Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Tamara Van Wormer Tazzia, winner of the Clawson, Michigan Chamber of Commerce ``Business Person of the Year'' Award. Ms. Tazzia is the owner and manager of the Tri-Centre Business Complex in Clawson and has been very active in the Clawson Chamber of Commerce, serving as a board member, for the past five years. This month she will take over as president of the Chamber. In addition to her involvement in the Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Tazzia has an impressive list of accomplishments. Ms. Tazzia has over ten years experience in property management and eighteen years of entrepreneurial business experience. She is a past vice-president of the National Association of Women Business Owners and past president of both the Troy Toastmasters and Bloomfield Hills Optimist Club. Ms. Tazzia will be honored at the Clawson Chamber of Commerce Annual Awards Dinner Saturday, March 21, 1998. I congratulate Ms. Tazzia on her award and commend her for her involvement in her community.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on this day, the eighth anniversary of the restoration of Lithuania's independence, I would like to pay tribute to the perserverence and sacrifices of the Lithuanian people which enable them to achieve the freedom which they now enjoy. On March 11, 1990, the newly elected Lithuanian Parliament, fulfilling its election mandate from the people of Lithuania, declared the restoration of Lithuania's independence and the establishment of a democratic state. The people of Lithuania endured a 51-year foreign occupation which began as a result of the infamous Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939. During that time the people of Lithuania courageously resisted the imposed communist dictatorship and cultural genocide of this foreign occupation. During this time, the people of Lithuania were able to mobilize and sustain a non-violent movement for social and political change which came to be known as Sajudis. On February 24, 1990 Sajudis, the people's movement, through citizen action guaranteed a peaceful transition to independence and democracy by fully participating in the first democratic elections in Lithuania in more than half a century. In January 1991, ten months after this restoration of independence, the people and government of Lithuania withstood a bloody and lethal assault against their democratic institutions by foreign troops. Lithuania's successful restoration of democracy and independence is remarkable for its use of non-violent resistance to an oppressive regime. On September 17, 1991, Lithuania became a member of the United Nations and is a signatory to a number of its organizations and other international agreements. It also is a member of the Organization and Security and Cooperation in Europe, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and the Council of Europe. Lithuania is an associate member of the EU and has applied for NATO membership and is currently negotiating for membership in the WTO, OECD and other Western organizations. The United States established diplomatic relations with Lithuania on July 28, 1992. U.S. representation accredited to Lithuania served from the legation in Riga, Latvia, until May 31, 1930, when a legation in Kaunas was established. The Soviet invasion forced the clousure of Legation uninterrupted for over 50 years. The U.S. never recognied the forcible incorporation of Lithuania into the U.S.S.R., and views the present Government of Lithuania as a legal continuation of the interwar republic. Lithuania has enjoyed Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) treatment with the U.S. since December, 1991. Through 1996, the U.S. has committed over $100 million to Lithuania's economic and political transformation and to address humanitarian needs. In 1994, the U.S. and Lithuania signed an agreement of bilateral trade and intellectual property protection, and in 1997 a bilateral investment treaty. For over fifty years, there was a bipartisan consensus on maintaining a strong policy of non-recognition of the forcible incorporation of Lithuania into the former Soviet Union. Since Lithuania regained their independence on March 11, 1990, the United States has played a critical role in helping these states implement democratic and free market reforms strengthening their security and sovereignty. The 1998 U.S. and Lithuania signed The Baltic Charter Partnership which recalls the history, and underscores that the United States has a ``real, profound, and enduring'' interest in the security and independence of the three Baltic states. This is because, as the Charter also notes, our interest in a Europe whole and free will not be ensured until Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are secure. Mr. President, I commend the people of Lithuania for their courage and perseverance in using peaceful means to regain their independence. I join with the people of Lithuania as they celebrate their independence day.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 20th Annual ``Respect Life'' Benefit presented by the Knights to Columbus, Michigan State Council and the Right to Life of Michigan Educational Fund. The benefit is a very important pro-life event for Michigan. It will take place on the evening of Thursday, March 26, 1998 at the Burton Manor in Livonia, Michigan and is expected to attract over one thousand people. When a large group like this gathers to celebrate the gift of life it sends a great message. In light of the current struggle in our nation regarding partial birth abortion there could not be a more urgent time for a gathering like this one. Another way in which those of us who respect the sanctity of life can send a message is through media channels. Michigan will lead the way in the pro-life movement through a major media campaign. The 1998 Media Campaign, of which the proceeds will go, will be showcased at the event. In addition, Dr. Alan Keyes will be the featured speaker for the evening. The efforts of Richard F. McCloy, State Deputy of the Knights of Columbus, Michigan State Council, and Barbara Listing, President, Right to Life of Michigan Educational Fund are truly commendable. They have generously devoted their time and efforts, not only to this event but to a very worthy cause. I extend my best wishes for both a very successful event and Media Campaign.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution designating April 1, 1998 as ``National Breast Cancer Survivor's Day.'' It is only proper, Mr. President, that we should set aside a day to honor the brave women and men who have survived this dread disease, which causes pain, suffering and even death for so many Americans. Every year, Mr. President, 178,700 women and 1,600 men in the United States are stricken with breast cancer. Each of us must live with the knowledge that 1 in 9 American women will suffer from breast cancer in her lifetime. That means that virtually all of us will either be stricken by breast cancer or know someone who is. I know in my case, Mr. President, I lost my mother to breast cancer some years ago. It was a painful experience for all of our friends and family as well as my mother herself. The pain caused by this dread disease is intense for everyone involved, and we must do everything in our power to eradicate this scourge. Thankfully, Mr. President, we have made some progress in our battle with breast cancer. The 5 year survival rate for breast cancer victims has risen to 97 percent in cases of early detection. Medical advances have helped more women are surviving breast cancer. Just as important, however, has been the fact that we as a nation are doing a better job of telling women about their options, and of emphasizing the importance of self-examination and regular visits to the doctor. This is one reason, Mr. President, why I believe it is important that we honor breast cancer survivors in the manner called for by this resolution. By bringing breast cancer survivors together here in Washington, DC and elsewhere around the country, we can celebrate survivorship and publicize, not just the tragedy of breast cancer, but also the hope that is provided by research and early detection. We need to get the message out that there are things women can do for themselves in the fight against breast cancer. We need to highlight the effectiveness of early detection and show our respect for the courage of women who have faced this disease and lived. We have a long way to go, Mr. President, before we win our battle with breast cancer. But research, early detection and programs to make Americans aware of their options in dealing with the possibility of breast cancer all can help. I salute the women of American who have faced breast cancer, along with the families and friends who have supported them during their time of trial, and I hope that all of us can join together, not only to mourn those who lost their battle with breast cancer, but also to honor those who have fought that battle and survived.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I intend, in a moment here, to move forward with a couple of amendments. Before I do, I wanted to comment on the earlier action that was taken a little bit ago with regard to the manager's amendment pertaining to States, which was designed to provide a number of us who did not fit regionally within either the Appalachian Regional Commission qualifications or the density corridor qualifications with an opportunity to benefit from some of the unique additional dollars that have been made available through the earlier amendment that Senator Chafee offered. We have worked very closely with Senator Chafee and his staff, Senator Warner and his staff, and Senator Baucus and his staff to try to address some of these equity issues. I thank them for their ongoing patience and efforts to assist us. We, certainly, in Michigan--as I have spoken earlier during the discussions of this legislation, Michigan is a State that has been trying to gain more equity. I know we have been persistent, as both managers have indicated in previous conversations. We are being persistent for obvious reasons. But we do appreciate it, and I want to publicly acknowledge the cooperation we have received. I think the amendment that was agreed to today goes a long way in helping us to address those issues. We all want to have the best outcome, but we realize there are many other inconsistent viewpoints being expressed around the floor, and to help everybody is often difficult. I think the managers have gone the extra mile to address these things and I thank them. Amendment No. 1380 to Amendment No. 1676 (Purpose: To provide for continuation of eligibility for the International Bridge, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan)

