Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for the Adoption Promotion Awareness Act. This legislation will provide the means necessary to keep women fully informed concerning all their options regarding any unexpected pregnancy. Mr. President, each year more than a million couples eagerly await the opportunity to adopt a child. Unfortunately, only 50,000 domestic, nonrelated adoptions occur each year. That means that only 5 percent of American couples willing and able to open their hearts and homes to a child who needs them are able to do so. As a result, Mr. President, would-be parents often must wait several years for the opportunity to adopt a healthy child. For the anxious parents, the waiting seems to last an eternity. And their waiting is made even more tragic by the fact that only 4 percent of women in America choose adoption as an option for an unplanned pregnancy. We have hundreds of thousands of empty homes, waiting to welcome children who are never born. There are many reasons for the sharp disparity between the relatively limited number of children available for adoption and the growing number of families anxiously waiting to adopt a child. Crucial is the fact that many women are not provided adequate information about adoption when they are making the crucial decision of how to deal with an unexpected pregnancy. Too few women are fully informed concerning the adoption option. If we could get the news out to these women that couples are waiting with open arms to welcome their children into a loving home, more would chose to have their babies and release them for adoption. This is not mere speculation, Mr. President, it is supported by the facts. Michigan's private adoption agencies, for instance, report that 21 percent of the women seen for services decide to release their children for adoption. Studies have shown that women are more likely to choose adoption when clear, positive information is provided concerning that option. We know that providing information to women on adoption as a choice can increase the number of adoptions that occur each year and decrease the number of abortions. I believe that this is an important goal. For this reason, I have introduced, along with my colleague, Senator Landrieu, legislation that authorizes an Adoption Awareness Promotion Program. This program will provide $25 million in grants to be used for adoption promotion activity. It will also require recipients to contribute $25 million of in-kind donations. The total amount going to adoption promotion will, therefore, be $50 million. This amount will allow for a thorough information campaign to take place--reaching women all over the country. The legislation provides for grants to be used for public service announcements on prints, radio, TV, and billboards. Grants will also be provided for the development and distribution of brochures regarding adoption through federally funded title X clinics. These provisions will enable women to have accurate and clear information on adoption as an alternative when at a crucial point in their pregnancies. Further, the campaign will help to raise the level of awareness around the country about the importance of adoption. Mr. President, I believe that each and every one of us, whether pro- life or pro-choice, should be working to reduce the number of abortions that occur each year. Indeed, I have often heard on this floor that abortion should be ``safe, legal and rare.'' I take my colleagues at their word and urge them to join me in this voluntary information program; a program designed to inform women of all their choices regarding any unexpected pregnancy. Too many women in America feel abandoned and helpless in the face of an unexpected pregnancy. The father of the child may have left, the woman's family and friends even may desert her. Even those who stay with her may simply pressure her to end an embarrassing and troublesome situation. Too often, then, our women, in a vulnerable state, are left without full, unbiased information and guidance concerning their options. I think it is crucial in these circumstances that we keep these women fully informed of all their options--including the option of releasing their child into the arms of a welcoming couple, anxious to become loving parents. If we truly are committed to making every child a wanted child, Mr. President, I believe it is our duty to see to it that pregnant women know that there are couples out their who would love to care for their children. It is time for us, as a nation, to make clear our commitment to truly full information for expectant mothers, information that includes the availability of safe, loving homes for their children.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on an event that will be taking place in Detroit, MI, a little later on this morning. Unfortunately, because of our votes today, it was not possible for me to attend what will be the investiture of Eric Clay, of Michigan, to become a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I worked on behalf of Mr. Clay during the nomination process. It was a long and arduous one. Although his nomination was first sent up here in 1996, because of various factors we did not complete action on his nomination during the 104th Congress. Therefore, his nomination was sent up again at the beginning of the 105th Congress. Happily, after another hearing and after once again being able to seek and receive unanimous support on the Judiciary Committee, he was confirmed by the full Senate in July of this year. Mr. Clay has been an able advocate of his profession. He has been a very successful attorney. He is one of the cofounders of one of the Nation's largest minority-run law firms, and a very successful one in our State. He is well respected by people throughout the legal community. So, for those reasons and for a variety of others, I was delighted to support his nomination and to work for his confirmation. Unhappily, as I say, I will not be able to be at the investiture today, but I know his many friends and colleagues are with him and will celebrate his official swearing in to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As I indicated at the hearing, in any case where people might not necessarily agree, as we find ourselves perhaps occasionally in disagreement on matters that come before the court, or before the Senate for that matter, I think he will bring strength and competence. He served at one time as a clerk to Judge Damon Keith, who is currently on the sixth circuit and has just recently taken senior status. And, although not directly filling Judge Keith's spot, he, I am sure, will carry on Judge Keith's legacy on the bench and I think will be a fine advocate for the State of Michigan on the sixth circuit, and also, I think, will bring to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals a great deal of talent and will make a valuable contribution. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues' support for the Adoption Promotion Awareness Act. This legislation will provide the means necessary to keep women fully informed concerning all their options regarding any unexpected pregnancy. Mr. President, each year more than a million couples eagerly await the opportunity to adopt a child. Unfortunately, only 50,000 domestic, nonrelated adoptions occur each year. That means that only 5 percent of American couples willing and able to open their hearts and homes to a child who needs them are able to do so. As a result, Mr. President, would-be parents often must wait several years for the opportunity to adopt a healthy child. For the anxious parents, the waiting seems to last an eternity. And their waiting is made even more tragic by the fact that only 4 percent of women in America choose adoption as an option for an unplanned pregnancy. We have hundreds of thousands of empty homes, waiting to welcome children who are never born. There are many reasons for the sharp disparity between the relatively limited number of children available for adoption and the growing number of families anxiously waiting to adopt a child. Crucial is the fact that many women are not provided adequate information about adoption when they are making the crucial decision of how to deal with an unexpected pregnancy. Too few women are fully informed concerning the adoption option. If we could get the news out to these women that couples are waiting with open arms to welcome their children into a loving home, more would chose to have their babies and release them for adoption. This is not mere speculation, Mr. President, it is supported by the facts. Michigan's private adoption agencies, for instance, report that 21 percent of the women seen for services decide to release their children for adoption. Studies have shown that women are more likely to choose adoption when clear, positive information is provided concerning that option. We know that providing information to women on adoption as a choice can increase the number of adoptions that occur each year and decrease the number of abortions. I believe that this is an important goal. For this reason, I have introduced, along with my colleague, Senator Landrieu, legislation that authorizes