Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1998.'' This legislation, which I am introducing today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Daschle, is designed to protect over 90 endangered species of bird spending certain seasons in the United States and other seasons in other nations of the Western Hemisphere. I think it is fitting that we introduce this legislation on Earth Day, that day we have dedicated to increasing awareness of environmental issues. Every year, approximately 25 million Americans travel to observe birds, and 60 million American adults watch and feed birds at home. Birdwatching is a source of great pleasure to many Americans, as well as a source of important revenue to states, like my own state of Michigan, which attract tourists to their scenes of natural beauty. Birdwatching and feeding generates fully $20 billion every ear in revenue across America. Birdwatching is a popular activity in Michigan, and its increased popularity is reflected by an increase in tourist dollars being spent in small, rural communities. Healthy bird populations also prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses each year to farming and timber interests. They help control insect populations, thereby preventing crop failures and infestations. Despite the enormous benefits we derive from our bird populations, many of them are struggling to survive. Ninety species are listed as endangered or threatened in the United States. Another 124 species are of high conservation concern. The primary reason for these declines is the degradation and loss of bird habitat. What makes this all the more troubling is that efforts in the United States to protect these birds' habitats can only be of limited utility. Among bird watches' favorites, many neotropical birds are endangered or of high conservation concern. And several of the most popular neotropical species, including bluebirds, robins, goldfinches, and orioles, migrate to and from the Caribbean and Latin America. Because neotropical migratory birds range across a number of international borders every year, we must work to establish safeguards at both ends of their migration routes, as well as at critical stopover areas along their way. Only in this way can conservation efforts prove successful. Mr. President, that is why Senator Dashle and I have introduced the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.'' This legislation will protect bird habitats across international boundaries by establishing partnerships between the business community, nongovernmental organizations and foreign nations. By teaming businesses with international organizations concerned to protect the environment we can combine capital with know-how. By partnering these entities with local organizations in countries where bird habitat is endangered we can see to it that local people receive the training they need to preserve this habitat and maintain this critical natural resource. This act establishes a three year demonstration project providing $4 million each year to help establish programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. These programs will manage and conserve neotropical migratory bird populations. Those eligible to participate will include national and international nongovernmental organizations and business interests, as well as U.S. government entities. The key to this act is cooperation among nongovernmental organizations. The federal share of each project's cost is never to exceed 33 percent, and half the nonfederal contribution must be in cash, not in-kind contributions. The approach taken by this legislation differs from that of current programs in that it is proactive and, by avoiding a crisis management approach, will prove significantly more cost effective. In addition, this legislation does not call for complicated and expensive bureaucratic structures such as councils, commissions or multi-tiered oversight structures. Further, this legislation will bring needed attention and expertise to areas now receiving relatively little attention in the area of environmental degradation. This legislation has the support of the National Audobon Society, the American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. These organizations agree with Senator Daschle and I that, by establishing partnerships between business, government and nongovernmental organizations both here and abroad we can greatly enhance the protection of migratory bird habitat. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, last year the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution, S. Res. 98, which expressed the Sense of the Senate that the United States should not enter into any global warming treaty unless developing nations joined in the effort by agreeing to emission limits. This resolution passed by a vote of 95-0. Despite this clear and specific resolution, the Administration negotiated and agreed to a treaty in Kyoto which sets binding limits on carbon emissions by developed nations, but which compels no similar participation from the developing world. Clearly, the Kyoto treaty fails to meet the criteria established by S. Res. 98. To date, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and other emerging trading partners have no obligations under the Kyoto Treaty. Since signing the agreement, the Administration has worked to secure some level of participation by these nations with the intention of amending the Treaty. Of course, these countries understand the economic impact of emissions limits, so it is not surprising that the United States is having a difficult time convincing these governments that their participation is necessary. Recently, however, the State Department reports that it has reached ``a conceptual agreement'' with some countries to ``pursue an umbrella group to trade emissions permits.'' No details about the nature or design of the agreement have been released, so it is difficult to judge the success of the recent efforts. A few questions come to mind however. What limits would these nations agree to? Would this be a part of the Protocol or a separate agreement outside the Protocol? How would this ``umbrella group'' even be recognized by the Protocol Parties? Finally, what is the U.S. offering to entice this group? Mr. President, the Administration's actions and comments since Kyoto raise many questions but provide few answers. I hope the delegation will be more forthcoming in the next few months and allow Congress and the public an opportunity to comment on the U.S. proposals prior to the June and November sessions.