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President I rise today to express my strong support for legislation authorizing the placement of a Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the Capitol Mall. Mr. President, the Capitol Mall has an important place in our nation, and in the hearts of its people. It is on the Mall that we honor the heroes who made our country great. Under the Commemorative Works Act, which governs placement of memorials on the Mall, the honor of placement there is reserved for memorials of ``preeminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation.'' These words clearly apply to the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King changed America by awakening her conscience. His campaign of nonviolent protest brought to light the injustices of a racially segregated society and played a major role in fostering the legislation necessary to do away with many forms of official discrimination. In the words of the national Capital Memorial Commission, Dr. King ``has had a profound effect on all Americans which will continue through history.'' America is more just and honest because of the efforts of this man of God. We remain far from perfect as a nation, but, in confronting our problems in regard to race relations and violence, we can look to the legacy of Doctor King for guidance. Dr. King sought a nation in which each of us would be judged according to the content of our character, in which opportunity would replace want, and acceptance would replace discrimination. He addressed these problems through his speeches and grass roots activism. He addressed them as a scholar and a statesman, as a father and as a husband, as a man, and as a man of God. Doctor King called on the better angels of our character, only to die from an assassin's bullet. But his spirit lives on so long as we strive to make his dream a reality. He called on us as a nation to treat one another as brothers and sisters, to care for one another and to strive together for a better world. It is up to us to answer his call, to honor him for making it, and to spread his word by making it a part of a national memorial in the heart of our nation's capital.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reverse the recent designation of Lake Champlain as a ``Great Lake.'' Mr. President, I was extremely pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Sea Grant College Program Act, an important piece of legislation which supplies crucial funding for programs targeted at zebra mussel research and control. This Act is extremely important to the Great Lake states, which suffer considerably from zebra mussel infestation. Late last year, the Sea Grant College Program Act was amended to allow Vermont Universities to apply for grants related to zebra mussel programs. This amendment, which designated Vermont's Lake Champlain a Great Lake, was never offered in Committee for consideration. Nor was it shared with the Great Lakes Task Force, whose Members would have been very interested in reviewing it. This was unfortunate, Mr. President, because that Lake Champlain suffers greatly from zebra mussel infestations and needs help. Let me make clear, I am not opposed to allowing Vermont Universities to apply to the Sea Grant program. Lake Champlain has a very real zebra mussel problem and it should be addressed. Michiganians can understand and empathize with Vermont's efforts to battle this invader. However, I am troubled by the approach taken to achieve funding for zebra mussel programs in Vermont. Rather than asking for language which would specifically allow Vermont Universities to apply for Sea Grant dollars, the definition of a Great Lake was changed to include Lake Champlain when, clearly, it is not. Lake Ontario, covering over 7,300 square miles, is the smallest of the Great Lakes. It is almost 17 times the size of Lake Champlain and twice as deep. Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes, is over 70 times the size of Lake Champlain. Clearly Vermont's lake is not a member of this elite class. For that reason, Mr. President, I have introduced this legislation to reverse the designation of Lake Champlain as a Great Lake. I would support language that specifically allows Vermont to apply for Sea Grant assistance, but I cannot agree to language changing the definition of a Great Lake, even for such a limited purpose. Notwithstanding assurances to the contrary, I believe such an action could lead to a host of unintended consequences and even serve as the basis for states outside the region to push for participation in a number of substantial Great Lakes issues. In addition, I oppose defining Lake Champlain as a Great Lake in the interest of clarity and truth. To call Lake Champlain a Great Lake is sheer nonsense. The legislation I have introduced will amend the definition to state that only the Great Lakes, Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario are to be defined as Great Lakes. I hope that we can resolve this soon and put this entire matter to rest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reverse the recent designation of Lake Champlain as a ``Great Lake.'' Mr. President, I was extremely pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Sea Grant College Program Act, an important piece of legislation which supplies crucial funding for programs targeted at zebra mussel research and control. This Act is extremely important to the Great Lake states, which suffer considerably from zebra mussel infestation. Late last year, the Sea Grant College Program Act was amended to allow Vermont Universities to apply for grants related to zebra mussel programs. This amendment, which designated Vermont's Lake Champlain a Great Lake, was never offered in Committee for consideration. Nor was it shared with the Great Lakes Task Force, whose Members would have been very interested in reviewing it. This was unfortunate, Mr. President, because that Lake Champlain suffers greatly from zebra mussel infestations and needs help. Let me make clear, I am not opposed to allowing Vermont Universities to apply to the Sea Grant program. Lake Champlain has a very real zebra mussel problem and it should be addressed. Michiganians can understand and empathize with Vermont's efforts to battle this invader. However, I am troubled by the approach taken to achieve funding for zebra mussel programs in Vermont. Rather than asking for language which would specifically allow Vermont Universities to apply for Sea Grant dollars, the definition of a Great Lake was changed to include Lake Champlain when, clearly, it is not. Lake Ontario, covering over 7,300 square miles, is the smallest of the Great Lakes. It is almost 17 times the size of Lake Champlain and twice as deep. Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes, is over 70 times the size of Lake Champlain. Clearly Vermont's lake is not a member of this elite class. For that reason, Mr. President, I have introduced this legislation to reverse the designation of Lake Champlain as a Great Lake. I would support language that specifically allows Vermont to apply for Sea Grant assistance, but I cannot agree to language changing the definition of a Great Lake, even for such a limited purpose. Notwithstanding assurances to the contrary, I believe such an action could lead to a host of unintended consequences and even serve as the basis for states outside the region to push for participation in a number of substantial Great Lakes issues. In addition, I oppose defining Lake Champlain as a Great Lake in the interest of clarity and truth. To call Lake Champlain a Great Lake is sheer nonsense. The legislation I have introduced will amend the definition to state that only the Great Lakes, Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario are to be defined as Great Lakes. I hope that we can resolve this soon and put this entire matter to rest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Competitiveness Act. First, let me thank Senators Hatch, McCain, and DeWine for cosponsoring this bill. I believe this legislation is important to the country's future because it constitutes an essential ingredient in any long-term strategy to keep the United States a leader in global markets in the 21st century. A coalition of America's leading businesses has endorsed the bill, stating that ``The American Competitiveness Act will do more to directly create jobs for Americans--and to keep jobs in this country--than any other bill that will be considered by Congress this year.'' Over the past twenty years, no part of the economy has done more to raise the standard of living of the American people than that of information technology. This industry, which barely existed as a handful of companies just a few decades ago, now employs more than 4 million people directly, and many others indirectly. This industry has improved everything from the way we work, shop, travel, and perform financial transactions, to the way our children study. And, as economist Larry Kudlow reports, this industry is central to our economic well-being. The hardware and software industries combined account for about one third of our real economic growth. Overall, electronic commerce is expected to grow to $80 billion by the year 2000. Yet all is not well with this crucial sector of our economy. American companies today are engaged in fierce competition in global markets. To stay ahead in that competition they must win the battle for human capital. But companies across America are faced with severe high-skill labor shortages that threaten their competitiveness in this new Information Age economy. A study conducted by Virginia Tech for the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) estimates that right now we have more than 340,000 unfilled positions for highly skilled information technology (IT) workers in American companies. And that number does not include the nonprofit sector, local or federal government agencies, mass transit systems, or companies with fewer than 100 employees. The Virginia Tech study is hardly alone in identifying this problem. The Department of Labor's figures project that our economy will produce more than 130,000 information technology jobs in each of the next 10 years, for a total of more than 1.3 million. The data also suggest our universities will produce less than a quarter of the necessary number of information technology graduates over the next 10 years. Between 1986 and 1995, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in computer science declined by 42 percent. This means that even if undergraduate enrollments in this field were to increase as predicted by one survey, we still would not achieve the 1986 level of computer science graduates before 2002. And even then, we would be producing thousands fewer skilled workers than the market demands. The National Software Alliance, a consortium of concerned government, industry, and academic leaders that includes the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, recently concluded that ``The supply of computer science graduates is far short of the number needed by industry.'' The Alliance points out that the current severe understaffing could lead to inflation and lower productivity and threaten America's competitiveness. This is serious, both in individual