Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia yielding to speak to me about the issue of enlarging NATO. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for legislation expanding NATO by admitting, at this time, the newly free nations of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. It is my hope that we will act soon on the invitation extended to these countries at the Madrid Summit in 1997, and that this will be only the latest step in an ongoing process bringing nations and peoples, until recently suffering under communist tyranny, into the community of free nations and into the sphere of mutual security provided by NATO. We should not forget, in my view, Mr. President, that until less than 10 years ago most of Asia and half of Europe, as well as vast stretches of the rest of the world, were held in the grip of totalitarian communism. When the Berlin Wall finally came down it marked a new era in our history; it marked the greatest explosion in human freedom ever witnessed on this earth. Ronald Reagan's victory in the cold war rescued millions of Eastern Europeans, and Russians, from decades of enslavery. We owe it to him, to ourselves and to our children to solidify those gains by bringing the emerging democracies of eastern Europe fully into the community of free nations. And membership in NATO is a crucial part of that process. Since its inception immediately following World War II, NATO has brought free nations together for mutual defense and thereby fostered mutual understanding and trade. Because the world remains a dangerous place even after the successful conclusion of the cold war, there remains a place for NATO. Because the free world has expanded in the aftermath of the cold war, NATO also must expand. Recent events in the Balkans, the Middle East, East Asia, and Africa show that the world remains a dangerous place, and that the United States must continue to prepare itself for conflict in any part of the globe. Conflicts in the Balkans are particularly disturbing because of their proximity to our west European allies and because of its potential to spread conflict to other parts of Europe. To my mind, Mr. President, it also points up the need for greater cooperation and integration in Europe. The structures set up by the NATO alliance in my view provide unique opportunities to foster peace and cooperation throughout Europe. History shows that the kinds of cooperation that made NATO so successful at defending the free world from Soviet communism also can breed peaceful cooperation among member states. I believe it is significant that, while NATO has expanded its membership no less than three times since 1949, at no time has there been any military conflict among member states, despite sharp and long histories of political differences between some. Shared commitment to well-ordered liberty--to democratic politics, free markets and human rights--united the countries of NATO, in good times and bad, until, eventually, they faced down the forces of communism. What is more, NATO remains the only multilateral security organization capable of conducting effective military operations that will protect western security interests. Of course, Mr. President, we must be careful about which countries we allow into NATO, as well as when and under what circumstances. But I believe it is in the interest of the United States, as well as our European allies, to actively assist European countries emerging from communist domination in their transition to free governments and free markets so that these countries may eventually qualify for NATO membership. We must extend our hand to peoples now emerging from the long night of communist dictatorship. We cannot afford to let them despair and turn, or be dragged, back into the dark. This makes it particularly appropriate that we begin the process of NATO expansion by inviting into its membership the newly free nations of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Each of these countries has suffered greviously from war and from Marxist dictatorship. Each has worked long and hard to establish its independence, the freedom of its people and its markets. We should not forget that it was Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement that paved the way for the breakdown of the Soviet Empire by refusing to be cowed by the Communist authorities. The people of Poland, strong in their faith, exhibited a courage few of us would wish to be called upon to match. As a people they demanded freedom of worship. As a people, they demanded real workers rights in the form of free, non-party unions. As a people they faced down their communist oppressors and now are building a free, open and democratic society. The people of Poland have held free and open elections, established free markets and worked hard to establish a strong, loyal, civilian- controlled military. Like few nations on earth, they have embraced their new-found freedom and deserve our support. The Czech Republic, while still part of the hybrid nation of Czechoslovakia, was the last free country to be dragged behind the Iron Curtain. And its people tried on several occasions, most notably in the spring of 1968, to regain their freedom. They finally succeeded through a silent and bloodless revolution. Under the playwright and statesman Vaclav Havel, the Czech people have made tremendous progress in institutionalizing free government, free markets and a responsible military. As for Hungary, Mr. President, the Hungarian people's attachment to freedom made them a constant thorn in the side