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to support the Coverdell amendment because I believe that the tax burden on American families is too high and that people--especially hard working low- and middle- income Americans--should be allowed to keep more of what they earn. The federal tax burden is currently the highest in our nation's history. The National Taxpayer's Union reports that the average American family now pays almost 40 percent of their income in state, local, and federal taxes. The Coverdell amendment addresses this problem by targeting $101 billion in tax cuts at families in Michigan and elsewhere, most of them earning between $25,000 and $70,000. At its very core, Mr. President, the Coverdell amendment is a statement that taxes on middle-class American families are just too high. Right now, Mr. President, a family in Michigan that earns as little as $42,000 pays an income tax rate of 28 percent--42 percent if you include payroll taxes. The Coverdell amendment cuts that income tax rate to 15 percent. Right now, millions of middle-class couples are penalized by the tax code for being married. The Coverdell amendment helps reduce this ``marriage penalty'' and end the tax code's bias against families. The Coverdell amendment takes a significant step in reducing tax rates for middle-class families and eliminating unfair biases against married couples. That said, Mr. President, I want to make clear that the offsets included in the Coverdell amendment are not those that I would choose. Overall, the Coverdell amendment calls for a reduction in annual federal spending of about $40 billion out of a total budget of $1.7 trillion, or just over 2 percent. And while these spending reductions will eventually be the responsibility of the Appropriations Committee, I believe they can be accomplished without cutting education accounts or reducing highway spending. The federal government is projected to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next five years on administration, overhead, and personnel expenditures. Targeting these areas for cuts, including eliminating unnecessary government agencies like Commerce, Energy and HUD, and reducing excessive overhead accounts, should be the first priority to offset these tax cuts and are adequate to offset the projected revenue impact. Mr. President, I support a smaller, more efficient federal government that allows people to keep more of what they earn. For that reason, I support the Coverdell amendment. If the amendment is adopted, however, I intend to offer a series of amendments that would redirect the spending reductions called for by the Coverdell amendment towards the areas outlined above while protecting important budget functions like health, education, transportation and law enforcement.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a place of great significance in the history of the state of Michigan. Bridgeport Charter Township, located in the heart of Michigan, will celebrate its Sesquicentennial on April 4, 1998. It was founded April 4, 1848, making it the oldest charter township in Michigan. Bridgeport Charter Township will begin the celebration of its 150th year on April 4, 1998 with a town hall meeting. The celebration will continue throughout the year with a series of events. They are currently trying to locate ancestors of the original township board to take part in the celebration. I want to congratulate Bridgeport Charter Township on its Sesquicentennial and extend my best wishes for a successful and enjoyable celebration.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a fine young man, John Badeen, for reaching the esteemed rank of Eagle Scout. Earning this coveted award is testament to the fact that he possesses a strong character and exceptional citizenship. Having reached Scouting's highest rank, John undoubtedly possesses the solid skills and values necessary to be a valuable asset to his community and to the nation. John, as well as his family and friends should be very proud of his accomplishment. Scouting is a wonderful asset to our country that aids in shaping our young people into fine citizens. Boy Scouts in this country have grown to become prominent and respectable citizens within their communities. I want to extend my warmest congratulations to John. I am confident that he will continue working for the good of his community and serving as an example to all young people. I wish him the best in all of his future endeavors. I would also like to add that it gives me great pleasure to give this award in the company of my good friends, Father George Shalhoub and Father John Badeen.