Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 10 a.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 9 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine agricultural transportation issues.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on the nomination of James Loy to be admiral and James Card to be vice admiral of the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 10:30 a.m. in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold a hearing on ``Raising Tobacco Prices: New Opportunities for the Blackmarket?''

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Aviation Subcommittee on the Seante Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 2 p.m. on AIP reauthorization (COMMITTEE PROPOSAL).

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 30, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, the Public Land Management Act of 1997.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 30, 1998, at 10 a.m. or immediately following the nomination hearing, on pending committee business.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Fine.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I believe we established Senator Dorgan would speak next. And if we could establish as part of that unanimous consent that----

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak briefly in opposition to the Warner amendment. I will begin by saying that I think there are clear lessons that can be learned, but I disagree with my distinguished colleague from North Dakota as to what they are. I think the last half of the 20th century demonstrated that when America did not assert itself adequately and act in its best interests after World War II by embracing the nations of Central and Eastern Europe, we in fact contributed to the development of a cold war; that when we in fact invested in our national security and asserted ourselves effectively--particularly during the 1980s--we brought the cold war to an end successfully. That is why I believe it is in our interests to move forward with expansion of NATO at this time. In light of these reasons, I think it is ill advised for us to set arbitrary limits or deadlines or pauses in considering NATO expansion. If it is in our best interests to expand NATO quickly, then I want to maintain that possibility. If it is not in our best interests to expand NATO beyond the three countries under consideration today, then the process already established in the North Atlantic Council and our own constitutional advice and consent ratification requirements provide us more than enough protection against rash action. Let me speak briefly and more specifically as to other reasons I oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from Virginia mandating a ``strategic pause.'' First, I believe such a pause would send exactly the wrong signal at this critical point in history, as it would represent a drastic change in U.S. policy. The United States led the charge at last year's Madrid summit to keep the door open for future NATO expansion. Throughout the general discussion on expanding NATO, we also declared that any possible offer of NATO membership would be dependent upon successful implementation of democratization and market reform programs. Taking away the possibility of NATO membership, even for just 3 years, may also take away the incentive for completion of reform. Second, I believe the Senate's position during any future membership negotiations will be protected. During Foreign Relations Committee hearings on this issue, both Secretary Cohen and Secretary Albright expressed the administration's understanding of the need for consultation with the Senate prior to any future round of expansion. I believe that commitment is secure, given their scrupulous consultation process with the Senate that has gone on throughout the current expansion phase. Finally, I think we must look at this round of expansion in its historical context. Article X of the North Atlantic Treaty specifically provides for the expansion of NATO to any European state in a position to further the principles of the treaty and contribute to North Atlantic security. This article has been utilized over the past 50 years for the accession of West Germany, Greece, Turkey, and Spain. This is not a brand new process but one we have always kept open to review. NATO's Secretary General stated at the Madrid summit: In keeping with our pledge to maintain an open door to the admission of additional Alliance members in the future, we also direct that NATO Foreign Ministers keep that process under continual review and report to us. We will review the process at our next meeting in 1999. This shows that NATO enlargement is an issue regularly reviewed by the North Atlantic Council, just as are the structure and requirements of the NATO armed forces. In summary, I strongly oppose any measure which will place additional roadblocks in the way of future NATO expansion, roadblocks that are not needed and will only lead to further feelings of abandonment and exclusion by nations wanting to join the West. A decision to enlarge NATO should not be based on a rigid time line; rather, it should be the net result of thoughtful deliberation--a process already well protected by both the North Atlantic Treaty and our Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I do not intend to object, but I wonder, before the Senator from Delaware leaves the floor, prior to his arriving, the Senator from Virginia outlined a series of speakers who will speak in support of the amendment, but we did not establish a lineup for speakers who would speak in opposition to Senator Warner's amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Act establishing the Keweenaw National Historical Park, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the administration's letter of transmittal, the bill, and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1862, the ``Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act.'' I believe this legislation is crucial to our effort to protect