of their Soviet oppressors. At first their desire for freedom was beaten down with tanks, later it was allowed limited free play within the Soviet empire. And the Hungarians made the most of their limited freedom, working even before the end of the cold war to lay the groundwork for free markets. Since the tearing down of the Berlin Wall the Hungarian people also have made great strides in building a freer, more open and democratic nation. By extending NATO membership to these nations we will be showing our approval of the hard work they have done to institutionalize free government. Of course, Mr. President, our first duty is to the American people. We must defend their security and protect their pocketbooks. But I think we should keep in mind that increasing openness in central and eastern Europe will benefit us both in terms of security and in terms of economics. Free peoples with free markets make for good neighbors and good partners in profitable trade. It is my hope that we will build on the freedoms and the relationships already established with and within eastern Europe for the good of everyone involved. I know that a number of my colleagues are concerned that the process of expanding NATO not come at too high a price for the American taxpayer. As a Senator who has consistently worked for tax cuts, I share this concern. But I must observe that the legislation under consideration includes provisions limiting expenditures through the Partnership for Peace and that it guarantees no country entry into NATO. Each country will have to show that it has established democratic politics, free markets, civilian leadership of police and military forces and transparent military budgets to gain entrance. Each country will have to show its ability and willingness to abide by NATO's rules, to implement infrastructure development and other activities to make it a positive asset to NATO in its defensive mission, and to contribute to its own security and that of its NATO neighbors. All told, Mr. President, I believe that the provisions of this arrangement can help us build on the success of the NATO alliance. I am convinced that we as a nation have a duty to promote democracy and free markets, wherever they can take root, just as I am convinced that it is in our interest as a nation to do so. When such forces coalesce, we should seize the opportunity, as I urge my colleagues to do with this legislation. Mr. President, I realize that there are some among us who have grown concerned about the prospect of enlarging NATO. But to me, Mr. President, it seems that this decision is a pretty clear one. It has always been the mission of the United States to support free people, to support the efforts of people seeking freedom throughout the globe. In Central and Eastern Europe, that was a primary mission of America for nearly one-half century. It seems to me that, upon the successful completion of the cold war, it would only be natural that the nations that came into the world of free countries should have the opportunity to extend their participation in the free world to be part of the NATO alliance. It was indeed the NATO alliance, more than anything, that allowed them to find their freedom. It seems only natural that they would wish to be part of that alliance. And it would seem only natural that we should allow them to be part of that alliance as soon as they are able to meet the various entry requirements that we have established. To me, that is the natural outgrowth of the successful completion of the cold war. So, for those reasons, Mr. President, I intend to support the enlargement of NATO. I believe that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are deserving allies and deserving members. I look forward to seeing the successful completion of this legislation during the next week.

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.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is a good question. It will take close to 5 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. These findings make clear, Mr. President, that the government of China has been and continues to intentionally oppress its people. I do not believe that we can stand idly by, without so much as a complaint, as this continues. I firmly believe that it is America's duty as well as our interest to make the extra effort required to improve overall human rights conditions in China and to integrate her into the community of nations. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I call on the President to demand that the Chinese government being itself into compliance with international standards of human rights and decency. I thank the Senator from Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Florida. I will try to speak as quickly as possible. It is an important topic. I don't want to in any way have the length of my speech in any sense suggest a lack of interest in this or in any way suggest a diminished interest by this Senator. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the sense of the Senate resolution, sending a strong message to the Chinese communist government regarding its human rights abuses. As American representatives participate in the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights I believe it is crucial that they state, in the strongest terms possible, the determination of the United States to uphold and defend fundamental human rights. This means, in my view, that our representatives must issue a strong statement criticizing the Chinese government's treatment of minorities and dissidents. Mr. President, U.S.