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wanted to make a few comments about Judge Paez's nomination, which was recently reported out of the Judiciary Committee with six Members noting dissents. Because I had a prior commitment, when the markup was moved from 10:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. Thursday afternoon I was not able to be there and accordingly did not record a position on this matter, which was voted on by voice vote with those wishing to note a dissent doing so. I would like the record to reflect, however, that I have serious objections to this nominee's confirmation. My reasons center around some comments Judge Paez made about two California initiatives while he was serving as a district judge. In a speech given at Boalt Hall in April of 1995 as part of a series of lectures on Law & Cultural Diversity honoring Judge Mario Olmos, a Boalt Hall graduate, Judge Paez said the following: The Latino community has, for some time now, faced heightened discrimination and hostility, which came to a head with the passage of Proposition 187. The proposed anti-civil rights initiative [which was eventually placed on the ballot as Proposition 209] will inflame the issues all over again, without contributing to any serious discussion of our differences and similarities or ways to ensure equal opportunity for all. Here are my concerns. In the case of Proposition 187, an initiative barring receipt of state-funded benefits by illegal aliens, at the time Judge Paez made these remarks, he was a sitting district court judge, and there was litigation pending in Judge Paez's own court regarding the constitutionality of this initiative. That court had granted a t.r.o. and had before it a request for a preliminary injunction, which the district court did not rule on until November 1995, seven months after Judge Paez made this speech. Assuming some aspects of the initiative ultimately survived this facial constitutional challenge, a question that I believe has just gone to the Ninth Circuit, there was also certain to be litigation over how it should be interpreted. Judge Paez's comments on the initiative, it seems to me, at a minimum at least unnecessarily raise a question as to whether he will be able to decide cases presenting issues relating to Proposition 187 impartially. Indeed, at his hearing, when asked about these remarks, Judge Paez practically acknowledged this problem in that he cited the pending cases as a reason why he needed to be cautious in answering Judiciary Committee Members' questions about what he had said. That is the very reason he should not have said what he did in the first place. Accordingly, I think these comments are inconsistent with Canon 4 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, governing judges' extra-judicial activities. Under that canon, off the bench a judge is supposed to conduct himself or herself so as not to ``cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge.'' As for Judge Paez's comments regarding Proposition 209, barring racial preferences in the provision of public services, I believe they raise similar concerns and some additional ones as well. Proposition 209 had not even been placed before the voters at the time these comments were made, and so as far as I am aware, there was no pending litigation about it at the time Judge Paez made these comments-- although we have had before us another nominee for the Ninth Circuit who tried to get an injunction against circulating petitions to place an initiative on the ballot, so such litigation certainly was not an impossibility even at that stage of the process. Even if no challenge along those lines were brought, however, it was crystal clear that there certainly would be ample litigation about it if the initiative was placed on the ballot and passed, and that again, it was likely to be in Judge Paez's court. Indeed we know that is in fact what happened. So in that instance as well, it seems to me that these comments are dubious under Canon 4. In addition, I think they are problematic under Canon 5(D). That canon generally prohibits judges from engaging in political activity. Judge Paez gave this speech on April 6, 1995. The next day, the California Democratic Party opened its State convention, where press reports say that the question of how to respond to the circulating initiative was one of the central issues on the table. One day later, President Clinton went out to California to give a speech on the subject. According to the press, at the time many were arguing that given California's significance in Presidential politics, this issue could play a critical role in the Presidential election. Given this context, Judge Paez's comments look a lot like a judge intervening in a hot political controversy. Granted, the forum where Judge Paez made these remarks--a lecture series at a law school--may insulate them from actually violating Canon 5. And it is possible that Judge Paez was just unlucky about the timing of his remarks, and had no intention of affecting the California Democratic Party's position (although in answer to a question at his hearing about how an initiative that tracks the Fourteenth Amendment could be ``anti-civil rights'', he said that at the time he was giving his remarks, he remembered ``just reading in the papers there was a lot of debate going on as to how it should actually be formulated,'' suggesting that perhaps he was following that debate). Regardless of his actual intention, however, the appearance that a judge is injecting himself into politics is exactly what Canon 5(D) is designed to avoid, and that is presumably why it is formulated as a flat prohibition. When he was asked about these comments at his hearing, Judge Paez said ``we shouldn't and I wasn't trying to take a political position. We were bound by certain ethics. Nonetheless, as I said a minute ago, we are--we have a life outside of our role as a judge as well, and it was an--I was trying to address a particular broad issue, and so I made those remarks.'' He also said that he regretted having used the particular words he did. In written answers to follow up questions, he also explained why in his view his remarks did not violate Canon 3A(6) (prohibiting judicial comments on the merits of pending cases) and how ``upon reflection, [he] underst[ood] how [his] reference to the proposed initiative could have led some to believe that [he] might have a biased view of the constitutionality of Proposition 209.'' He continued ``I regret that anyone would have that perception, as I assure you that was not and is not the case. I am sorry that I may have given anyone such an impression by uncritically referring to the proposed initiative in the way that I did.'' I do not think these responses are sufficient. The concerns that have been raised about these matters are not esoteric. They