states and for the nation. In Michigan, for example, 24 of every 1,000 private sector workers are employed by high-tech firms, and this figure is growing rapidly in and around Ann Arbor, Lansing, and elsewhere in the state. Mr. President, if American companies cannot find home grown talent, and if they cannot bring talent to this country, a large number are likely to move key operations overseas, sending those and related jobs currently held by Americans with them. While companies may need to have some operations abroad, we should not keep in place unnecessary restrictions that artificially drive employers to send more operations out of the country. Further, our shortage of high skilled workers endangers continued economic growth. The Hudson Institute estimates that the unaddressed shortage of skilled workers throughout our economy will result in a 5 percent drop in the growth rate of GDP. That translates into about $200 billion in lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American. One industry official captured the peril of this situation well when he said ``it is as if America ran out of iron ore during the industrial revolution.'' This problem calls for both a short term and a long term solution. Let me first address the short term. By this summer American businesses will reach the limit on the small number of highly skilled temporary workers they can bring in from abroad. Last year our employers reached this 65,000 cap on H-1B visas for the first time in history, and we did it by the end of August. If no action is taken, the cap may be reached by May this year, and perhaps January or February of 1999. Backlogs will worsen the problem until, practically speaking, companies can no longer count on being able to hire the people they need from any source. Particularly given today's short product cycles, this would be disastrous. That is why the legislation I am introducing today will increase the number of skilled temporary workers we allow into the United States. This will keep American companies in this country, saving American jobs and contributing to the growth of the economy. This policy also will give us time to formulate a long-term solution. In my view, we can produce, right here in America, the talent we need to keep our high tech industries competitive. Through wise investments in human capital we can give American kids of all backgrounds, including kids whose opportunities seem severely limited, the chance to be part of the new high-tech economy. U.S. companies cannot be expected to solve all the educational problems in this country by themselves. They now spend over $210 billion a year on the formal and informal training of their workforce, as well as donating more than $2.5 billion a year to colleges, high schools, and elementary schools. But training is not an acceptable alternative to early acquisition of the technical skills necessary to succeed, and we must do more to help kids acquire needed skills as early as possible. Some say that the entire solution is training and education. Of course, those both are essential, but to suggest that these represent the entire answer ignores a number of factors, including the global nature of today's economy. Recently the Senate held a long and educational hearing in the Judiciary Committee on the issues centrally related to the subject matter of this legislation. We heard from several of America's leading companies and others on the importance of swiftly addressing the high tech worker shortage by raising the H-1B cap before it is hit in May or June of this year. We heard at the hearing that Microsoft alone spends over $568 million annually on training and education, while Sun Microsystems spends over $50 million a year, not including the 20,000 volunteer hours Sun employees are contributing to link U.S. schools to the Internet in economically disadvantaged areas. Despite these expenditures, Microsoft and Sun today have 2,522 and 2,000 unfilled technical positions respectively. In addition, we heard testimony that many of their products for export need to involve individuals on H-1Bs with specific language and other skills that are pertinent to the target country. We learned at the hearing that Texas Instruments spends over $100 million a year on training employees and has over 500 openings for skilled positions, despite, like many companies, engaging in massive and ongoing efforts to recruit on college campuses across the nation. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are themselves making $200 million in charitable contributions to fund fellowships in science and engineering at Stanford University. Clearly more emphasis on training is extremely important, but is not the only solution. Our young people have what it takes to be valuable employees in our high-tech age. But our educational system is not giving them the skills they need. The National Research Council estimates that three quarters of American high school graduates would fail a college freshman math or engineering course. Unfortunately, most don't even try. Only 12 percent of 1994 college graduates earned degrees in technical fields. This is not acceptable. In a highly advanced economy like ours we cannot continue to function without highly skilled workers. And our workers cannot continue to prosper unless our educational system gives them the skills they need to succeed. The Administration has proposed a number of small initiatives to deal with this shortage of skilled labor. I support these initiatives. But in my view it is clear that we must go farther. Mr. President, allowing more skilled workers to come to the U.S. is in no way incompatible with improved training and education in this country. The question is not: Do we allow more skilled professionals to enter the country or do we help native-born students pursue these fields? Clearly we must do both. And I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see to it that this is accomplished. To that end, Mr. President, this legislation includes a scholarship program aimed at helping 20,000 low-income students a year study mathematics, engineering, and computer science at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Of course, this is not all that we should do. We also must begin training unemployed Americans in the skills needed in the information technology industry. This legislation includes three times the funding level proposed by the Administration to train the unemployed in IT skills. Through careful investment in education we can increase the skill levels of our workers, to everyone's benefit. The legislation I am introducing will address these issues in the following ways: First, the bill will increase access to skilled personnel for U.S. companies and universities. The bill will make approximately 25,000 more H-1B temporary visas available in 1998. A key goal of the legislation is to make sure there are enough visas this year to avoid backlogs and major disruptions. For that reason, the 1998 cap will be twice the level of the first 6 months of this fiscal year (through March 31, 1998), which, based on current INS data, would give a 12- month total of about 90,000 visas for the year. As a safety valve, if that total is insufficient in a future year, as of FY 1999, other temporary visas that Congress has already authorized (H-2B visas), if they are left unused from the previous year, would be available. No more than 25,000 of these H-2B visas could be made available as a safety valve in a given year. The bill also responds to those who have expressed concern about certain occupations being included within the H-1B visa category. The bill removes physical/occupational therapists and other specialized health care workers from the H-1B program and places them into a new temporary visa category called H-1C, with a limit of 10,000 placed on such visas. Accordingly, the bill subtracts 10,000 from the H-1B cap in the first year of availability of H-1C visas. In each subsequent year, any unused H-1C visas from the previous year will be added back to the H-1B cap. The bill leaves unchanged the employment-based immigration cap of 140,000 on the number of foreign-born professionals who may remain permanently in the country. Second, the bill authorizes $50 million for the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) program to create approximately 20,000 scholarships a year for low-income students pursuing an associate, undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics, engineering or computer science. The program provides dollar-for-dollar federal matching funds that will grow to $100 million with state matching. The scholarships will be for up to $5,000 each. Third, the bill authorizes $10 million a year to train unemployed American workers in new skills for the information technology industry. It also authorizes $8 million for improved online talent banks to facilitate job searches and the matching of skills to available positions in high technology. Fourth, the bill toughens enforcement penalties and improves the operation of the H-1B program. It increases fines by five-fold for companies willfully violating the rules of the H-1B program, from $1,000 to $5,000. The bill adds new enforcement power by creating probationary periods of up to five years for willful violators of the H-1B program. During the probationary period, violating firms are subject to expanded Department of Labor ``spot inspections'' at the agency's discretion. The bill also includes reforms to achieve greater accuracy in determining prevailing wages for companies and universities. Fifth, the bill modifies the per-country limits on employment-based visas to eliminate the discriminatory effects of these per-country limits on nationals from certain Asian Pacific nations. Today, we have a situation where in a given year there are employment-based immigrant visas available within the annual limit of 140,000, yet U.S. law prevents individuals born in particular countries from being able to join employers who want to sponsor them as permanent employees. Do we want to keep in place a provision of law that says you can hire someone who meets all the proper legal criteria set forth by the U.S. government, but just not too many Chinese or Indians in a given year? This area of law calls out for reform. Finally, in addition to providing American universities and other non-profits with increased access to skilled personnel, the bill overturns the Hathaway decision by requiring the Department of Labor to differentiate between prevailing wage calculations for universities, charities, and other nonprofit organizations and those of for-profit entities. Is the current 65,000 cap on H-1Bs the magic number? Let me briefly review the history. Prior to the 1990 Act, there was no cap on H-1B visas, which previously were called H-1 visas. This bill does not eliminate the cap, but I point out the history to give some context to the discussion on this issue. The 65,000 number was chosen, essentially out of thin air, in the 1990 Act. This number proved sufficient for a number of