an Adoption Awareness Promotion Program. This program will provide $25 million in grants to be used for adoption promotion activity. It will also require recipients to contribute $25 million of in-kind donations. The total amount going to adoption promotion will, therefore, be $50 million. This amount will allow for a thorough information campaign to take place--reaching women all over the country. The legislation provides for grants to be used for public service announcements on prints, radio, TV, and billboards. Grants will also be provided for the development and distribution of brochures regarding adoption through federally funded title X clinics. These provisions will enable women to have accurate and clear information on adoption as an alternative when at a crucial point in their pregnancies. Further, the campaign will help to raise the level of awareness around the country about the importance of adoption. Mr. President, I believe that each and every one of us, whether pro- life or pro-choice, should be working to reduce the number of abortions that occur each year. Indeed, I have often heard on this floor that abortion should be ``safe, legal and rare.'' I take my colleagues at their word and urge them to join me in this voluntary information program; a program designed to inform women of all their choices regarding any unexpected pregnancy. Too many women in America feel abandoned and helpless in the face of an unexpected pregnancy. The father of the child may have left, the woman's family and friends even may desert her. Even those who stay with her may simply pressure her to end an embarrassing and troublesome situation. Too often, then, our women, in a vulnerable state, are left without full, unbiased information and guidance concerning their options. I think it is crucial in these circumstances that we keep these women fully informed of all their options--including the option of releasing their child into the arms of a welcoming couple, anxious to become loving parents. If we truly are committed to making every child a wanted child, Mr. President, I believe it is our duty to see to it that pregnant women know that there are couples out their who would love to care for their children. It is time for us, as a nation, to make clear our commitment to truly full information for expectant mothers, information that includes the availability of safe, loving homes for their children.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation designed to increase the awareness and education of parents and public safety professionals with respect to the proper use and installation of child safety seats. This legislation, the Child Passenger Protection Act of 1997, is nearly identical to legislation introduced in the other Chamber earlier this year by the gentlewoman from Maryland, Representative Morella. It would make $7.5 million [i.e., seven point five million] dollars available to the Secretary of Transportation in each of the next two fiscal years--FY'98 and '99--for the purpose of assisting State highway agencies, police departments, and child passenger safety organizations in setting up and promoting such programs. To receive funding under this bill, a program must focus on preventing death and injury to children under the age of 5 years old. The program must educate the public about all aspects of the proper installation of child restraints using seat belt hardware and other supplemental hardware or modification devices. The program must also educate the public with respect to the appropriate child restraint design selection and placement as well as harness threading and harness adjustment. Finally, the program must train and retrain child passenger safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and other educators concerning all aspects of child restraint use. As the parents of three children under the age of 5, all of whom still ride in child car safety seats, my wife and I can attest to the fact that these considerations require a great deal of attention. My wife Jane serves as Honorary Chairperson of the Detroit SAFE KIDS Coalition and has been deeply involved in the issue of car seat safety for some time, along with a number of other child protection advocacy issues. This past Labor Day, I was the sponsor of a Senate resolution that provided permission to the National SAFE KIDS Coalition to use the Capitol Building grounds for the kickoff event of the National SAFE KIDS Buckle Up Campaign. The entire Abraham family participated in this event. Our family has filmed Public Service Announcements on this issue for the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and we are planning to sponsor and to participate in car seat safety check events in the coming months back in Michigan. Based on our shared experience, I can assure my colleagues that there is often tremendous confusion among both parents and public safety personnel when it comes to the proper selection, installation and use of child restraint devices in motor vehicles. Results from regional child restraint clinics demonstrated between 70 and 90 percent of child restraints are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused, which is often caused by the complication and wide variety in seat belt and child restraint designs. And while there are several public-private partnership programs which exist that focus on the dangers of air bags and the proper placement of children in cars equipped with air bags, many of these programs fall short of specifically educating parents and public safety officials on the proper methods for installing and using child safety seats. It is my hope that we can focus the country's attention on this serious problem and, in the process, prevent needless death and injury among young children. While this legislation alone will by no means solve the problem, I believe it is a positive step towards better educating parents and public safety officials on this important public safety issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation designed to increase the awareness and education of parents and public safety professionals with respect to the proper use and installation of child safety seats. This legislation, the Child Passenger Protection Act of 1997, is nearly identical to legislation introduced in the other Chamber earlier this year by the gentlewoman from Maryland, Representative Morella. It would make $7.5 million [i.e., seven point five million] dollars available to the Secretary of Transportation in each of the next two fiscal years--FY'98 and '99--for the purpose of assisting State highway agencies, police departments, and child passenger safety organizations in setting up and promoting such programs. To receive funding under this bill, a program must focus on preventing death and injury to children under the age of 5 years old. The program must educate the public about all aspects of the proper installation of child restraints using seat belt hardware and other supplemental hardware or modification devices. The program must also educate the public with respect to the appropriate child restraint design selection and placement as well as harness threading and harness adjustment. Finally, the program must train and retrain child passenger safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and other educators concerning all aspects of child restraint use. As the parents of three children under the age of 5, all of whom still ride in child car safety seats, my wife and I can attest to the fact that these considerations require a great deal of attention. My wife Jane serves as Honorary Chairperson of the Detroit SAFE KIDS Coalition and has been deeply involved in the issue of car seat safety for some time, along with a number of other child protection advocacy issues. This past Labor Day, I was the sponsor of a Senate resolution that provided permission to the National SAFE KIDS Coalition to use the Capitol Building grounds for the kickoff event of the National SAFE KIDS Buckle Up Campaign. The entire Abraham family participated in this event. Our family has filmed Public Service Announcements on this issue for the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and we are planning to sponsor and to participate in car seat safety check events in the coming months back in Michigan. Based on our shared experience, I can assure my colleagues that there is often tremendous confusion among both parents and public safety personnel when it comes to the proper selection, installation and use of child restraint devices in motor vehicles. Results from regional child restraint clinics demonstrated between 70 and 90 percent of child restraints are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused, which is often caused by the complication and wide variety in seat belt and child restraint designs. And while there are several public-private partnership programs which exist that focus on the dangers of air bags and the proper placement of children in cars equipped with air bags, many of these programs fall short of specifically educating parents and public safety officials on the proper methods for installing and using child safety seats. It is my hope that we can focus the country's attention on this serious problem and, in the process, prevent needless death and injury among young children. While this legislation alone will by no means solve the problem, I believe it is a positive step towards better educating parents and public safety officials on this important public safety issue. 