-China relations are of crucial importance for both countries. But for that very reason I believe it is crucial that we make clear our determination that the rulers in Beijing show greater respect for their people. Mr. President, China's record of human rights abuses and repression of religious faith is long and disturbing. Peaceful advocates of democracy and political reforms have been sentenced to long terms in prisons where they have been beaten, tortured and denied needed medical care. Women pregnant with their second or third child have been coerced into abortions. Religious meeting places have been forcibly closed. Tibetan monks refusing to condemn their religious leader, the Dalai Lama, have been forced from their monasteries; some of their leaders have disappeared. And 8 million Catholics loyal to the Pope continue to be harassed, as their non-official churches are closed down and their religious leaders are arrested and taken to prison camps where they suffer torture and deprivation. I ask unanimous consent to have a list of findings by the State Department with respect to human rights and the People's Republic of China be printed in the Record, outlining the extent to which the problems exist.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform amendment. First, I would like to point out that I consider myself, like many members of this Chamber, on the side of election reform. But, in my view, that reform must be crafted in such a way as to bring representatives closer to their constituents, not further open what is in many cases an excessively wide gap. It was because of my commitment to effective electoral reform that I voted against this package the last time it reached the floor. Further, Mr. President, none of the changes this package has undergone lead me to believe that I should change that vote. On more than one occasion I have come to the floor to outline the standards which I believe any campaign finance reform legislation must meet if it is to be in the public interest, and if it is to gain my vote. McCain-Feingold continues to violate these standards, so I have no choice but to oppose it. The standards I believe crucial in this area, and which this legislation violates, are straightforward and relate to the right of Americans to express their political beliefs and have those beliefs count in federal elections. The first principle in this regard provides that reform legislation must be consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I will not support any legislation establishing prior restraint on political speech or empowering any federal bureaucracy to constrain first amendment rights. Our Constitution's first amendment, and the guarantees it provides for political speech, are fundamental to our system of liberty and republican government. Because McCain- Feingold allows them to be circumvented, I cannot support this amendment. The second standard I believe crucial in this area is the protection of state and local units of government. I cannot support campaign finance legislation if it impedes or intrudes on the prerogatives of the States and localities with respect to how they conduct political campaigns. Because McCain-Feingold continues to impose rules on state and local governments, I cannot support it. The third standard for electoral reform is maintenance of a proper balance between the first amendment rights of actual candidates and their political parties, and the rights of those who are not directly in the political arena. McCain-Feingold violates this standard as well, by tilting the balance strongly in the direction of special interest groups. Increasingly, Mr. President, political candidates and their parties are being pushed aside by special interest groups in the very process of campaigning, a process intended to bring candidates in close touch with their constituents. By encouraging this process, McCain-Feingold actually exacerbates a problem that is threatening the very functioning of our republican form of government. As an example of this phenomenon, I would like to mention certain political advertisements taken out recently by campaign reform groups in my own state of Michigan. These advertisements singled out this Senator for criticism because of my opposition to this particular amendment. Ironically, had McCain-Feingold been in effect at this time, it is likely that the Michigan Republican party would have been incapable of answering these misleading advertisements. I would have been forced to look to other outside sources to mount a response, diluting the proper influence of the state party. Fourth, Mr. President, campaign finance reform must be balanced, not favoring or punishing any one particular party. In violation of this standard, McCain-Feingold would enhance the ability of the Democratic Party to raise funds from its traditional sources, while disproportionately limiting the Republican Party's ability to do the same. Finally, Mr. President, I strongly believe that any campaign finance reform must address the increasing reliance of candidates on contributions from people who are not their constituents. This practice, which McCain-Feingold does nothing to stop or curtail, separates candidates from their proper loyalty to their constituents and dilutes the voice of the people--a voice that must be heard for our system of government to function as it was intended. This last standard is crucial, in my view, and I have joined with Senator Hagel in drafting an amendment to address it. When I travel around my State, conducting