years, but now has shown to be a significant impediment to growth, particularly in certain industries. Simply put, there is no magic to this 65,000 number. In addition, at that time, to respond to concerns about wages, a Labor Condition Application was added to the program that required companies to attest they were paying individuals on H-1Bs the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to similarly employed Americans. That remains in the law. Also, at the time, a ``complaint-driven'' system was developed to enforce compliance and prosecute violators. And it was decided that the Department of Labor would respond to complaints and operate the enforcement of the program. This was done under the chairmanship of Democratic Congressman Bruce Morrison. Inaction on this issue is not very different from outright restriction, because it will result in such massive backlogs, that with today's fast-moving product cycles, access to these key professionals will be for all practical purposes barely possible. Who will benefit from restricting the entry of these skilled workers? ``On a daily basis, our competitors in Tokyo scheme to stop the momentum of the American semiconductor and computer industries,'' testified Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers. ``Even if they tried, they could not come up with a better plan to cut off our supply of critical engineering talent than by halting immigration. Unfortunately, it appears they may have the United States government as their ally.'' At a hearing on a different topic held just this week in the Judiciary Committee we heard views from major executives about some issues facing the software industry. Despite differing opinions on these other important issues, the business leaders testifying were unanimous when the topic was brought up of alleviating the pending crisis involving H-1B visas. Scott McNealy, President and CEO of Sun Microsystems, noted that two of the four founders of his company, which now employs over 20,000 Americans, were foreign-born individuals who entered the country via the employment-based immigration system. ``I cannot imagine having those two unbelievable national treasures not being allowed in,'' he said. ``And by the way, if you go down through the payroll of our organization, for every legal immigrant that we have hired and put on the payroll, they have created vast amounts of wealth and jobs and a byproduct--wonderful byproducts for our economy and for the planet as a whole.'' Bill Gates, Chairman and CEO of Microsoft Corporation stated, ``Microsoft is in strong agreement that raising these caps to allow very skilled legal immigrants to come in would be a good thing for the technology industry and for the country. We particularly have a lot of people who come to the U.S. to be educated, and it seems a shame when they've been educated here, not to allow them to stay in the country and to take what they've learned and contribute to companies like ours and many others.' Jim Barksdale, President and CEO, Netscape Communications testified, ``We employ an awful lot of legal immigrants, who are very bright people and make a great contribution and more than earn their keep and we would like to see the limit raised.'' Perhaps the clearest statement about what may be at stake came from Michael Dell, Chairman and CEO of Dell Computer. He told the Committee, ``These companies are global companies and if this work does not occur on U.S. soil it occurs on some other soils. We are disarming the economy of the United States of America if we don't allow these folks to come and stay in this country.' The American Competitiveness Act is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Electronics Association, the Electronics Industry Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, American Business for Legal Immigration, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Council of International Personnel, the National Technical Services Association, the Computing Technology Industries Association, and the United States Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce. This issue is also extremely important to America's academic community. At the February 25 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Stephen Director, Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan, testified as a representative of the nation's higher education community. His testimony, calling for an increase in H-1B visas and a permanent solution for universities on prevailing wage issues, was endorsed by the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the College and University Personnel Association, the Council of Graduate Schools, NAFSA: Association of International Educators and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. As noted in the testimony, the combined memberships of these associations represent over 2,000 U.S. colleges and universities. As we move forward, Mr. President, people will no doubt ask whether there are additional measures to protect against abuse of the H-1B program that can be enacted without nullifying efforts to increase high tech companies' access to skilled workers. On that issue let me say that we must crack down on anyone who would abuse the system. As I've noted, this bill contains substantially larger fines for those engaged in willful violations and establishes long probationary periods for such egregious violators. The law already contains provisions for dealing with abuses. And there have been such cases. But let's keep in mind that in America, justice is served not by restricting the law-abiding, but by targeting those who violate our laws. In 1997, the Department of Labor found three employers who were found to have engaged in willful violations of the H-1B program. Three. These violators accounted for three visas out of 65,000 granted in that year. So while it is important that we make it clear that we will not tolerate abuse, we must keep the number of incidents in perspective and engage in targeted actions that do not punish the innocent with the guilty. Today, according to ITAA , 70 percent of America's high tech firms identify an inability to find enough skilled people as the leading barrier to their companies' growth and competitiveness in global markets. Other countries are catching on. Canada has loosened its entry requirements for high tech workers. Singapore has announced plans to move aggressively to attract skilled international workers. And India continues its plans to keep its best talent home to build its domestic industries. I repeat, if restrictions prevent American companies from meeting their labor needs for U.S.-based product, service, and research development, these companies will increasingly locate their facilities offshore. That will mean a loss of jobs, and less innovation and wealth creation in America. We have a diverse economy, and the relatively small number of people who America can welcome annually to fill key positions at companies and universities benefits us in many ways. We must also pursue the type of long-term strategy, some of which is outlined in this bill, that will increase educational opportunities for U.S. students. If we are to continue to prosper as a people, we must remain competitive as a nation. To do that, we must do everything within our power to produce more native-born workers who can fill the high skilled positions on which our high-tech and other industries depend. I believe we can accomplish this goal through increased emphasis on training and education. It requires only that we set our minds to the task at hand, and that we not bury our heads in the sand and say that blocking increased access to skilled temporary professionals will somehow help us maintain our way of life. Our universities, our cutting-edge employers, and in particular our workers deserve better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support and the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to comment briefly on some remarks made earlier during debate on the McConnell amendment. In this debate, several of my colleagues noted that the percentage of state- awarded highway contract dollars realized by minority and woman-owned firms dropped dramatically in states that abolished their set-aside programs. Several speakers pointed to what happened in my own state of Michigan as an example of this phenomenon. What the speakers did not explain is how Michigan ended its program. In 1989, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck Michigan's state DBE program as being unconstitutional, as a result of which Michigan was forced to abandon it. What this proves, though, is the opposite of what my colleagues supporting the tabling motion are claiming. We need to devise methods that will pass constitutional muster for reaching out to minority and women-owned firms, rather than reenacting a program that the courts surely will strike down, leaving us with no mechanism for aiding disadvantaged businesses.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Competitiveness Act. First, let me thank Senators Hatch, McCain, and DeWine for cosponsoring this bill. I believe this legislation is important to the country's future because it constitutes an essential ingredient in any long-term strategy to keep the United States a leader in global markets in the 21st century. A coalition of America's leading businesses has endorsed the bill, stating that ``The American Competitiveness Act will do more to directly create jobs for Americans--and to keep jobs in this country--than any other bill that will be considered by Congress this year.'' Over the past twenty years, no part of the economy has done more to raise the standard of living of the American people than that of information technology. This industry, which barely existed as a handful of companies just a few decades ago, now employs more than 4 million people directly, and many others indirectly. This industry has improved everything from the way we work, shop, travel, and perform financial transactions, to the way our children study. And, as economist Larry Kudlow reports, this industry is central to our economic well-being. The hardware and software industries combined account for about one third of our real economic growth. Overall, electronic commerce is expected to grow to $80 billion by the year 2000. Yet all is not well with this crucial sector of our economy. American companies today are engaged in fierce competition in global markets. To stay ahead in that competition they must win the battle for human capital. But companies across America are faced with severe high-skill labor shortages that threaten their competitiveness in this new Information Age economy. A study conducted by Virginia Tech for the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) estimates that right now we have more than 340,000 unfilled positions for highly skilled information technology (IT) workers in American companies. And that number does not include the nonprofit sector, local or federal government agencies, mass transit systems, or companies