are the kind of thing that I think we reasonably expect judges to think about before they give public remarks. Nor was Judge Paez brand new to the bench when he made these remarks: he gave the speech in April 1995, some nine months after his appointment. Finally, Judge Paez indicated in response to written questions from Senator Ashcroft (1) that since his comments only went to the divisive nature of the initiative, he ``hope[d]'' it would have been clear to the people of California that he had not prejudged the matter but that (2) in any event he would not have recused himself from hearing a challenge to Proposition 209 because he believes he could have been impartial in the matter since judges often have personal opinions on policy questions but are expected to put them aside. It seems to me, however, that given that Judge Paez went out of his way as a judge to say what he did, it would be perfectly reasonable for the people of California not to trust his impartiality and that a recusal pledge with respect to cases involving these initiatives was a bare minimum indicator of the sincerity of his expressions of regret. Despite the central role that the initiative process has played in California in correcting judicial excesses, I have supported two prior nominees. One was a nominee to a California district court seat who had written a piece criticizing the initiative process itself. The other was a nominee to the Circuit Court whose pro bono work challenging a Washington initiative even before it had been placed on the ballot I alluded to earlier. These activities raised some questions about whether either of these nominees should be confirmed for judicial positions where they would of necessity be passing on the validity of initiatives. In each instance, the nominee's explanations persuaded me that they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, in Judge Paez's case, I find myself unable to do so, and accordingly I have serious objections to his elevation to the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, under the previously agreed-to unanimous consent agreement, I believe that the Senator from North Dakota will be recognized for up to 20 minutes, and I would like to seek unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator from North Dakota we would then recognize the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Alabama for the purpose of introducing an amendment and speaking to the amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent Philippe Ardanaz, an American Association of Political Science fellow with the Budget Committee, be granted floor privileges during consideration of the budget resolution.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, will be here momentarily for the purpose of offering the first substantive amendment to be considered. In light of that, perhaps we could enter into a unanimous consent agreement. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Alabama offers and discusses his amendment, we then allow the other Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, to seek recognition and be recognized following the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you very much. For the information of the Senate, we will now, as indicated, begin consideration of the budget resolution. Although there are not any votes scheduled for today, it is certainly the hope of the majority leader and of the Budget Committee that we can begin the process of hearing from those who wish to bring amendments so they can be fully debated and discussed. I urge any colleagues who might be thinking about offering amendments to join us today. We have heard that a couple may be coming in a little bit. We will welcome them and begin this process of trying to sort through them in the hours ahead. At this time, it is my understanding that the Senator from North Dakota has opening comments to make. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

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, it's painfully obvious that the nation faces a serious problem in providing our companies with the skilled workers they need to grow and create jobs in America. We do not need a report to tell us there's a problem. All one needs to look at are the job ads in newspapers and on the Internet which are exploding with offers of high tech jobs that cannot be filled. There are even reported shortages of the recruiters needed to recruit other skilled workers. There is ample evidence that companies face an inability to fill key skilled positions. The Federal Reserve's latest survey of nationwide economic conditions made public on March 19 stated ``shortages of both skilled and entry-level workers worsened.'' The unemployment rate among electrical engineers nationwide is 0.4 percent. Congressional testimony shows that leading American companies like Microsoft and Sun Microsystems have over 2,000 unfilled positions each. CEOS of companies like Dell Computers and Texas Instruments warn that America's global leadership in high technology fields will be threatened if this problem is not addressed. ``We are disarming the economy of the United States if we don't allow skilled workers to come in,'' explained Dell Computer Corp. CEO Michael Dell. Companies are so desperate for workers they are even hiring teenagers part-time at $50,000 a year, as The Washington Post reported in a March 1st front-page article. The National Software Alliance, a consortium of concerned government, industry, and academic leaders that includes the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force has warned that the current severe understaffing could lead to inflation and lower productivity and threaten America's competitiveness. And in the last two years, difficulties finding workers, economic growth and the globalization of business has led to a dramatic increase in the use of H-1B visas for skilled foreign-born professionals. The situation has changed so swiftly that the allotment of these visas will be exhausted an astounding