town meetings, the issue of campaign finance reform is often raised. And, when I ask people what disturbs them the most in this area, on almost every occasion I hear the same answer, that individuals, political action committees, and special interest groups not even based in Michigan are bank-rolling Michigan Congressional campaigns. Mr. President, I have not conducted a thorough study of the particulars of outside contributions, but I do know that a significant proportion of the money flowing into almost every federal campaign comes from individuals who are not the constituents of the particular elected officials who benefit. In fact, a number of members of the House and Senate actually receive the majority of their funding from people they do not even represent. I am convinced, Mr. President, that this reliance on non-constituent funding for federal campaigns is at the root of current public dissatisfaction with our electoral system. Certainly, people are concerned regarding large contributions to the national parties, be they from individuals, corporations or labor unions. But more distressing, in my view, is the financing of elections by people and organizations from outside states. Clearly, the first amendment places constraints on any attempt to address this glaring problem. But I believe it is possible to craft legislation protecting the rights of political speech while also limiting the influence of non-constituent campaign money. That is why I have joined with Senator Hagel to file an amendment to the pending bill, limiting the amount of non-constituent money a candidate for federal office may receive. Rather than limiting the ability of individuals or organizations to have their voices heard, this amendment would limit a candidate's ability to depend on non-constituent sources for campaign financing. Specifically, it would cap at 40 percent the total amount of money a candidate's campaign can accept from individuals or political action committees from outside the state. In addition, donations from political action committees, be they in-state or out-of-state, would be capped at 20 percent of the campaign total. In addition, Mr. President, this amendment would provide for full and immediate disclosure, within 48 hours, of all expenditures and contributions by campaigns, national party committees, state parties and groups or individuals paying for independent expenditures. Like the amendment's other provisions, this aims to empower voters by keeping them fully informed as to the sources of candidates' contributions and support. The amendment's provision increasing the amount an individual may contribute to a federal candidate to $5,000 per election also would level the playing field between individuals and special interests. To level the playing field between incumbents and challengers, without interfering with representatives' duties, the amendment also would limit Congressional use of the franking privilege. Finally, this amendment would establish once and for all that accepting any contribution in a federal building is illegal. This amendment, in my view, would help rebuild the necessary connection between political candidates and their constituencies--the tie on which our freedom relies, and which the bulk of McCain-Feingold would only weaken further. Let me comment briefly now, Mr. President, on the legislation the McCain-Feingold amendment seeks to replace. I understand that the Majority Leader's bill provides paycheck protection for workers, thereby protecting American workers' first amendment right to support the candidates of their own choosing, as well as redressing some of the current imbalance in campaign financing. But, while supporting the idea of paycheck protection as a matter of fundamental fairness, I do not believe that it provides sufficient protection for the interests of in- state constituents. The bill, while it aims at a worthy goal, is not in my view sufficiently broad to constitute full and satisfactory campaign finance reform. I look forward to working with the Majority Leader and my colleagues in crafting comprehensive campaign finance reform, in keeping with the principles I have laid out today. But I would urge my colleagues not to wait for Congressional action to change their own campaign finance practices. I for one do not for a moment believe that members of the body would change their votes or their fundamental political beliefs in pursuit of campaign dollars. Nonetheless, public confidence in our electoral system demands that we eliminate any appearance of impropriety in campaigning. This requires, in my view, that members of this body reject the argument that they cannot ``unilaterally disarm'' by voluntarily reforming their own conduct. Instead of focusing exclusively on passing legislation that will supposedly save us from ourselves, I believe it is incumbent upon each of us to undertake those actions we determine to be most appropriate in addressing current perception problems. Each of us should strive to set an example of good conduct, regardless of what the campaign finance laws might permit. If, for example, we think it is wrong to receive a disproportionate amount of our campaign contributions from outside our States, we should simply stop doing so. Similarly, if we believe that independent committees operating on our behalf, or in support of our efforts, are acting inappropriately, we should say so, clearly, publicly and without hesitation. The real test of our convictions regarding campaign finance reform will not take place on this floor, Mr. President, but