Americans, and American children in particular, from the tragic effects of accidental poisoning, and I commend my colleague, Senator DeWine, for his leadership on this issue. Mr. President, more than 2 million times a year, poison control centers in the United States receive a report of a poisoning. On average that's almost 5,500 every day, over 225 every hour, and about 4 calls each and every minute. More than 90 percent of these poisonings happen in homes in Michigan and around the country, and over half of the poisoning victims are children under the age of 6. The conveniences most of us take for granted can be dangerous for our children. The household cleaner we use to keep our counters and floors clean, the fertilizer that keeps our lawns green, the products we use to keep our yards and homes free of vermin, all can bring tragedy if they fall into the hands of an innocent child. People in my own state Michigan are lucky to have a regional poison control center conveniently located in Grand Rapids. There clearly is a need for this office, which handles approximately 50,000 calls a year and has taken over 800,000 calls since opening its doors in 1977. Like other poison control centers, the one in Grand Rapids deals mostly with accidents involving children under age 6. As the parents of three children, all of them under age 6, my wife Jane and I have become deeply disturbed about these sky-high poisoning statistics. Because of this concern, we have gotten involved in an effort to strengthen existing and future poison control centers and to set up a 1-800 toll-free hotline. We also want to help establish a national media campaign to make people aware of the availability of poison control resources in their communities. That is why I am proud to be cosponsoring the ``Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act.'' This legislation would: establish a toll-free number to make sure that all Americans have access to poison control services; implement a nationwide media campaign to educate the public and health care providers about poison prevention and to advertise the new, nationwide toll-free number; and establish a grant program to help certified poison control centers prevent and provide treatment recommendations for poisonings. The total amount of grant funds available will be $25 million each year from 1999 to 2001. These funds can be used to supplement other Federal, State, local or private funds. Mr. President, too many of our children stumble across dangerous chemicals right in their own homes. Too many of them suffer often tragic consequences when they unknowingly ingest these poisons. I believe we should do everything we can to see to it that our children do not suffer in this way. At very small cost, the ``Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act'' will provide increased access to poison control centers and help people who are trying to prevent and treat poisoning. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Act establishing the Keweenaw National Historical Park, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the administration's letter of transmittal, the bill, and a section-by-section analysis of the legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will discuss today the Senate Immigration Subcommittee's plans for a series of hearings on reform of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. At the beginning of this Congress, I outlined my agenda as the incoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration. During that discussion, I noted that the time had perhaps come to consider fundamental reform of the INS. In particular, I raised the question as to whether an agency charged with both policing our borders and providing services to those seeking to come here legally and become citizens could perform either mission well. Nothing I have observed since that time has persuaded me that these concerns were misplaced. To the contrary, the problems I have observed with the Service's functioning leave me persuaded that the current structure simply does not work. I also remain of the view that splitting responsibility for INS's different missions is an important part of the solution. In my view, Mr. President, we must take a hard look at all aspects of the current INS structure. Right now, for example, the distribution of policymaking authority between headquarters and field offices seems haphazard, at best. There also seems to be almost no mechanism for implementing priorities and holding workers responsible for failing to do so. INS's bureaucratic culture appears to tolerate and almost expect failure on too many occasions. I want to spend a few minutes setting forth some examples of these rather serious problems. Most people are, by now, familiar with the story of ``Citizenship U.S.A.,'' how what began as a laudable effort to reduce the backlog of legal immigrants waiting to become Americans ended up sacrificing the integrity of the naturalization process, leaving a bitter aftertaste to what should have been the joyous experience of becoming a citizen of this great country. In the course of that effort, thousands of criminal background checks were not completed, leading to the naturalization of people who had committed disqualifying crimes. As a result of the program's deficiencies, INS is already working to revoke the citizenship of 369 immigrants and is considering action on almost 6,000 other cases. Revocation of citizenship, however, is properly an onerous procedure, considerably more difficult than denying it in the first place to those the law says should not receive it. This particular episode has already received considerable attention, and I will not go through the details again. What has received less attention, however, and is in some ways even more worrisome, is what this episode revealed about serious deficiencies in all aspects of INS operations. To begin with, many of the flaws that produced improper naturalizations in Citizenship USA had been identified years before, but gone unaddressed. A 1994 report of the inspector general's office identified two major problems with INS's background check process. First, it found that the INS did not verify that fingerprints submitted with applications actually belonged to the applicant. Second, the INS failed to ensure that background checks were completed by the FBI. A General Accounting Office study conducted the same year confirmed these findings. Yet the problems went unaddressed for two years. In November of 1996, after several front page stories reported on improper naturalizations, the INS Commissioner finally ordered that no naturalizations go forward without a completed FBI background check and unless new, more careful procedures for processing background checks had been followed. In an audit completed five months after that directive was issued, however, Peat Marwick found that only 1 out of 23 INS offices was actually complying with this policy. 