four to five months before the end of this fiscal year. The recent General Accounting Office report is little more than an inside-the-beltway squabble over how to measure shortages that ignores the real marketplace. The GAO report focused on one study by the Commerce Department, a study that was not even raised by witnesses at a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on H-1B visas. In turn, the Commerce Department has responded by criticizing GAO for doing a report that ``contains several inaccuracies.'' The GAO acknowledges it ``did not perform any independent analysis to determine whether a shortage of IT workers exists in the United States'' but merely critiqued the methodology of a Commerce Department study, a critique the Commerce Department critiques. In fact, the GAO does not question that the U.S. economy will create more than 100,000 jobs a year in information technology over the next decade. There is a legitimate debate about how best to address the supply of needed skilled workers. The legislation I have introduced is a balanced approach that utilizes a combination of college scholarships for young people, training for the unemployed, and an increase in foreign-born professionals on H-1B temporary visas. The legislation, supported by my colleagues Senators Hatch, McCain, DeWine, Specter, Grams and Brownback, will be strongly pushed before the April recess. 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. We do not want that to happen. I encourage my colleagues to support the American Competitiveness Act. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the bill from Empower America's Jack Kemp, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, as well as recent editorials in the Oakland Press and the Washington Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise to discuss the recent vote the Senate conducted on the provision of U.S. funding to the International Monetary Fund. With that vote, this chamber approved the appropriation of over $18 billion with a single vote. Given the size of this appropriation, I believe it is critical to spell out exactly why Senators voted as they did. I opposed this amendment for several reasons. First and foremost, the IMF has a very poor track record in its promotion of economic growth. According to Johns Hopkins University economist Steve Hanke, Few nations graduate from IMF emergency loans. Most stay on the IMF dole for years on end.'' Indeed, one study of IMF lending practices in 137 mostly developing countries from 1965 to 1995 found less than one-third have graduated from IMF loan programs. In fact, the IMF often encourages loan recipient nations to implement policies that further reduce economic growth. These policy recommendations have included raising tax rates, devaluing currencies, delaying regulatory reforms, and a host of additional austerity measures that compound nations' economic distress. Unless the IMF changes these counter-productive policies, I see no reason to put more American taxpayer dollars at risk. Second, this IMF bailout for Asia is entirely unprecedented. All previous IMF bailouts, including that of Mexico, have been of the governments and central banks to stabilize their macroeconomic conditions. This bailout, in contrast, is a microeconomic bailout to restore the solvency of clearly insolvent financial institutions. Furthermore, the next largest bailout the IMF ever conducted was of Mexico at $17 billion. The Indonesian bailout package currently being negotiated tops $30 billion, while the Korean package comes in at over $57 billion. Third, the IMF bailout is simply not needed. The Asian financial crisis is essentially over. As usual, markets have responded more quickly than any government. The fact of the matter is, the South Koreans had a current account surplus last year, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Investors are starting to differentiate among Asian countries for degree of risk, and stock prices are rising, in Korea by over 30%. Further, the potential impact of the Asian economic situation on U.S. economic growth must be put in perspective: the 5 most afflicted Asian nations--Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore--account for only 8 percent of U.S. exports and imports. And it is clearly not the case that the IMF will go bankrupt without these replenishment funds from the American taxpayer. The IMF has plenty of funds to cover these loans and many to come. Even after the distribution of the current bailout packages, the IMF will hold $30 billion in gold reserves, and have access to $25 billion in unused General Agreement to Borrow credits. By providing these replenishment funds, we are simply empowering the IMF to impose its counterproductive economic policies on yet more desperate countries. Fourth, this bailout will be counterproductive because it will perpetuate a ``moral hazard'' problem within the banking industry, a problem it will take years to overcome. Without doubt, this bailout package is being pushed in order to restore confidence in the Asian banking system (and the bad loans made by Western banks at unsound rates), a system that probably shouldn't be restored in the first place because of its inherent flaws--flaws that the IMF bailout does not address at all. The provision of these funds will therefore perpetuate and intensify the moral hazard for private banking started by the Mexican bailout. Arguing that the Mexicans repaid their debt misses the point--if credit card companies and finance houses had been forced to eat their losses in Mexico, they would have exercised better elementary judgment regarding the over-investment policies of Asia that led to this crisis. The IMF is essentially a huge bureaucracy populated by the last remaining socialists in the world. The reforms to IMF lending practices that are needed to address economic problems in Asia and elsewhere would require the IMF to support economic policies that are anathema to its Directors and to its fundamental philosophy--cutting tax rates, promoting sound monetary policies, cutting government regulation, allowing banks and firms to fail, and requiring private investors to eat their losses. Unless we reform the IMF as we know it, increasing funds to IMF will do little to help the distressed economies of the world.