with fewer than 100 employees. The Virginia Tech study is hardly alone in identifying this problem. The Department of Labor's figures project that our economy will produce more than 130,000 information technology jobs in each of the next 10 years, for a total of more than 1.3 million. The data also suggest our universities will produce less than a quarter of the necessary number of information technology graduates over the next 10 years. Between 1986 and 1995, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in computer science declined by 42 percent. This means that even if undergraduate enrollments in this field were to increase as predicted by one survey, we still would not achieve the 1986 level of computer science graduates before 2002. And even then, we would be producing thousands fewer skilled workers than the market demands. The National Software Alliance, a consortium of concerned government, industry, and academic leaders that includes the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, recently concluded that ``The supply of computer science graduates is far short of the number needed by industry.'' The Alliance points out that the current severe understaffing could lead to inflation and lower productivity and threaten America's competitiveness. This is serious, both in individual states and for the nation. In Michigan, for example, 24 of every 1,000 private sector workers are employed by high-tech firms, and this figure is growing rapidly in and around Ann Arbor, Lansing, and elsewhere in the state. Mr. President, if American companies cannot find home grown talent, and if they cannot bring talent to this country, a large number are likely to move key operations overseas, sending those and related jobs currently held by Americans with them. While companies may need to have some operations abroad, we should not keep in place unnecessary restrictions that artificially drive employers to send more operations out of the country. Further, our shortage of high skilled workers endangers continued economic growth. The Hudson Institute estimates that the unaddressed shortage of skilled workers throughout our economy will result in a 5 percent drop in the growth rate of GDP. That translates into about $200 billion in lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American. One industry official captured the peril of this situation well when he said ``it is as if America ran out of iron ore during the industrial revolution.'' This problem calls for both a short term and a long term solution. Let me first address the short term. By this summer American businesses will reach the limit on the small number of highly skilled temporary workers they can bring in from abroad. Last year our employers reached this 65,000 cap on H-1B visas for the first time in history, and we did it by the end of August. If no action is taken, the cap may be reached by May this year, and perhaps January or February of 1999. Backlogs will worsen the problem until, practically speaking, companies can no longer count on being able to hire the people they need from any source. Particularly given today's short product cycles, this would be disastrous. That is why the legislation I am introducing today will increase the number of skilled temporary workers we allow into the United States. This will keep American companies in this country, saving American jobs and contributing to the growth of the economy. This policy also will give us time to formulate a long-term solution. In my view, we can produce, right here in America, the talent we need to keep our high tech industries competitive. Through wise investments in human capital we can give American kids of all backgrounds, including kids whose opportunities seem severely limited, the chance to be part of the new high-tech economy. U.S. companies cannot be expected to solve all the educational problems in this country by themselves. They now spend over $210 billion a year on the formal and informal training of their workforce, as well as donating more than $2.5 billion a year to colleges, high schools, and elementary schools. But training is not an acceptable alternative to early acquisition of the technical skills necessary to succeed, and we must do more to help kids acquire needed skills as early as possible. Some say that the entire solution is training and education. Of course, those both are essential, but to suggest that these represent the entire answer ignores a number of factors, including the global nature of today's economy. Recently the Senate held a long and educational hearing in the Judiciary Committee on the issues centrally related to the subject matter of this legislation. We heard from several of America's leading companies and others on the importance of swiftly addressing the high tech worker shortage by raising the H-1B cap before it is hit in May or June of this year. We heard at the hearing that Microsoft alone spends over $568 million annually on training and education, while Sun Microsystems spends over $50 million a year, not including the 20,000 volunteer hours Sun employees are contributing to link U.S. schools to the Internet in economically disadvantaged areas. Despite these expenditures, Microsoft and Sun today have 2,522 and 2,000 unfilled technical positions respectively. In addition, we heard testimony that many of their products for export need to involve individuals on H-1Bs with specific language and other skills that are pertinent to the target country. We learned at the hearing that Texas Instruments spends over $100 million a year on training employees and has over 500 openings for skilled positions, despite, like many companies, engaging in massive and ongoing efforts to recruit on college campuses across the nation. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are themselves making $200 million in charitable contributions to fund fellowships in science and engineering at Stanford University. Clearly more emphasis on training is extremely important, but is not the only solution. Our young people have what it takes to be valuable employees in our high-tech age. But our educational system is not giving them the skills they need. The National Research Council estimates that three quarters of American high school graduates would fail a college freshman math or engineering course. Unfortunately, most don't even try. Only 12 percent of 1994 college graduates earned degrees in technical fields. This is not acceptable. In a highly advanced economy like ours we cannot continue to function without highly skilled workers. And our workers cannot continue to prosper unless our educational system gives them the skills they need to succeed. The Administration has proposed a number of small initiatives to deal with this shortage of skilled labor. I support these initiatives. But in my view it is clear that we must go farther. Mr. President, allowing more skilled workers to come to the U.S. is in no way incompatible with improved training and education in this country. The question is not: Do we allow more skilled professionals to enter the country or do we help native-born students pursue these fields? Clearly we must do both. And I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see to it that this is accomplished. To that end, Mr. President, this legislation includes a scholarship program aimed at helping 20,000 low-income students a year study mathematics, engineering, and computer science at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Of course, this is not all that we should do. We also must begin training unemployed Americans in the skills needed in the information technology industry. This legislation includes three times the funding level proposed by the Administration to train the unemployed in IT skills. Through careful investment in education we can increase the skill levels of our workers, to everyone's benefit. The legislation I am introducing will address these issues in the following ways: First, the bill will increase access to skilled personnel for U.S. companies and universities. The bill will make approximately 25,000 more H-1B temporary visas available in 1998. A key goal of the legislation is to make sure there are enough visas this year to avoid backlogs and major disruptions. For that reason, the 1998 cap will be twice the level of the first 6 months of this fiscal year (through March 31, 1998), which, based on current INS data, would give a 12- month total of about 90,000 visas for the year. As a safety valve, if that total is insufficient in a future year, as of FY 1999, other temporary visas that Congress has already authorized (H-2B visas), if they are left unused from the previous year, would be available. No more than 25,000 of these H-2B visas could be made available as a safety valve in a given year. The bill also responds to those who have expressed concern about certain occupations being included within the H-1B visa category. The bill removes physical/occupational therapists and other specialized health care workers from the H-1B program and places them into a new temporary visa category called H-1C, with a limit of 10,000 placed on such visas. Accordingly, the bill subtracts 10,000 from the H-1B cap in the first year of availability of H-1C visas. In each subsequent year, any unused H-1C visas from the previous year will be added back to the H-1B cap. The bill leaves unchanged the employment-based immigration cap of 140,000 on the number of foreign-born professionals who may remain permanently in the country. Second, the bill authorizes $50 million for the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) program to create approximately 20,000 scholarships a year for low-income students pursuing an associate, undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics, engineering or computer science. The program provides dollar-for-dollar federal matching funds that will grow to $100 million with state matching. The scholarships will be for up to $5,000 each. Third, the bill authorizes $10 million a year to train unemployed American workers in new skills for the information technology industry. It also authorizes $8 million for improved online talent banks to facilitate job searches and the matching of skills to available positions in high technology. Fourth, the bill toughens enforcement penalties and improves the operation of the H-1B program. It increases fines by five-fold for companies willfully violating the rules of the H-1B program, from $1,000 to $5,000. The bill adds new enforcement power by creating probationary periods of up to five years for willful violators of the H-1B program. During the probationary period, violating firms are subject to expanded Department of Labor ``spot inspections'' at the agency's discretion. The bill also includes reforms to achieve greater accuracy in determining prevailing wages for companies and universities. Fifth, the bill modifies the per-country limits on employment-based visas to eliminate the discriminatory effects of these per-country limits on nationals from certain Asian