7 offices were only marginally compliant, and 15 were not complying with the new procedures at all. It was only a few months ago that KPMG and INS were finally able to say that the new procedures were being followed. Allegations of fraud in testing also predate Citizenship USA. Indictments were handed down against 20 defendants in California this past January. But investigations into these allegations have been ongoing for several years and the INS received complaints as early as 1992 that should have alerted the agency to the potential for serious criminal fraud. Criminal cases may take considerable time to develop and I am not criticizing anyone for taking the time necessary before bringing these particular prosecutions. My point, however, is that INS took no separate action to close the serious loopholes these allegations pointed toward until this year, the day before I chaired a hearing to look into the issue. Mr. President, Peat Marwick also conducted a separate audit of all naturalizations done between August 1995 and September 1996. It concluded that we can be confident that naturalization was proper in only 8.6% of the 1 million cases naturalized during that period. The other 91.4% of cases either contained insufficient documentation to support a proper decision or (in 3.7% of the cases) involved an outright improper grant of citizenship. Thus, in addition to the 3.7% of cases improperly naturalized, we simply do not know whether almost 90% of those granted citizenship during that period met the requirements for naturalization. It may well be that the vast majority of cases with insufficient documentation were decided properly. But the American people deserve to know that citizenship is being conferred only on deserving people, just as the vast majority of legal immigrants who come here to play by the rules and make a contribution deserve to gain citizenship without a cloud of doubt hanging over its propriety. Unfortunately, these audits indicate that INS simply does not keep complete and accurate naturalization files and cannot even locate many files that should be in its possession. I have also heard numerous tales of fingerprints being taken and lost repeatedly, of inconsistent accounts being given about the status of people's files, and of an inability to get resolution on the simple question of a person's status. Under these circumstances, Mr. President, it comes as no surprise that the backlogs Citizenship USA was designed to address are now back with a vengeance. As many as 1.8 million people are caught up in the nation's naturalization backlog and in some places the wait for citizenship can last up to two years. Press reports suggest that INS officials have been attributing this slowdown to new procedures put in place in response to Congressional pressure. But when the subcommittee ranking member and I asked whether the new fingerprinting process might cause delays, the INS official in charge of developing them assured us that they would not. Unfortunately, naturalization is only one area where the INS has not performed either its enforcement or its service mission adequately. For example, INS does not seem able to figure out how to deport criminal aliens directly after they have finished serving their sentences, and hence claims it cannot detain all of them pending deportation. At the same time, INS seems to detain many people with strong asylum claims in the same cells as hardened criminals. Who is detained, who is not, and for how long seems to depend less on the person's particular equities as the district in which he or she is found. When I first raised the issue of fundamental INS restructuring and a split of its missions, I was not sure the idea would be seriously considered. But, as more problems have come to light, people increasingly seem agreed that reform is needed. The key issue is rapidly becoming not whether there will be a restructuring but what form it should take in order to solve INS problems. The latest adherent of this view is the Administration. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from Attorney General Janet Reno, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy Bruce Reed and Director of Management and Budget Franklin Raines, laying out the Administration's proposals on the matter. This letter acknowledges INS problems and their seriousness. The Administration also recognizes that one major source of these problems is INS' dual role as enforcer of our immigration laws and provider of immigration and citizenship services. Whether the Administration's proposed remedy is adequate to the task, however, remains to be seen. The Administration proposes to retain the current INS and have it perform all its current functions. Its plan would then untangle INS' overlapping and confusing organizational structure, replacing it with two clear chains of command, one for enforcement and the other for service provision. I will study this proposal closely. But I also will look at alternatives. In particular, while separating lines of authority into enforcement and service is a good start, I am not convinced that it will suffice to allow officials to