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to pay homage to Frank A. Germack, of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. Mr. Germack, who ran his family's business in Detroit's historic Eastern Market passed away recently. Although Frank is gone, his legacy will live on throughout the Detroit community. The family business, the Germack Pistachio Co., was founded in 1924 by Mr. Germack's father. Considered to be the oldest pistachio importing company in the country, Germack Pistachio Co. eventually expanded to include a full line of nut products. After graduating from Fordham University and the Detroit College of Law, Frank began working at the family business in 1961. Frank contributed greatly to the success of his family's company. For example, through his leadership in the Executive International Advisory Board, Frank helped expand the cashew crop to countries such as Guatemala and Indonesia. According to Frank's son, ``The business was his life.'' Up until the time he passed away, he was actively involved in making the company run as efficiently as possible. In addition to working at the company, Frank enjoyed boating on Lake St. Clair, listening to classical music and jazz, and contributing to his community. He was active within many organizations such as the Detroit Rotary, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra and United Way. He was also an active member of St. Paul's Catholic Church in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan. Despite his tireless dedication to his company and the causes that were important to him, he remained deeply committed to his family. He was a wonderful husband to his wife, Stephanie, father to his son Frank III and daughter Suzanne Gregory Frederickson, and grandfather to Olivia Frederickson. During this difficult time, my thoughts and prayers go out to Frank Germack's family and friends.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank Senator Snowe for her comments on this point.

Mr. ABRAHAM. The Leahy-Abraham amendment, which is based on a bill that I introduced, deletes the line in the National Sea Grant College Program Act that says ``the term `Great Lakes' includes Lake Champlain.'' This line was included in the recent reauthorization of the act, and it has caused all of the recent concern on this issue in the Great Lakes region. In lieu of this language, the amendment lists Lake Champlain separately from the Great lakes in the list of water bodies for which Sea Grant projects can be undertaken. It is therefore clear from the amendment that Lake Champlain is not designated a Great Lake under the National Sea Grant College Program Act. Nevertheless, I do think it would be useful to have the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee with jurisdiction over this issue state her understanding of the term ``Great Lakes'' in the act as it would be amended by our amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chair of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Snowe in a colloquy regarding her understanding of the amendment offered by Senator Leahy and myself on the Sea Grant College Program. The Commerce Committee and its Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee have jurisdiction over the Sea Grant College Program.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank all the Senators for their help and their support of this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise today with my colleagues in support of the Leahy amendment which includes S. 1873, legislation which I had previously introduced with Senators Leahy and Levin, legislation which will resolve the recent controversy surrounding the designation of Lake Champlain as a Great Lake. Since being signed into law last month, the Sea Grant College Program Act has received a tremendous amount of attention, not for the important research it fosters, but for a single sentence that designated Lake Champlain as a Great Lake for purposes of the bill. Today's agreement will restore the designation of a ``Great Lake'' to the original five. This has been made possible as a result of several weeks of discussion among myself, Senator Levin, and Senator Leahy. I thank them for their efforts. I also thank and draw attention to Congressman Fred Upton, our Michigan colleague in the House, for his important participation and contributions which have helped us reach this agreement. Mr. President, I was extremely pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Sea Grant College Program Act as passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. This act is an important piece of legislation which supplies crucial funding for research into a host of problems which challenge the health of the Great Lakes, such as zebra mussel infestation. Late last year, the Sea Grant College Program Act was amended to allow Vermont colleges and universities to apply to the Sea Grant programs in the hope of securing research grant dollars for the study of Lake Champlain. This amendment was offered as part of a managers' amendment which addressed a number of technical issues. Unfortunately, it did so in a manner totally unacceptable to the residents of the Great Lakes, in that it named Lake Champlain a ``Great Lake.'' As my colleague from Michigan indicated, at least in our part of the country, it is a very typical teaching device to have students memorize the names of the Great Lakes by using the acronym HOMES, H-O-M-E-S. To add another letter to this acronym at this late date, Mr. President, would, in my judgment, not make sense. And I cannot quite figure out what acronym it would be that would be sufficiently memorable for our young people to use this as a study device. Beyond that, we in Michigan pride