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 address the direction of our country's relationship with the People's Republic of China. As we speak, the Clinton administration is busily preparing for next week's state visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin. A state visit is the most formal and ceremonial diplomatic event hosted by the United States. It involves champagne receptions and flattering toasts. While United States-Chinese relations are crucial and important for both countries, I believe it would be inappropriate for President Clinton to welcome the Chinese leader in a state visit at this time. The United States, the world's leading free nation, should not give a red carpet welcome to China's Communist leadership until we see greater strides on human rights, religious freedom and other issues in that country. Rather than a ceremonial visit, we should be holding a working visit with the Chinese leadership, concentrating on the very real issues which exist between our two nations. In my view, the President should put specific demands on the Chinese leadership, calling for improved human rights policies and an end to weapons proliferation. 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. The President's own State Department Report on Human Rights confirms these allegations. And recent claims by the Chinese Government that Catholics in particular are few in number and not mistreated have been directly contradicted by the Vatican. According to the Vatican news agency, Chinese reports simply ignore the existence of 8 million Catholics loyal to the Pope, as well as China's violent actions in closing down secret churches and arresting religious leaders. China also has engaged in weapons proliferation that endangers our national security. Although China signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agreed to abide by the terms of the Missile Technology Control Regime in 1992, violations of both agreements continue. Especially worrisome are Chinese sales of weapons technologies to countries which are trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, countries which America regards as rogue nations. Chinese weapons exports also have more directly threatened Americans here on United States soil. Companies associated with China's Communist People's Liberation Army the PLA, have been caught attempting to sell smuggled assault weapons to street gangs in Los Angeles. The Clinton administration's response to these dangerous actions, in my judgment, has been inadequate to say the least. Last December, the administration welcomed China's Defense Minister, Gen. Chi Haotian, to Washington. Mr. Chi was one of the People's Liberation Army officers who led the military assault against the citizens of the Chinese capital on June 4, 1989--the massacre in Tiananmen Square. Now the administration wants to welcome President Jiang with pomp and circumstance. These actions indicate that, where China is concerned, what we have is not a policy of constructive engagement, but one of unconditional engagement. By agreeing to this state visit without receiving any significant concession on human rights, religious freedom and weapons proliferation, the administration may be squandering its strongest source of leverage with Beijing. None of this is to recommend cutting off all dialog between the United States and China. Again, I would not object to having a visit for working-level purposes. But I feel the symbolism of a state visit is inappropriate given the current situation in China and our fundamental disagreements. For this reason, I have cosponsored a resolution, with Senators Feingold and Helms, to downgrade the upcoming event from a state visit to a working visit. And I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution as well. We must work, Mr. President, to put United States-China relations on a more substantive basis. And that requires hard work and tough negotiations. The President must call for specific actions on the part of the Chinese leadership that will improve that country's treatment of its own people and stop its destabilizing activities in the world at large. According to the Wall Street Journal, ``[China] doesn't plan to discuss issues such as human rights'' at this upcoming conference. A Chinese Embassy spokesman even said ``we do not welcome'' advice on such matters. But, welcome or not, President Clinton must insist that China's leaders address crucial issues like human rights. Indeed, in my view, the administration has a moral duty to press a whole host of issues on the Chinese Government that it may not welcome, but that are of great importance to the people of China, to the United States, and to the world. Specifically, I believe President Clinton should demand: First, that the Chinese Government dismantle nonreciprocal tariff and nontariff barriers to American exports to China, and stop the continued export to the United States of products made with prison labor; Second, that the Chinese Government cease persecuting Chinese Christians, as well as members of other religious faiths, and release all persons incarcerated for their religious or other human rights related activities; Third, that China end its coercive family planning practices, including its practice of forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide; Fourth, that the Chinese Government stop its activities leading to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and advanced ballistic missile technology; and Fifth, that the Chinese Government stop its evasion of United States export control and other laws. Mr. President, by making these demands on the Chinese Government, the President would put in place the structure needed for a coherent China policy; a policy aimed at protecting our national interests and improving human rights conditions in China. In addition, I believe it is crucial that the President express his determination to uphold and fully implement the Taiwan Relations Act. This act provides the framework for strong economic and security relations between the United States and the democratic government of Taiwan. Full implementation will show our commitment to freedom in the Asian-Pacific region. If no progress is made through these means, Mr. President, Congress must act. If the Chinese leadership is not willing to make significant reforms on its own, we must pass legislation targeting its improper activities. In preparation for that contingency, I have joined with a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the China Policy Act of 1997. This legislation will set in motion a policy that will encourage the Chinese Government to reform its human rights policies, and end its sales of arms and weapons technology to renegade regimes like Iran. To begin with, Mr. President, the bill contains targeted sanctions aimed directly at Chinese companies that engage in weapons and weapons technology proliferation. The bill would institute targeted sanctions against PLA companies found to have engaged in weapons proliferation, illegal importation of weapons to the United States or military or political espionage in the United States. The U.S. Government also would publish a list of other PLA-controlled companies. This would allow American companies and consumers to decide whether they wish to purchase products manufactured in whole or in part by the Communist Chinese Army. As important, the bill includes provisions to encourage internal liberalization and cultural exchanges between our two countries. It would increase funding for international broadcasting to China, including Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. It also would increase funding for National Endowment for Democracy and the United States Information Agency student, cultural, and legislative exchange programs in China. The bill would contain a variety of other provisions likewise aimed at trying to address the concerns on a targeted basis, Mr. President, as opposed to the approach which has been taken, in my judgment, for too long, an approach which has focused exclusively on the issue of most-favored-nation treaty status with respect to the relationship between the United States and China. I think the proper way to address the concerns that many of us have is to focus on the specific concerns themselves and to impose, if appropriate, sanctions with regard to those concerns on a targeted basis. I firmly believe that it is America's duty as well as our interest to make the extra effort required to promote freedom and democracy 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 Government of the People's Republic of China bring itself into compliance with international standards on human rights and religious freedom. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I also thank the Presiding Officer for giving this Senator the opportunity to speak at this point as opposed to presiding. I appreciate his consideration.