Pacific nations. Today, we have a situation where in a given year there are employment-based immigrant visas available within the annual limit of 140,000, yet U.S. law prevents individuals born in particular countries from being able to join employers who want to sponsor them as permanent employees. Do we want to keep in place a provision of law that says you can hire someone who meets all the proper legal criteria set forth by the U.S. government, but just not too many Chinese or Indians in a given year? This area of law calls out for reform. Finally, in addition to providing American universities and other non-profits with increased access to skilled personnel, the bill overturns the Hathaway decision by requiring the Department of Labor to differentiate between prevailing wage calculations for universities, charities, and other nonprofit organizations and those of for-profit entities. Is the current 65,000 cap on H-1Bs the magic number? Let me briefly review the history. Prior to the 1990 Act, there was no cap on H-1B visas, which previously were called H-1 visas. This bill does not eliminate the cap, but I point out the history to give some context to the discussion on this issue. The 65,000 number was chosen, essentially out of thin air, in the 1990 Act. This number proved sufficient for a number of years, but now has shown to be a significant impediment to growth, particularly in certain industries. Simply put, there is no magic to this 65,000 number. In addition, at that time, to respond to concerns about wages, a Labor Condition Application was added to the program that required companies to attest they were paying individuals on H-1Bs the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to similarly employed Americans. That remains in the law. Also, at the time, a ``complaint-driven'' system was developed to enforce compliance and prosecute violators. And it was decided that the Department of Labor would respond to complaints and operate the enforcement of the program. This was done under the chairmanship of Democratic Congressman Bruce Morrison. Inaction on this issue is not very different from outright restriction, because it will result in such massive backlogs, that with today's fast-moving product cycles, access to these key professionals will be for all practical purposes barely possible. Who will benefit from restricting the entry of these skilled workers? ``On a daily basis, our competitors in Tokyo scheme to stop the momentum of the American semiconductor and computer industries,'' testified Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers. ``Even if they tried, they could not come up with a better plan to cut off our supply of critical engineering talent than by halting immigration. Unfortunately, it appears they may have the United States government as their ally.'' At a hearing on a different topic held just this week in the Judiciary Committee we heard views from major executives about some issues facing the software industry. Despite differing opinions on these other important issues, the business leaders testifying were unanimous when the topic was brought up of alleviating the pending crisis involving H-1B visas. Scott McNealy, President and CEO of Sun Microsystems, noted that two of the four founders of his company, which now employs over 20,000 Americans, were foreign-born individuals who entered the country via the employment-based immigration system. ``I cannot imagine having those two unbelievable national treasures not being allowed in,'' he said. ``And by the way, if you go down through the payroll of our organization, for every legal immigrant that we have hired and put on the payroll, they have created vast amounts of wealth and jobs and a byproduct--wonderful byproducts for our economy and for the planet as a whole.'' Bill Gates, Chairman and CEO of Microsoft Corporation stated, ``Microsoft is in strong agreement that raising these caps to allow very skilled legal immigrants to come in would be a good thing for the technology industry and for the country. We particularly have a lot of people who come to the U.S. to be educated, and it seems a shame when they've been educated here, not to allow them to stay in the country and to take what they've learned and contribute to companies like ours and many others.' Jim Barksdale, President and CEO, Netscape Communications testified, ``We employ an awful lot of legal immigrants, who are very bright people and make a great contribution and more than earn their keep and we would like to see the limit raised.'' Perhaps the clearest statement about what may be at stake came from Michael Dell, Chairman and CEO of Dell Computer. He told the Committee, ``These companies are global companies and if this work does not occur on U.S. soil it occurs on some other soils. We are disarming the economy of the United States of America if we don't allow these folks to come and stay in this country.' The American Competitiveness Act is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Electronics Association, the Electronics Industry Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, American Business for Legal Immigration, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Council of International Personnel, the National Technical Services Association, the Computing Technology Industries Association, and the United States Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce. This issue is also extremely important to America's academic community. At the February 25 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Stephen Director, Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan, testified as a representative of the nation's higher education community. His testimony, calling for an increase in H-1B visas and a permanent solution for universities on prevailing wage issues, was endorsed by the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the College and University Personnel Association, the Council of Graduate Schools, NAFSA: Association of International Educators and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. As noted in the testimony, the combined memberships of these associations represent over 2,000 U.S. colleges and universities. As we move forward, Mr. President, people will no doubt ask whether there are additional measures to protect against abuse of the H-1B program that can be enacted without nullifying efforts to increase high tech companies' access to skilled workers. On that issue let me say that we must crack down on anyone who would abuse the system. As I've noted, this bill contains substantially larger fines for those engaged in willful violations and establishes long probationary periods for such egregious violators. The law already contains provisions for dealing with abuses. And there have been such cases. But let's keep in mind that in America, justice is served not by restricting the law-abiding, but by targeting those who violate our laws. In 1997, the Department of Labor found three employers who were found to have engaged in willful violations of the H-1B program. Three. These violators accounted for three visas out of 65,000 granted in that year. So while it is important that we make it clear that we will not tolerate abuse, we must keep the number of incidents in perspective and engage in targeted actions that do not punish the innocent with the guilty. Today, according to ITAA , 70 percent of America's high tech firms identify an inability to find enough skilled people as the leading barrier to their companies' growth and competitiveness in global markets. Other countries are catching on. Canada has loosened its entry requirements for high tech workers. Singapore has announced plans to move aggressively to attract skilled international workers. And India continues its plans to keep its best talent home to build its domestic industries. I repeat, if restrictions prevent American companies from meeting their labor needs for U.S.-based product, service, and research development, these companies will increasingly locate their facilities offshore. That will mean a loss of jobs, and less innovation and wealth creation in America. We have a diverse economy, and the relatively small number of people who America can welcome annually to fill key positions at companies and universities benefits us in many ways. We must also pursue the type of long-term strategy, some of which is outlined in this bill, that will increase educational opportunities for U.S. students. If we are to continue to prosper as a people, we must remain competitive as a nation. To do that, we must do everything within our power to produce more native-born workers who can fill the high skilled positions on which our high-tech and other industries depend. I believe we can accomplish this goal through increased emphasis on training and education. It requires only that we set our minds to the task at hand, and that we not bury our heads in the sand and say that blocking increased access to skilled temporary professionals will somehow help us maintain our way of life. Our universities, our cutting-edge employers, and in particular our workers deserve better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support and the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky to the ISTEA legislation. Mr. President, the Supreme Court decision in Adarand v. Pena appears to mean that section 1111 of the existing ISTEA legislation is unconstitutional. That being the case, it is our duty, in my view, to replace this provision with one that meets the test of constitutionality. In its Adarand decision, the Supreme Court held that programs that create race-based preferences must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. On remand, the Federal District Court determined that the presumption of social and economic disadvantage on account of race included in an earlier version of ISTEA section 1111 violated the equal protection clause of our Constitution. This provision of our Constitution has been crucial to the ongoing struggle for civil rights in this country. It has been behind a number of important Supreme Court decisions dating back to the seminal Brown v. Board of Education. The Adarand Court continued a long tradition of jurisprudence, establishing a colorblind Constitution, one which demands equal treatment under the law for members of all races. In acting, the Court has drawn a clear distinction between preference or quota programs and affirmative action efforts aimed at providing more opportunity for the less advantaged. In my view, Mr. President, this is a crucial principle and distinction, one that will not allow the Government to give preference to one individual over another simply on account of status--absent direct evidence of past discrimination that the program is narrowly tailored to address--but does permit us to provide special assistance to those economically disadvantaged. But our Constitution's principle of equality under the law must not be allowed to conflict in any way with outreach programs aimed at helping the economically