ourselves in the fact that our State bears, as its own self-proclaimed motto, ``The Great Lake State.'' Obviously, to the people in Michigan, it is quite important that we remain a State that is in contact with and connected to the Great Lakes. For those reasons, among many others, great concern was registered, as has been previously noted by editorial writers and educators, and others, about the way the legislation that was passed with respect to Sea Grant colleges might affect the Great Lakes designation for other purposes. So, Mr. President, although this designation only applied for purposes of the Sea Grant Program Act, it still created a serious perception problem. The residents of the Great Lakes take great pride in the Lakes. In all the world, there is no comparable system of fresh water. Even for the limited purposes outlined in this Sea Grant Program Act, the designation of any lake as a Great Lake beyond the original five was simply unacceptable. So this legislation introduced today strikes any reference to Lake Champlain as a Great Lake. Yet, Mr. President, it is clear that something needs to be done to help Lake Champlain. While not a Great Lake, it is nevertheless an important body of water that is part of the Great Lakes freshwater system. Outside the obvious differences, Lake Champlain does share a host of similarities with its larger cousins and suffers from many of the same problems present in the five Great Lakes. Zebra mussel infestation is just one of the similarities. Michiganians especially can understand and empathize with Vermont's efforts to battle this invader. For this reason, my colleagues and I have agreed to language which will allow colleges and universities in Vermont to apply for a sea grant program in the same manner that a school in a Great Lakes State would apply. Specifically, this legislation also makes clear that sea grant funds directed to the study of Lake Champlain are applicable to the Great Lakes system. Because funds directed to Vermont institutions for research on Lake Champlain will also be applicable to the Great Lakes, funding of sea grant research into Great Lakes problems will not be diminished. So, Mr. President, I am pleased to have introduced this legislation earlier and to support this amendment now, which will reverse the designation of Lake Champlain as a Great Lake and will yet allow Vermont colleges and universities to apply to the Sea Grant Program. I am pleased that we could come to an agreement with our colleague from Vermont. He is a tireless advocate for his State. The Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River will benefit from his energy and understanding and support of the Sea Grant Program. And I look forward to working with him and the Great Lakes delegation in the months ahead to facilitate Sea Grant's efforts to preserve and protect the entire Great Lakes system. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would also like to state for the record the names of a number of individuals who cosponsored my bill, which is now being incorporated into this amendment in the supplemental appropriations bill, because I know that they wish to be associated with this effort as we move to the finish line. So in addition to myself and Senators Levin and Leahy, I ask unanimous consent to add on to that legislation as cosponsors Senators Santorum, DeWine, Glenn, Coats, Gorton, and Grams.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, with the serious issue of NATO expansion out of the way, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to another topic with national implications. Tonite, Michigan State University will face the University of North Carolina in the semifinals of the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament. In anticipation of this contest, I would like to announce a friendly agreement between myself and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth. As an alumnus of Michigan State University, I have so much confidence that the Spartans will beat the Tar Heels that I have indicated to the Senator from North Carolina I will make available to him a bushel of the finest, fresh Michigan cherries in the event that somehow my expectations are dashed. It is my understanding that the Senator from North Carolina has promised, if I am correct, that Michigan will receive a product of North Carolina origin, specifically North Carolina peanuts, if we should win. When the best of the Big Ten faces the best of the Atlantic Coast Conference, I will bet on the Big Ten every time, Mr. President. Michigan State may be the underdog on paper, but seeds and rankings mean nothing once the ball is tipped. I know that Coach Tom Izzo's squad is having their best season in years, and their ride isn't going to end just yet. I look forward to the result and reporting back to the Senate at my next opportunity. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to draw the Senate's attention to several editorials from across the country that endorse an increase in the number of skilled professionals who are allowed in on H-1B visas. The American Competitiveness Act, which I have introduced along with Senators Hatch, McCain, DeWine, Specter, Grams, and Brownback, approaches the shortage of high-tech workers problem in both the short and long term. The bill will increase the annual number of H-1B visas that awarded to foreign-born professionals by approximately 25,000 this year, and will create 20,000 scholarships a year for U.S. students to study math, engineering, and computer science. The cap of 65,000 on these visas will likely be reached in May, four months before the end of the fiscal year. This will cause considerable disruption at U.S. companies and universities. Without legislative action, this problem will worsen each year until companies will no longer be able to count on access to key personnel that help fuel growth. 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. We do not want that to happen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.