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like today to speak briefly about an issue that pertains in large measure to the Subcommittee on Immigration, which I chair. In the last several months, a number of incidents have come to our attention involving the pursuit by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of aliens, sometimes legal immigrants with American citizen spouses and children, for deportation based on one crime committed years ago. These crimes have on occasion been crimes like forgery, and some individuals have apparently been pursued where they did not even have a conviction. I would like to make a few brief remarks on this because I, along with Republicans and Democrats, made efforts last Congress through the illegal immigration bill to improve the INS' poor record of removing deportable criminal aliens. Our goal was to deport convicted criminal aliens starting with the thousands currently serving in our jails and prisons. I believe that law-abiding people, not hardened criminals, should be filling our priceless immigration slots. Yet, until last year's bill, only a tiny percentage of deportable criminal aliens were actually being deported. This happened because of a number of weaknesses in the immigration enforcement system. First, there were only very limited efforts to identify deportable criminal aliens, particularly in our State and local prison systems. This meant that the INS was not even learning about the vast majority of deportable criminal aliens. Second, where deportable criminal aliens were identified and where deportation proceedings were begun, those aliens were frequently released into the community and, not surprisingly, were never heard from again. Finally, in those rare instances in which deportation proceedings were begun and criminal aliens were detained, they were able to take advantage of delaying tactics and loopholes in our immigration law to significantly increase their chances of staying in the country or, at a minimum, lengthening their stays. In addition, the INS was often limited in its ability to remove criminal aliens due to the definition of deportable crimes under the old laws. Given the reality of the plea bargaining process, we wanted to broaden INS's ability to deport serious criminals who should be deported where they might have pled down to a lesser offense. We took steps to address each of these flaws in the system. We increased INS's resources so they could identify deportable criminal aliens. We enhanced detention requirements to reduce the risk of flight. We removed criminals' abilities to delay deportation, and we closed loopholes in our immigration laws. We also increased the number of crimes for which criminal aliens could be deported, both to reflect the realities of our criminal justice system and to enhance the INS's abilities to go after hardcore criminals who should not be permitted to remain in the country. Through all of this, we had assumed that the INS would focus their limited resources and manpower on deporting more serious criminals who had more recently committed crimes, especially those currently in prison. However, either because of an inability to set priorities, difficulty in interrelating the many different sections of the new immigration bill, or a combination of both, the INS seems to be pursuing some seemingly minor cases aggressively--by even, we are told, combing closed municipal court cases and old probation records--while letting some hardened criminals in jail go free. Accordingly, I will be conducting investigative hearings of the Immigration Subcommittee to determine why this is happening and what is needed to clearly establish the right priorities. This particularly concerns me given the INS's continuing inability to detain and process deportable criminal aliens despite all the enhanced enforcement authority we gave them in last year's immigration bill. Let me speak for a moment about a report issued just last month by the inspector general of the Department of Justice, which provides just one example of the troubling concerns about the INS's handling of criminal aliens. The inspector general's report dealt only with the Krome detention facility in Miami, which has attracted a great deal of attention and which ought to be one of the better run detention facilities at this point. While the IG's report covered a wide range of issues at that facility, what he found with respect to the release of criminal aliens is quite disturbing. For example, the inspector general found that from a sample of 28 criminal aliens released into the community in June of 1997, 9 of the 28 had ``known criminal records or indications of potential serious criminal history'' and 4 of the 28 had ``insufficient evidence in the files to indicate a criminal history check was even performed before release,'' something the INS's written policies require. Here are some of those aliens that INS released: A criminal alien who was convicted in 1994 of conspiracy to commit aggravated child abuse and third-degree murder in connection with the killing of a 5-year-old child. She had committed bank fraud in 1982, and her INS file clearly indicated that she had been convicted of an aggravated felony. She was released by the INS this past June without deportation proceedings being initiated. Another alien was convicted in 1988 of cocaine trafficking, an aggravated felony, and was imprisoned in Florida. In 1994 the alien was processed by the INS and released on his own recognizance. Deportation proceedings were never completed. Although the INS served him with a warrant for arrest in June of 1997, they released him on bond the next day. Yet another alien had several convictions in 1992 related to drugs, tax evasion and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. In 1982 the alien had entered the country without proper documentation and was placed into exclusion proceedings but was not detained. He only came to the INS's attention again after the 1992 convictions. As a result of those convictions, he was initially sentenced to 12 years in Federal prison, which was later reduced to 88 months. In June of 1997 he was taken into custody by the INS upon his release from Federal prison. Unfortunately, once again the INS just let him go. He was released the same month. These are just a few examples, but they highlight the urgent need for oversight into the identification and removal of deportable criminal aliens. We simply must ensure that our immigration priorities are set properly so we can guarantee that dangerous and deportable criminal aliens are not permitted to remain on our streets and in our communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Immigration Subcommittee to address these issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I appreciate being recognized.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Jerry Linenger and his wife Kathryn and sons John and Jeffrey as they celebrate their homecoming to Eastpointe, MI. Astronaut Jerry Linenger has traveled a little farther than just the ends of the Earth. Having been a crewmember of STS-64 aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery and the recent STS-81 and STS-84 missions of the Space Shuttle Atlantis, and a resident aboard the Russian Mir Space Station, Dr. Linenger has logged a total of 142 days in outerspace, clearly, he exemplifies the spirit of a modern-day American pioneer. Dr. Linenger has made a profession of reaching for the stars, and now spends much of his time sharing his experience with the people of Michigan and of this great Nation. By bringing the stars to Earth, Dr. Linenger has inspired young minds to look beyond their immediate surroundings and has offered them a vision of an even greater future. Tonight, there is no doubt a young Dr. Linenger in the audience. As a graduate of East Detroit High School, at one time walking in your shoes, he has shown us what can happen with hard work and commitment toward a goal. I encourage you to view Dr. Linenger's accomplishments with the thought in mind that you too may someday share the same experience. With all of his educational, personal and professional accomplishments, Dr. Linenger has truly proven to be an American hero for his family, friends, all citizens of Michigan, especially the citizens of the city of Eastpointe. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I congratulate Dr. Linenger and his family and wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, late last month, the Subcommittee on Manufacturing and Competitiveness held a hearing to examine the impact of EPA's new air quality standards on American manufacturing, especially small manufacturers. On July 18 of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new air quality standards that call for more severe restrictions on ground-level ozone and microscopic dust particles called particulate matter. These new standards are the most far- reaching--and potentially the most costly--regulatory mandates implemented in U.S. history. Despite the administration's having promulgated these regulations, I believe a number of questions remain unanswered. To begin with, are these standards necessary? It seems clear that the scientific community is not of one mind on the EPA's new standards. Indeed, from the reading I have done it seems clear that a substantial amount of scientific evidence exists to the effect that the new rules will have negligible positive impact whatsoever on the public health. Not even the EPA's own Science Advisory Committee could conclude that public health would be substantially improved by adopting new standards more stringent than those already in effect. Moreover, Kay Jones, President Jimmy Carter's top air quality adviser, says there are serious flaws in the studies cited by the EPA to justify these new regulatory mandates. Nevertheless, the EPA wants Americans to incur substantial costs in implementing their new standards. By the EPA's own estimate, implementing the new standards will cost Americans almost $50 billion. And that estimate is very low if we are to believe some of the estimates made by other organizations. The highly regarded Reason Foundation, as an example, has determined that the costs of the new clean air rules should be conservatively pegged at $122 billion. If this figure is correct, then the economic cost of EPA's new regulations will wipe out the entire economic benefit of the tax relief that we just enacted for America. In my judgment, this would not bode well for our Nation's financial health, or for the economic well-being of our working families. We must also keep in mind that there are alternative means by which we can save lives. Taking the EPA's own estimates, the new standards will save the equivalent of 1,100 lives, at a cost of $2,400,000 per life year saved. Meanwhile, universal influenza vaccination would save 7,100,000 equivalent lives at a cost of only $140 per life year saved. And mammography for women over 50, an issue which many Members of this Senate have been personally involved with, would save 1,500,000 equivalent lives at a cost of $810 per life year saved. This is according to an article in the journal ``Risk Analysis'' by a group of researchers led by Dr. Tengs. These discrepancies in lives saved and programs' bang for the buck if you will, should not be ignored. Furthermore, if the Reason Foundation cost estimate is correct, 70,000 Michiganites could lose their jobs under these new regulations. Many of those jobs--well-paying, blue-collar jobs--would be in my State's crucial manufacturing sector. That is one reason the president of Flint's United Auto Workers Local 599, Arthur McGee, testified in opposition to the new standards. UAW Local 599 notes that workers at the Buick complex in that city already are fighting for their jobs. In a full page advertisement taken out in the Wall Street Journal, Local 599 proclaims that by working carefully, quickly, and efficiently, these workers have earned for themselves and their families a ``healthy way of life for their families and their community.'' Good pay, good health care benefits, and safe neighborhoods, all of which promote healthy children, would be lost if the new EPA standards forced plant closings in Flint. After evaluating the new standards and their potential impact, UAW Local 599 has concluded, ``Poverty is more dangerous to our children than the current low levels of air pollution.'' However, perhaps most surprising, some of the latest studies actually show that many more jobs would be lost in the service than in the manufacturing sector. Dry cleaning establishments, hair salons, and other small businesses will not be able to absorb the increased costs imposed by these regulations. According to Decision Focus, leading environmental policy consultants, compliance with the new ozone and particulate levels will cost 200,000 jobs nationwide, with the bulk of the loss occurring in small service and retail businesses. This kind of job loss would cause a particular problem for this Nation's larger urban areas. I worry when I hear Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, say that ``EPA's new rules will create such an air of economic uncertainty that they might well be the last straw for inner-city investments.'' In my view, Mr. Alford's warning should lead us to proceed very cautiously. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the EPA to demonstrate conclusively that the costs to be borne, in particular by our job creating enterprises, can be borne without significant damage to those businesses and to our workers. It also seems to me that this burden, in the case of these regulations, is considerable. The effects of the clean air standards, however, will not be limited to America's cities. There are a number of reports that the new regulations may bar farmers from plowing during the dry summer months for fear of stirring up dust, that is, particulate matter. The EPA has signaled farmers that they need not worry about complying with the rules, but it is the States, not EPA, that will have the burden of controlling emissions and targeting their sources. And this begs a separate question: Who will bear the costs if the EPA, in order to quell likely opposition, keeps telling various groups that they needn't worry about complying with the new rules? Many within the agriculture community fear that much of these likely costs--increased energy and fuel expenses--will be borne by them. As one witness, a member of the Kansas Farm Bureau, testified, many U.S. commodity prices are tied to world markets, so farmers will not be able to pass these costs on to consumers and could be forced to concede some crop production to foreign competitors. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector fears that small businessowners will lack the resources to pay the cost of expensive pollution reduction equipment and will be unwilling or unable to comply with still more regulations. Most experts acknowledge that heavy industries will likely face significant additional regulatory controls to reduce NOx and other particulates. Small business owners, however, maintain they will shoulder a similarly heavy load because they typically lack the technical expertise and the financial and human resources to consistently engage with State officials to shape the outcome of emissions control plans. During the hearing, two different small businessowners testified that the new standards could result in a dramatic reduction in business expansion--or stop it altogether--in many U.S. cities. These owners admitted that they were unlikely to go out of business as a result of the NAAQS, but they noted that their increased costs could be reflected in reduced hiring and the reduction, or elimination, of some employee benefits. We are all concerned with making our country a more healthy place for our children and grandchildren to live. The key is striking a responsible balance. Not only should our children have clean air, clean water, and safe food in their future, they must also have good jobs, high wages, and good benefits, and a robust economy waiting for them when they grow up, enter the work force, and start their own families. The new air quality standards have been the subject of intense scrutiny and often acrimonious debate over the course of this year. In the face of such uncertainty, I believe it is incumbent upon the administration to consider again its plans for enacting these regulations. The current implementation process seeks to give the Nation ample time to adjust to the new standards. I applaud the President for this approach: It is a step in the right direction. However, I believe EPA's implementation plan will last only as long as the first lawsuit and result in the immediate enforcement of the new standards. If, as the President says, these new standards are not intended to harm this Nation's economy then I urge the President to support the legislation offered in both the House and the Senate to codify a 5-year delay of the regulations. This postponement will allow for continued research into the cause and effects of pollution and allow the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act to continue to clean the air and make the effects of any future new standards less drastic. I hope that other Members will join in urging the administration to consider this approach. These are my concerns. I am worried about my children's health and want to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect it. But I am also concerned whether the new rules represent the best means by which we can protect that health.