holds a Life Membership card from Robert A. Demars Sons of The American Legion Squadron 67 of Lincoln Park, Michigan. During his time as a member, he has held many offices within the S.A.L., including all offices at the Squadron level; District Commander, Adjutant, and others; State Commander, Adjutant, and Zone 1 Commander. Mr. Wall was elected to serve as the State of Michigan Commander in 1999. During his time in the position, Mr. Wall focused much of his attention upon the education of his fellow members, so that they might know more about the purpose, programs, awards, officer duties and the benefits of their organization. He believed that this would not only help to recruit new members, but would also give current members a better appreciation for the many beneficial things that the S.A.L. does on a daily basis. As Commander, Mr. Wall has also presided over the many efforts of the S.A.L. in the State of Michigan, including assisting local posts in their activities, initiating programs for Veterans, volunteering at V.A. homes and hospitals, and fundraising. In 1999, the S.A.L. raised over $514,000 for V.A. homes and hospitals, and over $181,000 for the American Legion Child Welfare Foundation. In addition, Mr. Wall has served as a member of national S.A.L. committees. I applaud Mr. Daniel C. Wall on the job he has done as State of Michigan Commander of the Sons of the American Legion. He has dedicated much of his life to improving the lives of the Veterans of our great Nation, and for this he is to be commended. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I thank Mr. Wall for his dedication, and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Rabbi Steven Weil, who on August 20, 2000, will be honored for over six years of faithful service at Young Israel of Oak Park, the largest Orthodox synagogue in Michigan. Rabbi Weil will soon move to the Los Angeles area to pursue a large pulpit position in another Orthodox synagogue, and this occasion provides the Orthodox Jewish Community of Detroit with an opportunity not only to say good-bye to Rabbi Weil, but also to thank him for the wonderful work he has done during the past six years. Under the guidance of Rabbi Weil, the congregation of Young Israel doubled in size, an accomplishment which can be directly attributed to his devotion to spreading the tenets of his faith. In addition to developing a lecture and discussion series within his own congregation, he and his wife, Yael, were frequent lecturers at the Agency for Jewish Education and at the Jewish Community Center. He also had an on-going cable television series on the topic of Jewish history. Rabbi Weil had a vision of creating cohesiveness within the Jewish community and developing future Jewish leadership. He was able to achieve this goal by enacting several different programs, including a trip to Israel and Prague for young Jewish Orthodox, Conservative and Reform couples, as well as a March of the Living Youth Unity Mission. He also headed the Metropolitan Detroit Federation Young Leadership Cabinet, an organization which tutors the future leaders of the Detroit Jewish community. Rabbi Weil served on the boards of Yad Ezra, the Detroit kosher food bank, the Jewish Apartments and Services and the Neighborhood project. He was one of eight rabbis in North America selected to be a L.E.A.D fellow, with the responsibility of leading Orthodox rabbis into the 21st century. He was also on the executive committee of the Council of Orthodox rabbis in Detroit and of the National Rabbinical Council of America. I applaud Rabbi Steven Weil for his many contributions to the Jewish community of the State of Michigan. He is a man dedicated to his faith, his family and his community, and he will be dearly missed. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Rabbi Weil on the great success he had at Young Israel, and wish him continued success as he moves on to Los Angeles, California.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in October of 1993, the State of Michigan Family Independence Agency commemorated the first anniversary of its landmark welfare reform initiative, ``To Strengthen Michigan Families,'' by naming its first Achiever of the Month. In each month since, the award has been given to an individual who participates in the initiative and has shown outstanding progress toward self- sufficiency. I rise today to recognize Ms. Lorie Fooce, the recipient of the award for the month of July, 2000. Ms. Fooce, a single mother, applied for assistance in August, 1994, in order to provide for her family. She was approved for ACD/FIP, food stamps, and Medicaid. At the time, Ms. Fooce lacked the necessary job skills and experience to maintain a steady, sufficient income. However, within that same month, she took the initiative to enroll in Certified Nurses Aid (C.N.A.) training through Work First. Ms. Fooce was able to complete the training and was subsequently hired by Gogebic Medical Care. With the help of Work First, which paid for the C.N.A. training, testing fees, transportation, and uniforms, she has become a valued employee at Gogebic. Ms. Fooce's FIP case closed in May, 1999. In order to best care for her family, she currently receives food stamps, Medicaid, and day care assistance to supplement her earnings. I applaud Ms. Lorie Fooce for being named Achiever of the Month for July of 2000. She has shown a sincere dedication to her job and to the goals of self-improvement and self-sufficiency, and the progress she has made shows both great effort and great determination. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Ms. Fooce, and wish her continued success in the future.