pursue each mission with sufficient enthusiasm and energy. I also worry that, by retaining the current agency, even with significant restructuring, we may end up retaining the bureaucratic culture of toleration for failure that we must end. Finally, I think everyone, including the Administration, understands that no reform plan could command the support necessary to carry the day without careful scrutiny of all relevant problems, the means the plan would use to address them, and the manner in which the plan would work in practice. These are issues I intend to address through the series of oversight hearings I will launch shortly after the next recess. Because I believe this is a serious issue, I do not think it is necessarily one that can be resolved this Congress. But I hope these hearings will help us formulate legislation this session that can serve as a starting point for further discussions. I look forward to working with all interested parties in this important endeavor. I yield the floor. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking Senator Coats for the leadership he has provided. Even before there was such a thing as the Renewal Alliance, Senator Coats was, in a variety of contexts, bringing forth the arguments in the case that he has begun to present here today. I think the existence of his efforts and the various projects he has worked on was really the basis upon which a lot of us thought it made sense to begin working on a joint venture, the Renewal Alliance agenda that we are presenting today. I would like to discuss a piece of legislation that has to do with an important part of the Renewal Alliance agenda. This is a bill which provides economic empowerment in economically distressed areas. It is part of an effort by a number of us who wish to bring about the revitalization of economically and socially distressed areas in our country, especially in our cities. Traditional responses to persistent poverty have not been particularly effective. Frankly, even in the best of economic times, we find that certain parts of our communities still don't see significant change and feel that they are left behind--and indeed they are, economically. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum there has been the Government solution approach that we have seen over the last several decades, more than $5 trillion in Government programs. Yet, we have seen very little change in the level of poverty in the country. The fact is that the debate that has occurred over the past 30 years between, on the one hand, the argument that all we need is a strong economy and, on the other hand, all we need are more Government programs, leaves us still short of the mark. So what the Renewal Alliance has attempted to do is look beyond those traditional responses, believing that across America people have an abundance of desire to help the less fortunate to rebuild our cities and stop moral decay; also believing that too often the Federal Government impedes or fails to promote the community renewal that we need. We must encourage families, churches, small businesses, and community organizations to take on the hard work of social renewal. How? By reducing Government barriers that are making it difficult for economically distressed areas to improve the quality and conditions of life there and, at the same time, providing incentives so that the culture and the private sector can assist the Government in achieving this objective. Yes, we do need a social safety net for the truly deserving, but that will never give people the opportunity to get out the economically distressed conditions they find themselves in. We must go further. So what I would like to talk about specifically now is the economic empowerment component of the Renewal Alliance agenda. What we need are new approaches to our urban problems and problems of any community in the country that suffers from economic disadvantage because, as I say, despite the War on Poverty, our cities still face an array of problems. Illegitimacy in our inner cities is at a record high level, in some areas exceeding 80 percent. Harvard's Lee Rainwater estimates that by 2000, 40 percent of all American births will occur out of wedlock. And our cities are losing population, as well. Since the mid-1960s, our largest 25 cities have lost approximately 4 million residents. Too often, the people left behind are the poor. Half the people in our distressed inner cities lived below the poverty line in 1993. To address this tragic situation, we propose the ``REAL Life Economic Empowerment Act.'' This legislation would target America's 100 poorest communities and offer pro-growth incentives to create jobs and spur entrepreneurship where it is needed most. In order to become a renewal community, a community must meet several criteria. First, it must need the assistance. That means people in the area must be experiencing abnormally high rates of poverty and unemployment. Second, State and local governments must enter into a written contract with neighborhood organizations to reduce taxes and fees, increase the efficiency of local services, formulate and implement crime reduction strategies, and make it easier for charities to operate. Third, the community must agree not to enforce a number of restrictions on entry into business or occupations, including unnecessary licensing and zoning requirements. In exchange, the community would receive a number of benefits from the Federal level. Our legislation would zero out capital gains taxes within these empowerment areas, it would increase business expensing, it would give a 20 percent wage credit to businesses hiring qualified workers who were still employed after 6 months, and it would provide tax incentives for entrepreneurs who clean up environmentally contaminated ``brownfield'' sites. Unlike the administration's current ``empowerment zones,'' our incentives recognize that it is the private sector, not the Federal Government, that must be part of any effort to revitalize our communities. Mr. President, there will be