in our home states. Each of us must take action, independent of federal legislation, to mold our actions in accordance with our fundamental principles. That means, for example, that, should I decide to seek re- election, I will continue the practice I established during my first Senate campaign: I will unilaterally limit the flow of PAC and out-of- state dollars to my campaign. Should this practice put me at an electoral disadvantage, so be it. Reliance on my constituents for the bulk of my campaign financing is a principle too important to me to let go of under any circumstances. I hope my colleagues will join me, not only in pursuing fundamental electoral reform that maintains respect for first amendment rights and strong relations between representatives and their constituents, but also in acting on these principles themselves in the immediate future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment 1911, please.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this point I send to the desk a modification of my amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about this amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and Senators Dodd and McCain. I believe this amendment will save many children's lives and prevent countless injuries. Last October, I introduced S. 1312, the Child Passenger Protection Act. This bill sought to provide $7.5 million to the U.S. Department of Transportation for each of the next two years for the purpose of awarding grants to State highway agencies and other public safety organizations which promote important safety information on the use of car seats. My amendment today, which has been cosponsored by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, is essentially identical to S.1312. We believe this amendment will encourage and expedite the dissemination of child safety seat information to parents and help save children's lives in the process. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the following alarming statistics. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 14 and under, accounting for more than 40 percent of all unintentional injury-related deaths. In 1995, nearly 1400 child occupants ages 14 and under died in motor vehicle crashes in this country. In 1996, more than 305,000 children ages 14 and under were injured as occupants in motor vehicle- related crashes. Because most motor vehicle safety features are designed for the comfort and protection of an adult-sized body, children are particularly at risk of death and injury during automobile crashes. However, child safety seats and safety belts, when installed and used correctly, can prevent injury and save lives. In fact, it is estimated that properly used child restraints in motor vehicles can reduce the chance of serious or fatal injury in a collision by a factor of 71% for infants and 54% for children ages 4 and under. Regrettably, Mr. President, results from regional child restraint clinics have indicated that currently between 70% and 90% of child occupant restraints are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused. Three weeks ago, in conjunction with Child Passenger Safety Week, a workshop was sponsored by local public safety officials in nearby Fairfax County, Virginia, to help educate parents on the proper installation and use of child safety restraints. According to a Washington, D.C. television affiliate that covered the event, of the 113 child safety seats that were inspected, only 2 were installed correctly! That is less than 2%! Mr. President, as the parents of three small children, my wife Jane and I have struggled with making sure that each of our children is properly positioned and safely secured while riding in vehicles. This is an issue that is near and dear to our hearts. That is why Jane and I have joined with the SAFE KIDS coalition back in our state of Michigan, to work on this problem. What we've learned is this: understanding which seat is age- and size-appropriate for your child and knowing how to install that seat--and how to properly secure the child in that seat--can be very confusing for parents. The amendment offered today by myself, Senator Dodd and Senator McCair is designed to help eliminate much of that confusion. Our amendment would provide $7.5 million for each of the next two fiscal years to the U.S. Department of Transportation for the purpose of awarding grants to State highway agencies and child passenger safety organizations who promote important safety information on the use of child safety seats. While national programs such as the Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign already exist to help instruct parents on the proper location for placing child safety seats in vehicles, there is currently no national program designed to instruct parents on how properly to install child safety seats or to secure children in those safety seats. This amendment will provide critical assistance for training public safety officials on the proper techniques for installing and using child safety seats while also providing invaluable public education through workshops, publications, and audio-visual aids. In conclusion, Mr. President, there is considerable--and mounting-- evidence concerning the high incidence of misuse of child safety seats and other restraint systems for children. There is also an incredibly compelling correlation between the improper use of child safety restraints in vehicles and an inordinately high rate of death and injury suffered by children in automobile crashes. Based on these factors, I believe