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against cloture on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation. As a supporter of campaign finance reform, I have previously outlined the standards which any reform legislation MUST meet in order to gain my support. In addition, I insist that there be some objectives which should be evident in any reform bill. The McCain-Feingold bill, unfortunately, falls short of reaching both of these standards, thus I voted against cloture. First in the ``must'' category is that any reform legislation must be consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Mr. President I could not support McCain-Feingold because some provisions of the bill would establish prior restraint on political speech. Specifically, section 201 of the bill which seeks to redefine ``express advocacy'' raises serious constitutional questions and would in my judgement fall short of the constitutional standard established in Buckley Valeo (1976), the landmark case on campaign finance reform. Second in the ``must'' category is that the legislation must not impede or intrude on the prerogatives of the states and local units of government with respect to how they conduct political campaigns. Mr. President, there are provisions in the McCain-Feingold legislation that will limit the ability of the state and local political party committees to conduct legitimate election activity. Moreover, I feel that as presently constituted, McCain-Feingold would set in motion a process which ultimately would result in even further intrusion of state and local government election law. Any campaign finance reform legislation must also, in my judgement, maintain a proper balance between the first amendment rights of the actual candidates and the political parties they represent and the rights of those who are not directly in the arena. Unfortunately, McCain-Feingold tilts the balance strongly in the direction of special interest groups. As these special interest groups grow in dominance, they simultaneously diminish the roles of the candidates and political parties. This, Mr. President, is not the way our founding fathers envisioned that our democratic electoral system would conduct itself. Candidates, political parties and interest groups should all be able to participate in the electoral system under the first amendment, however one entity should not be able to dominate the political speech arena. Otherwise, Mr. President we will end up with a system in which the candidates themselves are more bystanders than participants and in which the various interest groups on all sides of all the issues are doing all of the talking. Furthermore, any campaign reform legislation we pass must be balanced. I believe that McCain-Feingold was not balanced and clearly contained provisions that would protect and enhance the ability of the Democratic Party to raise funds from its traditional sources, while disproportionately limiting the ability of the Republican Party to conduct itself. Finally Mr. President, to have my support, any new campaign finance legislation must address what I find in my state to be the most disturbing aspect of the way American federal elections are funded: namely, the increasing extent to which the campaigns of candidates for the House and Senate are financially supported by people who are not even constituents of the candidates themselves. McCain-Feingold does not even address this problem. There was no attempt in this bill to limit out of state or non-constituent contributions to a candidate. As I mentioned previously, I do support reforming the method by which our federal campaigns are financed. Any campaign finance reform bill I support must be consistent with the Constitution, not impede on local and state government prerogatives, affect both parties fairly and equally, and address the problem of special interest, out-of-state money. Unfortunately, the McCain-Feingold legislation failed to meet these tests and, therefore, did not have my support. While Congress will continue to work on this issue, I feel it is unnecessary to wait for legislation before those of us who are concerned take action. In fact, during my campaign in 1994, I voluntarily imposed my own limits on the flow of PAC and out-of-state dollars to my campaign. Instead of simply waiting around for Congress to act, I will continue to observe voluntary caps and encourage other Members to act themselves in ways they might choose to address concerns they have with our system. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise in honor of the 41st anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution. On October 19, the Hungarian- American community will commemorate that fall day in 1956 when Hungarians attempted to throw off the shackles of oppression and gain freedom. In an era of Soviet domination, the brave citizens of Hungary rose against the Communist regime. Although the revolution was unsuccessful, it set a precedent that the Hungarian people wanted freedom. It was not until some 30 years later, with the reforms of the late 1980's, that Hungary greatly increased freedom. The most dramatic example occurred in May 1989 when the border between Austria and Hungary was opened. Thousands streamed across and spontaneous celebrations broke out on both sides of the border as Hungarians displayed their freedom to the world. A few years ago on a fall day in November, the entire world watched the most imposing symbol of the cold war tumble down. The Berlin Wall had been torn asunder. Had those individuals so many years ago not stood against the tanks that rumbled through the streets of Budapest, the momentous occasion in Berlin might not have occurred. Their bravery proved that freedom cannot be suppressed. I am proud of the Hungarian-American community's continual efforts to foster relationships of goodwill. These efforts will go far in enhancing and promoting the community's image and understanding throughout the United States and beyond. We can all be proud of these efforts.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to comment on an issue which concerns my home State of Michigan and the entire country. It seems as though every year another study is published which concludes American children are behind other nations of the world in subjects such as math and science. Often, when concern is expressed with such findings a more basic issue is overlooked: literacy. From the youngest schoolchild to the most senior adult, I believe everyone should be able to read and write. Besides serving as the foundation of education, reading provides new opportunities and expands horizons. Through reading, an individual can visit exotic lands, travel in time, participate in fantastic adventures, and learn of events happening in both their hometown and around the globe. Reading allows a person to soar, with only their imagination to limit them. As the father of three young children, one of my favorite activities is reading a story to my children, or as the older ones now do, read the story to me. Helping a child learn to read is one of the most pleasurable activities I know. Ensuring America's children are literate is one of the most important goals this Nation should have. Rather than involving the heavy hand of the Federal Government, I believe local governments are in the best position to accomplish this goal. But, I also think the Federal Government has a role in helping to eradicate illiteracy from among the Nation's youth. For this reason, Congress has allocated $260 million to the Department of Education to disburse to the states for carrying out a child literacy initiative beginning in October 1998. I strongly believe every child in America should be literate. However, we cannot and must not concern ourselves solely with the young. It is a sad fact that many adults across the country do not possess the ability to read and write. While some individuals have rudimentary skills, many cannot read well enough to fill out a job application. Without these needed skills, advancement in the workplace is almost impossible. Fortunately, Congress is taking strong steps toward remedying this problem. Presently, Federal adult literacy programs have been funded at over $350 million. Given to States in the form of grants, these funds help provide community-based agencies with the money necessary to reduce and hopefully eliminate illiteracy. In recognition of the efforts to educate both children and adults, I join in honoring those individuals who dedicate themselves to this noble pursuit. I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my appreciation for their hard work, and encourage my colleagues to demonstrate their support of National Literacy Month.