disadvantaged of our society. Indeed, it points to public policies more in keeping with America's constitutional heritage, our commitment to fair play, and our desire to help the disadvantaged become full participants in our market economy and the prosperity it provides. To that end, Mr. President, I believe that Senator McConnell's amendment to the ISTEA legislation is potentially helpful. This amendment would strike section 1111 from the legislation on the basis that the changes between the language in this ISTEA and the version deemed unconstitutional by the District Court based on the Supreme Court's Adarand ruling are not sufficient to overcome the Court's constitutional objections. I wish to state that while I realize there is a difference of opinion on this issue, I agree with this constitutional analysis. The amendment would replace section 1111 with a requirement that every State in receipt of Federal highway dollars engage in ``emerging business enterprise development and outreach.'' Under the language, ``emerging enterprises'' are defined as contractors whose average annual gross receipts do not exceed $8.4 million over a period of 3 years. To be eligible, the businesses also must be small businesses that have been in existence for not more than 9 years. Under this amendment, States would be called on to provide a number of services to emerging businesses, including periodic review of construction plans to ensure fairness and opportunity, as well as offering seminars, compiling and publishing lists of interested businesses and related companies, and providing networking opportunities on a regular basis. The McConnell amendment offers significant outreach programs aimed at emerging businesses. By so doing, it aims Government assistance at those who need it most. In the process, it avoids rewarding well-to-do businesses simply on account of status, while providing assistance to minorities and women truly in a position to need and make use of it. In addition, Mr. President, I thank Senator McConnell for accepting my language in modifying his amendment. That language directs States to also aim efforts at business enterprises that are located in economically distressed communities and employ a majority of their workers from such economically distressed communities. Finally, Mr. President, the McConnell amendment is constitutional. Because it does not base the awarding of Government contracts or benefits exclusively on the race of the recipients, it upholds the principles of our Constitution and the equal protection clause in particular. Support for this amendment is fully in keeping with our sworn duty to uphold the Constitution on which our Government is based. However, Mr. President, in my view, the McConnell amendment does not go far enough. We must do more. I continue to believe, in other words, that economic empowerment initiatives are crucial to the well-being of disadvantaged members of our society, and in the end, to our society as a whole. It was in order to promote these efforts that I joined a number of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, in forming the Renewal Alliance, an alliance dedicated to renewing the families and communities which lie at the heart of our way of life and which are crucial for success in America. To further these efforts, we have formulated legislation aimed at creating ``renewal communities.'' In these communities, targeted, pro- growth tax benefits, regulatory relief, brownfields cleanup, and homeownership opportunities will combine to produce jobs, hope, and a sense of community. By targeting distressed communities for Federal relief from onerous rules and taxes, we can assist the ongoing revival of our inner cities by spurring growth and productive rebuilding efforts. In order to become a renewal community, a community must meet several criteria to qualify: First, it must need the assistance. According to the legislation we have drafted, this means that the area must first be eligible for Federal assistance under section 119 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Second, it must have an unemployment rate of at least 1\1/2\ times the national rate. Third, it must have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent. And finally, at least 70 percent of the households in the area must have incomes below 80 percent of the median income of households in the metropolitan statistical area. In addition, state and local governments must enter into a written contract with neighborhood organizations to do at least five of the following: (a) reduce tax rates and fees within the ``renewal community;'' (b) increase the level of efficiency of local services within the renewal community; (c) formulate and implement crime reduction strategies; (d) undertake actions to reduce, remove, simplify, or streamline governmental requirements; (e) involve private entities in providing social services; (f) allow for state and local income tax benefits for fees paid or accrued for services performed by a non-governmental entity but which formerly had been performed by government; and (g) allow the gift (or sale at below fair market value) of surplus realty in the renewal community to neighborhood organizations, community development corporations or private companies. Third, the community must agree to suspend or otherwise not enforce the following types of restrictions on entry into business or occupations; (a) licensing requirements for occupations that do not ordinarily require a professional degree; (b) zoning restrictions on home-based businesses that do not create a public nuisance; (c) permit requirements for street vendors that do not create a public nuisance; (d) zoning or other restrictions that impede the formation of schools or child care centers; or (e) franchises or other restrictions on competition for businesses providing public services including but not limited to taxicabs, jitneys, cable television and trash hauling. State and local authorities may apply such regulations on businesses and occupations within the renewal communities as are necessary and well-tailored to protect public health, safety and order. Now, in return for its reforms, Mr. President, the community will receive a number of renewal benefits. First, a capital gains tax rate of zero for the sale of any qualified zone stock, business property or partnership interest held for at least five years. Second, increased expending for purchases of plant and equipment in the community. Third, a 20 percent wage credit for local businesses hiring qualified, low income workers who remain employed for at least 6 months. Fourth, a provision allowing taxpayers to expense costs incurred in cleaning up contaminated sites within the zone. Fifth, a provision allowing financial institutions to receive Community Reinvestment Act credit for investments in, or loans to, community groups within the zone. These groups would then provide loans and/or credit to local small businesses. All of these provisions would encourage investment and job creation within the zone. In my view, this approach, as opposed to the existing preferences structure, or the McConnell approach standing alone, is the way to go. Accordingly, Mr. President, while Senator McConnell's amendment is, in my view, part of the answer to our challenge of providing all Americans the economic opportunity they deserve, it is not enough. It can, and in my view should, be part of a larger program aimed at helping all Americans rebuild the community institutions which alone can provide the support and training people need to succeed in our competitive world marketplace. Thus, if the motion to table the Amendment fails, I will attempt to augment it with a broader package of economic empowerment proposals as outlined above. In addition, should the McConnell Amendment pass, I reserve the right to offer amendments making certain specific modifications to the language in this amendment. That language would specify that state and federal outreach and dollars under USTEA shall be directed toward emerging business enterprises located in and/or employing the majority of their workers from ``targeted areas.'' A targeted area is defined as a community meeting the same criteria regarding poverty rates and so on necessary to be deemed an empowerment community. This will concentrate our effort where they are most needed and can provide the greatest benefit. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these issues today, and I look forward to hearing the rest of this debate. I also look forward to proceeding further in this area--whether in the context of this legislation or at a future point this year--because I think that the ideas which I have tried to outline, and which our Renewal Alliance has been working on, must be part of a broader approach and a broader set of solutions we are responsible for bringing to the American people.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Ambassador Bridge is the single greatest border crossing in the United States. Almost 10 million vehicles cross the bridge each year; almost 3 million commercial vehicles, as many as 10,000 trucks per day. It constitutes, in terms of business activity, almost $350 billion a year in trade for the United States. In fact, 26 percent of all United States-Canada trade traverses the Ambassador Bridge. That trade is expected to increase by 180 percent by the year 2015, which would translate into almost 5.4 million commercial vehicles a year. This major trade artery is not connected directly to any of the nearby interstates however. That requires commercial vehicles to traverse local roads to get to the freeways and interstates. In these times of ``just in time'' deliveries, these delays are totally unjustified for such a major trade route. However, even though it is privately owned, it is part and parcel of our National Highway System. However, because it is privately owned, the Federal Highway Administration has determined that the State of Michigan may not use any of its Federal funds to improve the approaches to the bridge. This amendment will allow the State to spend its funds for these projects, if it wishes. No State will lose any funds with this amendment. It simply will allow Michigan to use the funds it already receives through the independently-derived allocations on these approaches. Furthermore, no funds will actually be spent on the privately-owned portion of the bridge, only on the publicly-owned approaches. Finally, the bridge authority is providing the Michigan Department of Transportation with toll credit information. This may provide up to all of Michigan's 20 percent matching share requirement. Mr. President, I offer the amendment on behalf of myself as well as, I know, Senator Levin. I believe the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I hope we can agree to it at this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to introduce an amendment at this time, after which the Senator from Texas would then be able to resume the floor for the purpose of the remarks she had previously been approved to make.