it is imperative that we in Congress provide a relatively small amount of ``seed'' money to assist public safety officials, highway safety organizations, and child safety advocates in educating parents in the United States on the proper installation and use of safety seats and other restraints for children who are passengers in vehicles. As I said at the outset, the question is not whether such a program will save lives; the only question is how many young lives will it save. Mr. President, before I conclude, I would just like to acknowledge the role in this legislation played by Congresswoman Morella of Maryland, who introduced the original companion bill over in the other Chamber. She has been a leader in this area, and I look forward to working with her to keep this provision in the bill, as well as working with her in the future on other initiatives relating to child passenger safety. Mr. President, that said, let me also indicate very briefly the purpose of the modification which we entered here a few moments ago at the suggestion of Senator McCain. Basically, we have done three things. First, we modified the amendment so it conforms with the grant programs that are contained in the Commerce Committee's public safety provisions, specifically the new section 410 entitled ``Safety belts and occupant protection program.'' My amendment will now establish a new supplemental grant under section 410, where States can get assistance for establishing programs aimed at improving the practices of parents and public safety officials when it comes to ensuring the safety of child occupants. The basic grant contained in the Commerce Committee's amendment provides incentives for States to pass tougher laws for dealing with parents who fail to adequately safeguard their children in vehicles. My amendment would assist in educating them so that punishment is less necessary. That said, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, often times, as my State's Department of Transportation undertakes new highway projects, donations are offered in order to assist in the development of these projects. Up to now, these have been limited to those businesses, organizations, and individuals who believe the advancement of these projects will assist them. Their reasons could be that there will be economic growth resulting from this highway project that will directly benefit them, or that they wish to see a project develop in a certain direction that will be facilitated by the donation of this property, supplies or services. These donations can make the difference between whether or not the project is undertaken. Often times the amount of the federal funds are insufficient to complete the project, especially federally mandated projects. Because the value of the donation can be applied to the State's match requirement for federally funded projects, a donation like these can provide the funds necessary to not only meet the State's match, but provide the funds necessary to make up for insufficient federal funds. An example may better illustrate this point. A community in my state was designated for demonstration project to expand the capacity of a major artery through that city. However, the level of federal funding was only $15 million on a $25 million project. The normal state match for a project like this, $3 million, would still leave the community $7 million short of completing this project. However, this community has also acquired over $6 million in property rights of way along the project corridor. By donating this project, and allowing the value of this property, which has since increased in value to about $9 million, to be applied to the State match, the State could not only save the state match requirement of $3 million for other high priority projects, but apply the remainder to the deficit in federal funds, thereby allowing the federal funds to finally be utilized. The benefits of allowing these donations was realized by the drafters of section 323 of title 23, U.S. Code, by allowing any donations of property, supplies, services, or funds by ``a person'' could apply to a State's match requirements. However, the experience in my state has been that the Department of Transportation has determined that a local unit of government does not fit the legal definition of a ``person.'' I disagree with this interpretation, but that is the interpretation by the federal agency charged with executing these laws, and absent their reversing this interpretation, donations from these units of government cannot be fully leveraged for Michigan transportation needs. This could provide our states with significant increases in the highways dollars available. With just two examples of which I am aware of local units of government capable of donating property, goods, services or funds to complete highway projects, my state could save over $11 million in total project costs. These are funds that could be applied to other projects. So, in essence, these donations would be the same as increases in federal funding. Therefore, Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment in hopes that we can provide the equivalent of more money for our states, without having to actually spend more money. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment would be to correct this interpretation and to allow contributions made by local governments to be added to the group of contributions that have been already interpreted as counting toward a State match. I believe, again, this amendment has been agreed to on both sides. I urge its adoption.