no boards established to dole out Government patronage, and our legislation will not include the onerous conditions and bureaucratic requirements of current programs. What is more, States and localities will be joining the Federal Government in reducing the burden of Government so that local small businesses can start and grow in distressed areas. We know that it is these small businesses, from barber shops to local grocery stores, that often serve as the glue holding communities together. Not only do these small businesses provide jobs, they also provide places where people can meet one another to exchange news and keep in touch with local events and other job opportunities. It is crucial that we seed our distressed areas with businesses like these so that residents can pull their communities together and work toward a better life. Mr. President, in short, what we hope to do with our legislation is to provide the incentives so that small entrepreneurial enterprises can develop in areas where there is currently significant economic distress. Therefore, the jobs being created will be created where the people are who don't have jobs. Right now, the biggest impediment to creating jobs is to create conditions in which entrepreneurship can exist. That means cleaning up contaminated brownfield sites, it means providing access to capital so small businesses can begin and flourish, it means making sure that Government regulations and rules aren't so burdensome and onerous that even the best-intentioned small business person can't even open their enterprise. The only way that is going to happen is if we have State, local, and Federal teams working together in the fashion that our legislation suggests. The suggestion that this can work is, I think, abundantly clear if one looks to just existing examples of this going on in the country today. In our State of Michigan, under Governor John Engler, we have launched several extraordinarily interesting initiatives along these lines--one called the Renaissance Zone Concept, which essentially does the same thing we are proposing in this legislation; it just doesn't have the Federal component. Obviously, the State could not include us in the mix. But what the State has done is to say that, within a certain number of zones in the State, in economically distressed areas--and they range from inner-cities to rural areas, Mr. President-- we will dramatically reduce the burdens of taxes and regulations in order to try to stimulate economic development. And we are doing that with tremendous results. Another approach that is somewhat similar is being done in an effort to get people off of the welfare rolls and onto the job rolls. In fact, we have a country in Michigan which, because of this kind of State and local cooperative effort, the county of over 200,000 people has virtually nobody left on the welfare rolls because of the innovative approach that is being taken. It is time to learn from these ``laboratories,'' these experiences at the State level. We believe this legislation moves us in that direction. So as we proceed forward with this Renewal Alliance agenda, I intend to work very hard on that component of it to find us economic empowerment. We want to give the Members of the Senate a chance to decide whether or not the business-as-usual approach is the way we want to enter the 21st century, or whether we want to augment what we do in Federal programs, as well as private sector initiatives, by providing, through the legislation we will offer, an opportunity to reduce the impediments to starting new business opportunities in our economically distressed areas, as well as providing incentives to create more of those businesses that obviously provide more people with a chance to get on the first rung of the economic ladder. Mr. President, let me conclude, because other members of the Alliance are here. I thank Senator Coats for his leadership on this. I look forward to working with all of our colleagues as we try to move this agenda forward this year.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking Senator Coats for the leadership he has provided. Even before there was such a thing as the Renewal Alliance, Senator Coats was, in a variety of contexts, bringing forth the arguments in the case that he has begun to present here today. I think the existence of his efforts and the various projects he has worked on was really the basis upon which a lot of us thought it made sense to begin working on a joint venture, the Renewal Alliance agenda that we are presenting today. I would like to discuss a piece of legislation that has to do with an important part of the Renewal Alliance agenda. This is a bill which provides economic empowerment in economically distressed areas. It is part of an effort by a number of us who wish to bring about the revitalization of economically and socially distressed areas in our country, especially in our cities. Traditional responses to persistent poverty have not been particularly effective. Frankly, even in the best of economic times, we find that certain parts of our communities still don't see significant change and feel that they are left behind--and indeed they are, economically. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum there has been the Government solution approach that we have seen over the last several decades, more than $5 trillion in Government programs. Yet, we have seen very little change in the level of poverty in the country. The fact is that the debate that has occurred over the past 30 years between, on the one hand, the argument that all we need is a strong economy and, on the other hand, all we need are more Government programs, leaves us still short of the mark. So what the Renewal Alliance has attempted to do is look beyond those traditional responses, believing that across America people have an abundance of desire to help the less fortunate to rebuild our cities and stop moral decay; also believing that too often the Federal Government impedes or fails to promote the community renewal that we need. We must encourage families, churches, small businesses, and community organizations to take on the hard work of social renewal. How? By reducing Government barriers that are making it difficult for economically distressed areas to improve the quality and conditions of life there and, at the same time, providing incentives so that the culture and the private sector can assist the Government in achieving this objective. Yes, we do need a social safety net for the truly deserving, but that will never give people the opportunity to get out the economically distressed conditions they find themselves in. We must go further. So what I would like to talk about specifically now is the economic empowerment component of the Renewal Alliance agenda. What we need are new approaches to our urban problems and problems of any community in the country that suffers from economic disadvantage because, as I say, despite the War on Poverty, our cities still face an array of problems. Illegitimacy in our inner cities is at a record high level, in some areas exceeding 80 percent. Harvard's Lee Rainwater estimates that by 2000, 40 percent of all American births will occur out of wedlock. And our cities are losing population, as well. Since the mid-1960s, our largest 25 cities have lost approximately 4 million residents. Too often, the people left behind are the poor. Half the people in our distressed inner cities lived below the poverty line in 1993. To address this tragic situation, we propose the ``REAL Life Economic Empowerment Act.'' This legislation would target America's 100 poorest communities and offer pro-growth incentives to create jobs and spur entrepreneurship where it is needed most. In order to become a renewal community, a community must meet several criteria. First, it must need the assistance. That means people in the area must be experiencing abnormally high rates of poverty and unemployment. Second, State and local governments must enter into a written contract with neighborhood organizations to reduce taxes and fees, increase the efficiency of local services, formulate and implement crime reduction strategies, and make it easier for charities to operate. Third, the community must agree not to enforce a number of restrictions on entry into business or occupations, including unnecessary licensing and zoning requirements. In exchange, the community would receive a number of benefits from the Federal level. Our legislation would zero out capital gains taxes within these empowerment areas, it would increase business expensing, it would give a 20 percent wage credit to businesses hiring qualified workers who were still employed after 6 months, and it would provide tax incentives for entrepreneurs who clean up environmentally contaminated ``brownfield'' sites. Unlike the administration's current ``empowerment zones,'' our incentives recognize that it is the private sector, not the Federal Government, that must be part of any effort to revitalize our communities. Mr. President, there will be no boards established to dole out Government patronage, and our legislation will not include the onerous conditions and bureaucratic requirements of current programs. What is more, States and localities will be joining the Federal Government in reducing the burden of Government so that local small businesses can start and grow in distressed areas. We know that it is these small businesses, from barber shops to local grocery stores, that often serve as the glue holding communities together. Not only do these small businesses provide jobs, they also provide places where people can meet one another to exchange news and keep in touch with local events and other job opportunities. It is crucial that we seed our distressed areas with businesses like these so that residents can pull their communities together and work toward a better life. Mr. President, in short, what we hope to do with our legislation is to provide the incentives so that small entrepreneurial enterprises can develop in areas where there is currently significant economic distress. Therefore, the jobs being created will be created where the people are who don't have jobs. Right now, the biggest impediment to creating jobs is to create conditions in which entrepreneurship can exist. That means cleaning up contaminated brownfield sites, it means providing access to capital so small businesses can begin and flourish, it means making sure that Government regulations and rules aren't so burdensome and onerous that even the best-intentioned small business person can't even open their enterprise. The only way that is going to happen is if we have State, local, and Federal teams working together in the fashion that our legislation suggests. The suggestion that this can work is, I think, abundantly clear if one looks to just existing examples of this going on in the country today. In our State of Michigan, under Governor John Engler, we have launched several extraordinarily interesting initiatives along these lines--one called the Renaissance Zone Concept, which essentially does the same thing we are proposing in this legislation; it just doesn't have the Federal component. Obviously, the State could not include us in the mix. But what the State has done is to say that, within a certain number of zones in the State, in economically distressed areas--and they range from inner-cities to rural areas, Mr. President-- we will dramatically reduce the burdens of taxes and regulations in order to try to stimulate economic development. And we are doing that with tremendous results. Another approach that is somewhat similar is being done in an effort to get people off of the welfare rolls and onto the job rolls. In fact, we have a country in Michigan which, because of this kind of State and local cooperative effort, the county of over 200,000 people has virtually nobody left on the welfare rolls because of the innovative approach that is being taken. It is time to learn from these ``laboratories,'' these experiences at the State level. We believe this legislation