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Ottawa County, MI, for moving all, by which I mean a full 100 percent, of its welfare recipients to work. As in so many other things, Ottawa County should be an inspiration to us all as we seek fundamental welfare reform that will end dependence on government by putting people in real jobs with real futures. When we debated welfare reform in this Chamber, there were those who said that returning greater welfare policy control to our States and localities would produce only hardship and failure. The naysayers claimed that healthy people on welfare could not or would not take jobs--or that jobs could not be found for them. The naysayers claimed that America's local communities lacked the resources and the compassion to meet the challenge of helping welfare recipients end their dependence on government and work their way into decent jobs and an independent life. The naysayers claimed it would be cruel to impose work requirements and limit benefits because this would simply hurt the self-esteem of recipients and take food out of the mouths of their children. Compassion, they claimed, dictated the status quo. Well, Mr. President, Ottawa County has proved the naysayers wrong. The good people of Holland and surrounding communities in Ottawa County have shown what real compassion can do. Real compassion--compassion aimed at helping people rebuild productive, independent lives--works. It has worked in Ottawa County and it can work throughout our country if we will give our States and local communities the freedom they need to put their compassion in action. Welfare numbers fluctuate and new applications are filed all the time, but Ottawa County last month reached the point where none of its residents was receiving a welfare check without earning some income. How did Ottawa County accomplish this? By expecting more of people. By instituting work requirements. By doing everything necessary to make work available for welfare recipients. And by tapping into the vast reservoir of skill and good will available in our faith-based charities. Ottawa County is in a particularly good position from which to deal with welfare issues. Its Dutch and German communities are, in the words of one USA Today reporter ``infused with conservative values and a strong work ethic.'' They have produced a thriving economy with a low unemployment rate. They also have opened their arms to recent immigrants, including a significant number of Asians and Hispanics, and have set about, in a determined manner, to give welfare recipients a chance to work. The rare combination of hard work and generosity we in Michigan have come to expect of the people of Ottawa County once again has produced great results. County officials have contracted to expand subsidized day care for working and job-seeking mothers. The county also hired a firm to provide 24-hour shuttle buses to take welfare recipients to work. And they hired Kan Du Industries, a local picture-frame manufacturer that also runs vocational programs for the disabled, to provide training and help in job placement skills. The county has engaged in a truly comprehensive effort to help people become self-supporting. The State of Michigan also deserves credit for this accomplishment. Through its Project Zero, Michigan has spent more than $5 million in Ottawa County to provide transportation, mentoring, and day-care services to help welfare recipients get and keep jobs. But this is not just a handout. Those who refuse to comply with work requirements have their welfare checks cut by 25 percent, and face the prospect of losing aid altogether if they do not find work in 3 months. Mr. President, this policy has worked. It has gotten people off welfare and into jobs. It has changed lives. Particularly effective has been Ottawa County's decision to look to local churches for help. For example, a cover story in USA Today reports on Maria Gonzalez. Miss Gonzalez went through a painful divorce, two out-of-wedlock births, a breakdown, and homelessness, all before she reached the age of 27. Then, according to the newspaper, she ``found salvation . . . Through an increasingly common government ally: the church.'' Miss Gonzalez receives assistance from the State. State programs helped her find work and continue to give aid in the form of day care and transportation to and from work. But, as a struggling, working mother of four, she has emotional needs as well. That is why Ottawa County paired her with Jan Tuls, a mentor from Calvary Christian Reformed Church. Miss Gonzalez continues to attend her own Pentecostal Church--no one has tried to change her faith. But the guidance she has received from Jan Tuls makes her believe that Miss Tuls is ``more of a mom to me than my own.'' Or take the case of Sylvia Ornelas. Mrs. Ornelas moved herself and her four children to Holland 6 months ago, in the midst of severe marital difficulties. As a front page story in the Washington Post tells the story, Mrs. Ornelas went to the local welfare office. But instead of simply a check, Holland gave her a community of friends and mentors. Neighbors took her children shopping for school clothes. Executives for a local manufacturer helped her find work. Bob and Mary Ann Baker bought her a used car to get around. Ginny Weerstra helped her find an apartment. Parishioners at Hardewyk Reformed Christian Church took up a collection to get her phone installed, and when her husband reentered her life, Pastor Andrew Gorter provided the couple with marital counselling. Or take Gloria Garcia. This 27-year old mother of five young children was homeless and jobless when her caseworker asked if she would like to be coupled with mentors from one of the area churches. Miss Garcia agreed, and parishioners at Hardewyk Christian Reformed Church stepped in to help. Miss Garcia had lost her job because she had missed too many days of work in caring for her children. Ginny Weerstra, a parishioner at Hardewyk, put a call in to the temporary employment service at which Miss Garcia had worked and asked that she be given a second chance. Now that she had people behind her, willing to sit for her children when necessary, Miss Garcia was rehired, and has been working full time since September. The church also lent Miss Garcia $2,000--since paid back--for bad debts, and sent a parishioner who is an auto mechanic to help her buy a used car. Parishioners even helped Miss Garcia find an affordable home. And these are not isolated incidents, Mr. President. Literally hundreds of residents of Ottawa County have been helped off welfare by a community committed to helping them rebuild their lives. A community that has been freed to call on its churches, to implement innovative day care, transportation, and job training and placement programs by our welfare reform legislation. A community that knows that neighbors can do far more to help people in need than a simple check from the government. The close-knit relationships fostered in communities like Holland, Mr. President, are helping welfare recipients find their way to a better life--to stable jobs, stable homes, and the stable habits needed to keep both together. State-fostered training centers can provide job skills, but it takes a more personal relationship to spur the drive to pull one's life together in the way needed to lead a good, settled life. It is my hope, Mr. President, that other States will follow Michigan's example in sponsoring programs like Project Zero. The result would be a more stable and prosperous America. It is my hope that we will protect and expand our welfare reforms so that Ottawa County can become an example followed by communities all over the country. Already today, Ottawa is not the only site involved in Project Zero. Five other sites--Alpena, Menominee, and Midland Counties and Romulus and Tireman in Wayne County all have participated in Project Zero. And all have seen significant progress in getting people off of welfare and into good jobs. Since the program began in July 1996, Mr. President, target cases without income have declined by 62 percent. That is, people receiving cash assistance who are not exempt, for example for health reasons, have been targeted to obtain paying jobs, and 62 percent of them have. This is the kind of progress we need, Mr. President, to repair the damage done to our local communities by too many years of government programs that fed the bodies but starved the souls of struggling Americans. Tough love--work requirements combined with a determined effort to make work possible--can help thousands upon thousands of Americans as they seek a better life. I hope we all will learn from the excellent example provided by Ottawa County. The care and generosity of her people, the grounding of daily life in faith, and traditional values that are so much a part of this wonderful county should inspire us all to greater efforts. The naysayers are being proved wrong every day. Americans can and will help one another if only the Federal Government will give back the freedom they need to do so.