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.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is perfectly agreeable to this Senator. If someone wants to move to lay aside this amendment and move back to Senator Brownback's, that will be fine.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his comments and, as I said earlier, for his many efforts. I would also like to offer an amendment to the committee amendment. Amendment No. 1955 to Amendment No. 1676 (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to credit for acquired lands)

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the International Bridge connects Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan with Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, providing a link for both the exchange of goods between the United States and Canada, as well as allowing commuters to traverse between these sister cities. Vehicle traffic averages over three million crossings a year, with commercial trucks increasing in the wake of NAFTA by 13 percent in the last year alone. U.S. Public Law 889 of 1940 authorized the State of Michigan, through the International Bridge Authority, to construct, maintain, and operate this toll bridge. The administration of this toll was specifically permitted by this act. However, the law also required that upon retiring the construction debt, the bridge would revert from the authority to the State of Michigan and the Province of Ontario. The debt from the original construction will be repaid in full in the year 2000. Negotiations are underway for the joint ownership treaty between Michigan and Ontario. The question is, however, what will happen to the toll when the debt is retired. It was previously believed that section 1012 of ISTEA resolved the toll issue at the federal level by specifying toll bridges could be eligible for federal funds. However, section 1012 covers only those crossings that have a toll agreement with the Federal Highway Administration and already fall under title 23. This cannot be applied, however, to the International Bridge. The International Bridge was financed with bonds independent of the Federal Highway Administration, and therefore instituted a toll agreement with the Federal Highway Administration. Because of this catch-22 situation in ISTEA, the International Bridge is therefore ineligible for federal funds under section 1012 of ISTEA, although similar toll bridges would be if they had financed the bridge through the FHWA. This becomes especially problematic as the bridge is expected to retire it's debt in 2000, and the bridge is turned over to Michigan and Ontario. Canada is not subject to this prohibition, and will continue to operate a toll after the debt is retired. For the United States to stop the toll on its side of the bridge after 2000 will place us in an unequal position vis-a-vis the Canadians, making negotiations for joint ownership more difficult. It will also deny the most secure funding source for maintenance, operations, and future capital improvements to the bridge. Finally, it will be nearly impossible to reestablish a toll once it has been discontinued, even if ostensibly for a short time. For those reasons, this amendment will try to address this anomaly and is needed to allow Michigan to more effectively enter into a new agreement with Ontario and cover the costs of the bridge during the transition. For those reasons, I believe the managers on both sides have cleared this amendment. I hope we can agree to it at this time.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1911. Mr. President, earlier today I spoke at some length about this amendment which involved making dollars available for educational efforts to try to better inform families as to how to properly use child passenger safety seats. We discussed it at some length, and at that time it had not been cleared on both sides. It is my understanding that it now has. I hope we can agree to it at this juncture.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the managers again for their working with us on this. Also, I would like to thank both the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee for their help and cooperation on behalf of Senators McCain and Dodd. We appreciate very much its inclusion in the legislation. I think it is an important step in the right direction. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important event which is taking place in the State of Michigan. The Chaldean-Detroit Times is celebrating eight years of service and dedication to the Detroit Arab community. At this time, this publication should be recognized for its commitment to strengthening the Chaldean community and cultural understanding. Friends and readers of the Chaldean-Detroit Times will gather for a banquet in celebration of its eight years of commitment to the community. This event will take place on the evening of Friday, March 20, 1998 at the Southfield Manor in Southfield, Michigan. Each of the individuals in attendance deserve special recognition for their support of the Chaldean-Detroit Times and the Chaldean community. I commend the Chaldean-Detroit Times on its 8th Anniversary and send my best wishes to Amir Denha and to the entire Chaldean community of Detroit.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise before you today to recognize Wesley A. Jones, of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Mr. Jones, has been honored by the Michigan Council of Deliberation Scholarship Foundation, an organization of which he is a member. Mr. Jones is being honored as an outstanding individual for his many business and civic contributions. Currently, Mr. Jones serves as Deputy for the Orient for Michigan. In addition, he serves as Deputy for Michigan for the United Supreme Council and is active in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Prince Hall Affiliation, Northern Jurisdiction and USA Inc. Mr. Jones should be commended for his community activism as well. He serves as an active member of his church, treasurer of the Grand Rapids Urban League Board of Directors and Chair of the Minority Business Committee of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce. His activity extends even beyond these organizations. Mr. Jones, an engineer and businessman is a father of six and grandfather of eight. It is quite apparent that Mr. Jones selflessly and freely gives of his time. I am pleased to recognize the good work of Wesley A. Jones. He has been rightfully honored by the Michigan Council of Deliberation Scholarship Foundation.