moves us in that direction. So as we proceed forward with this Renewal Alliance agenda, I intend to work very hard on that component of it to find us economic empowerment. We want to give the Members of the Senate a chance to decide whether or not the business-as-usual approach is the way we want to enter the 21st century, or whether we want to augment what we do in Federal programs, as well as private sector initiatives, by providing, through the legislation we will offer, an opportunity to reduce the impediments to starting new business opportunities in our economically distressed areas, as well as providing incentives to create more of those businesses that obviously provide more people with a chance to get on the first rung of the economic ladder. Mr. President, let me conclude, because other members of the Alliance are here. I thank Senator Coats for his leadership on this. I look forward to working with all of our colleagues as we try to move this agenda forward this year.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a very special event in the state of Michigan. The 5th Annual Hearts for Life Benefit, sponsored by Right To Life--Lapeer County, will take place on Monday, May 4, 1998, at the Lapeer County Center Building. The Master of Ceremonies will be the Honorable Michael P. Higgins and the guest speaker for the evening will be Monsignor James P. Lisante, director of Family Ministry and Pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle in West Hempstead, New York. He is a champion of pro-life causes. An event like this one is very important for the pro-life movement. It reinforces the fact that at every level, we have people who value the sanctity of life working together. This is very encouraging. All who are involved with the Hearts for Life event should be commended not only for their efforts in planning it but for their efforts in promoting this very important cause. I extend my best wishes and appreciation to the Right To Life--Lapeer County.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor two very special people, Dr. Haifa Fakhouri and Ms. Florine Mark. Both will be receiving the ``Friends Community Service Award'' on Sunday, May 17, 1998 from the American Arab and Jewish Friends, a program of The Interfaith Round Table of the National Conference. American Arab and Jewish Friends was established in 1981 to promote a greater understanding between the Arab and Jewish Communities of Southeastern Michigan. Dr. Fakhouri is the President and CEO of the Arab-American and Chaldean Council, the nation's largest community based, human service organization serving the Arab-American and Chaldean population. The ACC has grown tremendously under Dr. Fakhouri's leadership. In addition to her work with the ACC, she has served as special advisor to the United Nations on women's issues in the Arab world and as a delegate to the International Women's Conference in Mexico. She also serves on the boards of several national, state and local organizations. In all of her capacities, Dr. Fakhouri works to strengthen relations between the Arab-American and Jewish communities. She is well-deserving of the award being presented to her. Ms. Florine Mark has been the President and CEO of the WW Group, Inc., the nation's largest franchise of Weight Watchers International for the last 30 years. In addition to this, Ms. Mark also finds time to serve on the boards of numerous community organizations including the American Red Cross, the Detroit Institute for Children and the United Jewish Appeal National Campaign. Ms. Mark's contributions to society, especially promoting Arab-American, Jewish relations are commendable. Both of these women deserve special recognition for their contributions to the Arab-American and Jewish communities. I want to congratulate them on their awards. At this time, I would also like to commend the Interfaith Round Table on all of their efforts to improve understanding and friendship between the Arab and Jewish communities. I extend my best wishes for a successful 12th Annual Awards and Scholarship dinner.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, now that the budget resolution has been adopted, I wanted to take a few moments to discuss several of the more important votes that took place. The first of these was the Allard amendment to create a new point of order against future budgets that fail to eliminate the federal debt by the year 2028. Mr. President, I fully support reducing the size of the federal debt, and I am glad the pending resolution cuts the relative size of the debt by almost 20 percent over the next five years. On the other hand, the Allard amendment may require making payments on debt that is not actually due. A significant portion of the debt is held by foreign investors. It does not make sense to me to use American taxpayers' dollars to make early debt payments to foreign investors like the central banks of China, Japan, and Germany. I believe there are several priorities facing this Congress beyond reducing the federal debt, including reforming the Social Security system and improving our onerous tax code, and I do not support amendments that would tie Congress' hands with regard to these important reforms. Two other amendments that require comment were the Kennedy and Murray amendments to increase funding in Function 500, the eduction and training function, while making across-the-board cuts to all other domestic discretionary accounts. Mr. President, the underlying budget resolution accomplishes two priorities with regard to education. First, it lives up to the budget agreement signed by both congressional leadership and the President just last year. That agreement targeted sufficient resources at federal education programs to fully fund the priorities of both the President and Congress. Second, this resolution adds to those agreed-to levels by increasing funding for important programs like IDEA and the Innovative Strategies State Grant program-- programs that work by block-granting federal resources back to the states and