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I also would like to thank the Presiding Officer. This is actually my time to be in the Chair, and I appreciate his giving me the opportunity to speak on the ISTEA legislation before us. I will try to be brief in light of his willingness to stay a little extra today. I just thought I would take a few minutes to review as I see it the progress that has been made really going all the way back to last year in the effort to try to address the problems of infrastructure and transportation in our country. Let me do that though, first, from my perspective as a Senator from the State of Michigan. For quite a long time--in fact, longer than anybody around seems to be able to remember--our State has been one of the States which was referred to as a donor State. That means that when gas tax moneys are sent to Washington, more moneys get sent from Michigan than ever come back in the form of support for the highway system. We understand and I think have shown over the years a great deal of patience with the formulas that have been used and the return on investment that has taken place. We understood, for example, when the Interstate Highway System was being built that a lot of States needed to have additional dollars beyond that which they could generate from their own gas tax revenues in order to build the system so that we could transport Michigan cars to the South or to the West and to the east coast, or Michigan agriculture products and take advantage of receiving in exchange the goods and services that other States were exporting. However, because we are sending more dollars to Washington than we have received back, it has meant that our State has not been able to do all that we would like to in order to prepare our own infrastructure for the 21st century. We are especially beset by specific problems in Michigan. One is the fact that the weather in our State tends to be quite a bit colder than the average for the entire country. Particularly in the northern parts of Michigan we encounter winters that are very severe. And that has an effect on the road system. We also, of course, confront problems that relate to the age of our system. The Interstate System in our State of Michigan on average is approximately 7 years older than the national average, which means that some of our roads are more in need of service and repair than might be the case in other parts of the country. For this variety of reasons, it has been my view from the beginning of the discussion of transportation legislation, which really was initiated last year, that it is indispensable that Michigan receive more money back, more dollars back, than we have been receiving in previous years. To that end, our State legislature and our Governor addressed this issue very clearly in 1997. The Governor came forth with a very bold plan aimed at trying to provide adequate revenues and resources to put Michigan's roads on a path to being in good shape for the next century. Half of the plan essentially was a plan that basically relied on Michigan to assume a greater responsibility. So the State legislature and the Governor signed into law legislation which increased our States' gas tax by a little over 4 cents to generate approximately $200 million more per year to be available for our State department of transportation. The Governor also charged all of us who are Federal legislators with the job of bringing back more dollars to Michigan as part of the reauthorization of the ISTEA legislation. The target he set for us was $200 million as well, and it was his view that, if the State could increase by $200 million what it invested in roads and if the Federal Government's share could be increased by $200 million, that $400 million amount would give Michigan an excellent chance to address its repair needs, new roads needs, and a variety of other transportation needs. We have been working on this, obviously, now for quite a long time. I think the progress to date has been good. The strategy that I have taken or tried to work on here as a Member of the Senate has really been a three-part strategy. Earlier this week, on Monday, we learned that the second of the three parts had been successfully completed. The first part was successfully completed in 1997, and we will soon work on the balance. But let me talk about that strategy briefly and why, at least from Michigan's point of view, things are much more positive today than they were just a few days ago. The first part of the strategy was simple. It was to shift into the national highway transportation trust fund all the gas tax revenues being sent to Washington from Michigan and other States. As you know, in 1993, when we increased the Federal gas taxes by 4.3 cents, it was the first time those dollars didn't go into the highway trust fund; they went into the general fund. For a lot of us that didn't make sense. Several of us tried to have that 4.3 cents repealed. We didn't have enough votes to get that job done. But what we did have was support this past year during the deliberations on the tax bill in the summer of 1997 to shift those tax dollars from the general fund to the transportation fund, to make those dollars now available, if we authorized it, to be spent on transportation. That was step one. It was a big victory for donor States. Step two took place earlier this week. After a lengthy behind-the- scenes and public set of discussions and debates and negotiations, the decision was made to spend a considerably greater amount of money on transportation over the pendency of the ISTEA legislation than had been expected to be spent when the legislation was first brought to the Senate last year. Essentially, that amount will be approximately $25 billion additional over this timeframe. This is good news. It means that the 4.3 cents we are transferring into to the trust fund will not be allowed to increase the trust fund surplus but instead be available to be spent on transportation so the donor States will have the opportunity to see more of their gas tax moneys coming back. It has been estimated that the combination of the underlying legislation which was introduced here and the new dollars that are going to be made available will for Michigan put us at least at the $200 million mark and perhaps considerably beyond that. That, of course, is the final step in the process. What I wanted to do in my brief remarks today was to thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the ranking member and others who have been here working and will continue, I am sure, for the next several days to be working for the progress that has been made; to also thank those who were involved in these budget discussions, particularly Senator Domenici, with whom I had numerous meetings and discussions on this over the course of the last several months, for his willingness to work on the new budget resolution in such a way as to accommodate the additional spending on transportation. I think we are making progress in the right direction. The final step, obviously, is to determine how the new dollars and all the money will be allocated. As a donor State, I have made it very clear to the ranking member, to the chairman, and others that we in Michigan would like to see donor States get as much equity as possible. We recognize in this Chamber that we are not the majority of States. We also recognize that there are unique needs in various regions of the country, which we will try to address. For my part, I want to be as helpful to the process as possible, and at the same time I want to make it clear that as a Senator from Michigan I am going to do everything I can to try to make sure that our voice is heard and that we address to the degree we possibly can in this Chamber the need for States that are donor States to get their fair share. I hope we can finish this process in a way, as I said, that allows us to not only hit but exceed the $200 million per year increase that the Governor has set for us. I am more definitely on course for doing that, and I appreciate the progress that has taken place so far. I look forward to working with everybody. I will keep my constituents apprised as further developments occur. But to those from Michigan who are tuned in or who will be following this debate, I do want to make it clear that we have succeeded, first, in shifting the gas tax revenues into the trust fund; second, we have now succeeded in making sure that those revenues coming into the trust fund will be spent. When you add those together you definitely see Michigan on the road to receiving a much greater number of dollars back from Washington than has been the case. That is the kind of direction I hope we can continue right through to the end of this legislation both here in the Senate and ultimately when we work with the House to finish this up later this year. Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Tony Soave, of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan for the contributions he has made to the Detroit area, as well as to the State of Michigan. Mr. Soave is the president of Soave Industries. Under his guidance, City Management Corporation, the environmental arm of Soave Enterprises, became the largest independent waste management company in Michigan and an industry leader in environmental practices and community responsibility. City Management Corporation has contributed greatly to the community by ``adopting'' schools in Detroit, sponsoring students in co-op education programs and offering scholarships. Tony has also made possible the restoration of economic life to abandoned and underutilized properties. It is with great pleasure that I announce that he is the recipient of this year's March of Dimes ``Humanitarians of the Year Award.'' Mr. Soave is being honored with this award as a result of his strong commitment to the Detroit community. He will be given his award at the 26th Annual March of Dimes Sweetheart Ball on Saturday, March 7, 1998 in Dearborn, Michigan. I extend my sincerest congratulations to my very good friend Tony Soave.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the good work of Dr. and Mrs. Donald Austin, of Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Together, as a team, Dr. and Mrs. Austin have worked on behalf of numerous charitable organizations in Southeastern Michigan for almost thirty years. Dr. Austin, a neurosurgeon, and Mrs. Dale Austin, a civic leader, consistently and selflessly contribute both their time and effort to their surrounding community and to the State of Michigan. It is with great pleasure that I announce that Dr. And Mrs. Austin are recipients of this year's March of Dimes ``Humanitarians of the Year Award.'' The Austins are being honored with this award as a result of their combined contributions to their community. They will be given their awards at the 26th Annual March of Dimes Sweetheart Ball on Saturday, March 7, 1998 in Dearborn, Michigan. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Dr. And Mrs. Austin.