local governments. Mr. President, if we have learned anything regarding effective education policy, it is that building an ever larger federal presence in historically local- and state-controlled public schools simply doesn't work. The Senate budget recognizes this fact, while the Kennedy and Murray amendments ignore it. This budget increases federal education funding by $2.6 billion over the next five years at the same time that many budget areas are being cut. I believe this is a clear indication of the priority the Senate places on eduction issues. Several other amendments were offered, including the Lautenberg, Wellstone, Dorgan, and Feingold amendments, which would have established so-called reserve funds for the creation of new mandatory spending programs. Mr. President, by definition, these amendments call for creating new, uncontrolled federal entitlement programs. Exactly what these programs would do, and how they would be funded, is left unclear. On the other hand, my position regarding new mandatory spending is extremely clear--until Congress takes the necessary steps to ensure the future solvency of our existing entitlements, including Social Security and Medicare, we should have the discipline to refrain from creating new programs which will endanger the solvency of existing programs and the federal government. For that reason, I opposed these reserve fund amendments. The Kempthorne amendment regarding the Endangered Species Act also requires comment. Under the budget resolution, funds raised from selling surplus BLM lands were to be targeted at programs designed to protect endangered species. In my mind, Mr. President, this funding mechanism represents a win-win situation for everyone involved in protecting this nation's wildlife. First, by selling surplus lands, the federal government rids itself of the cost of managing lands for which it has no purpose. Second, the proceeds from these lands would go towards continued protection of endangered wildlife. During debate, Senator Reid raised concerns that tying ESA funding solely to the sale of federal lands was not good policy. For this reason, I supported the Kempthorne amendment which addressed some of Senator Reid's concerns by expanding the possible funding sources for Endangered Species Act enforcement. Another important vote was the Bumpers amendment to increase the royalty on the net return on the profits from mining gold, silver and platinum and channeling those funds into IDEA. Mr. President, the underlying budget resolution takes a dramatic step towards increasing the funding for IDEA. This is a program that I fully support and look forward to continued increases in federal participation. Nevertheless, I opposed this amendment because I do not believe the imposition of new taxes on the mining industry is the proper means of reforming our mining law. Hard rock mining is a capital intensive industry that has struggled in recent years despite the booming U.S. economy. The reason is simple--the costs of extracting these metals from U.S. soil is only slightly less than the market value of these metals. I believe there are better approaches for reforming our mining laws than simply raising taxes, and I look forward to working with Senator Bumpers and other Senators to seeing those reforms take place. Finally, Mr. President, I wanted to discuss the Domenici amendment regarding the recent ruling by the Veterans' Administration General Counsel to include some smoking-related illnesses in the qualified list of ``service connected'' diseases. Mr. President, I want to help veterans and their families, but it is my firm belief that such an increase in the federal government's liability should result only from an act of Congress, not a judge's ruling, and that Congress should only act with all the pertinent facts before it. For these reasons, I supported the Domenici amendment to require a year-long study of the merits of such claims. This study will enable Congress to avoid the current vacuum of knowledge that surrounds this issue and devise the best policy for our veterans. If the study supports these claims, then I will support expanding the current program to accommodate them.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 150th Anniversary of the Women's Rights Movement of the United States. This courageous movement which began in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York at the first Women's Rights Convention ever held, changed the nation irrevocably. The Women's Rights Movement had a profound impact on women and all Americans. It opened up many new doors and increased opportunities for women in all fields. The work to achieve equality for women that began in 1848, has continued over the course of seven generations. It is for this reason that this significant movement in American history should be increasingly recognized by our nation's citizens, especially our children. The significance of this year cannot be stressed enough. This 150th Anniversary, under the national theme: ``Living the Legacy: Women's Rights Movement 1948-1998'' should be widely recognized and celebrated throughout the year and into the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to proclaim this week, April 19-25, 1998 as ``Donor Awareness Week.'' Organ and tissue donation is a very important issue. There is a critical need to bring this issue to the forefront. Nationally, nine out of ten individuals die while waiting for a lifesaving transplant. Awareness should be promoted at national and local levels. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize some individuals who work very hard to raise organ and transplant awareness. The volunteers at the Lakeshore Transplant Support Group in Muskegon, Michigan work on a daily basis to do so. I commend their dedication on behalf of this issue. Hopefully, more people will follow in their example and work to raise awareness of the importance of organ and tissue donation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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