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the Senate finished consideration of the Fiscal Year 1998 Interior appropriations bill. I would like to speak for a moment on the amendments to this legislation. One of the first amendments to be considered was offered by Senator Bryan of Nevada. The Bryan amendment proposed to cut $10 million from the Forest Service's timber roads construction budget and to eliminate the Purchaser Credit Program. As I understand it, Senator Bryan believes the monies used by the Forest Service to assist with the construction and maintenance of roads used by loggers constitutes a subsidy and he targets it accordingly. Proponents of this program, however, argue that there is no road subsidy because the Forest Service takes possession of the roads after the timber harvest and uses them to fight forest fires, manage the forestlands and provide recreational access. The Purchaser Credit Program, meanwhile, credits timber companies for the cost to build roads when it bids out a timber sale. The logging company will then build the roads, harvest the timber and pay the Forest Service for the timber minus the cost of the road. Meanwhile, that same company is able to use the credit it received from the first sale to bid on other timber sales. The ability to use this credit toward other timber sales benefit is particularly beneficial to small logging companies with limited capital. Elimination of this program, therefore, would do little to reduce logging on federal lands, but would greatly reduce the ability of small timber companies to bid on timber sales. Finally, I am concerned that the Bryan amendment could make it even more difficult to conduct timber sales on Forest Service lands. In the past decade, timber sales on federal lands have declined by over two- thirds. Timber harvests on private lands have necessarily increased in order to make up for the lost wood. Private timber harvests have proven insufficient to meet market demand, however, and the shortfalls are increasingly being made up with imported, Canadian lumber. If this trend continues, I fear that the resulting timber shortages will raise the price per board-foot of lumber and increase housing and furniture costs. Nevertheless, while I opposed the 49-51 vote to table the Bryan amendment, I reserve the right to reconsider my vote on this issue in the future. At this time, I am concerned, but not convinced, that the timber program represents a subsidy to the timber industry. In order to clarify this question, I urge the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold hearings on this issue. The Senate next turned to consideration of a Hutchinson amendment to authorize the President to implement the recently announced American Heritage Rivers Initiative subject to Congressional approval. The goal of this amendment was both to ensure that Congress has a say in such designation and define what constitutes a river community. Proposed by the President, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative seeks to identify polluted rivers which are important to this nation's history and provide a new avenue for funding cleanup efforts. While I believe this amendment was well-intentioned, after careful review I became convinced that the Hutchinson amendment would actually serve to greatly increase the cost for a community to designate their river as an American Heritage site. As long as property owners are assured of their rights, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative could play a significant role in cleaning up some of this nation's most polluted rivers. In order to keep the Heritage River designation a viable option for Michigan's rivers, I voted in support of the motion to table the Hutchinson amendment which passed on a 57-42 vote. Shortly after dispensing with the Hutchinson amendment, the Senate took up a Kyl Amendment to provide $4.8 million for law enforcement to combat gangs on Indian Tribal Lands. While these gangs have yet to present themselves in Michigan, states such as Arizona are having to confront this problem with increasing frequency. In an effort to address this problem before it becomes a national phenomenon, I supported Senator Kyl's amendment. Nevertheless, it was defeated on a 34-64 vote. The next legislation to be considered was a Bumpers amendment to impose a royalty of five percent of the net return on the profits from mining gold, silver and platinum. In addition, in order to raise funds to pay for the cleanup of abandoned mines, the amendment would also charge a reclamation fee for those mines which have patented their lands. In his speech on the Senate floor, Senator Bumpers indicated that the reclamation fee served as a much needed tax on the industry. Shortly after, a point of order was raised which noted that the introduction of a tax measure such as this in the Senate was unconstitutional. A vote was called to determine the merit of the point of order. Whether Senator Bumpers legislation had merit or not, it was clear to me that the amendment did violate the Constitutional law stating all tax measures must originate in the House of Representatives. I agreed that the Point of Order was well taken and, on a 59-39 vote, the Bumpers amendment was deemed out of order. Shortly after disposing of the Bumpers Amendment, the Senate turned to final consideration of the FY98 Interior Appropriations bill. I was pleased to support its 93-3 passage and urge the conferees to work as quickly as possible to finalize the conference report before the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my final vote on the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. The last amendment to this legislation was a second attempt by Senator Harkin to fully fund FDA efforts to prevent underage smoking. Specifically, the amendment sought to fully fund a program which was established to punish establishments that sell tobacco to individuals under 18 years of age. I support efforts to curb underage smoking. Unfortunately, I was forced to vote against Senator Harkin's first attempt to fund this program because the amendment's offset would have imposed a new, $34 million tax. The majority of Senators shared my concerns and the amendment failed by a 52 to 48 margin. In recognition of that shortfall, the amendment which Senator Harkin reintroduced identified a new, noncontroversial offset from a minor USDA program. In light of this new funding source, I was pleased to vote in support of the Harkin amendment. The motion to table the Harkin amendment subsequently failed by a 28 to 70 margin and the amendment was agreed to. It is my hope, Mr. President, that the conferees can move quickly to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills and allow us to vote on the conference report in the coming weeks.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor members of Michigan's Right to Life in Byron Center for their enduring commitment and dedication to one of today's most important social issues. Mr. President, to those of us who are pro-life, being pro-life means protecting our families and respecting the sanctity of life. It also means maintaining the central role of the family in all our lives. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those of Right to Life of Michigan for their perseverance in support of those goals. Unfortunately, we still must spend much of our time in the political sphere, arguing against laws that promote the taking of unborn human lives, and I am grateful for all their efforts in that area as well. Ending the tragedy of abortion will not be easy. But groups like Right to Life of Michigan and the National Right to Life Committee are fighting a winning battle. By their example, as well as their arguments, they are showing the power and the beauty of human life.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor those of the Region 2 Affiliates of Right to Life of Michigan for their enduring commitment and dedication to one of today's most important social issues. Mr. President, to those of us who are pro-life, being pro-life means protecting our families and respecting the sanctity of life. It also means maintaining the central role of the family in all our lives. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those of Right to Life of Michigan for their perseverance in support of those goals. Unfortunately, we still must spend much of our time in the political sphere, arguing against laws that promote the taking of unborn human lives, and I am grateful for all their efforts in that area as well. Ending the tragedy of abortion will not be easy. But groups like Right to Life of Michigan and the National Right to Life Committee are fighting a winning battle. By their example, as well as their arguments, they are showing the power and the beauty of human life.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the achievements of Italian-Americans as we join to commemorate the accomplishment of the first Italian-American, Christopher Columbus. Italian-Americans came to this country with little, but have left a large mark. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to celebrate with them today, Columbus Day. Mr. President, certainly everyone in this country is grateful for the courage, dignity, and thrill for exploration given to this Nation by Christopher Columbus. As a grandson of Lebanese immigrants, I am convinced that the various ethnic heritages people bring with them when they come to the United States greatly benefit our country. Indeed, Italian-Americans have taken over where Columbus left off, building this Nation into the great power that it is. Certainly, without the leadership, insight, and continued support of one of this Nation's most valued resources, America would face a terrible emptiness. Many Italian-Americans have given generously of their time and energy in preparation of this celebration, and they should be commended for their efforts. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to recognize this very meaningful event in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the Michigan Association of Non-public Schools (MANS) on their 25 years of service to this special group of educators and students. Founded in 1972, MANS has advocated on behalf of non-public schools, established an agenda for their advancement, and given witness to the communities in Michigan regarding their immense social, educational, and economic benefit. With the voluntary support of over 540 schools, nearly 7,000 instructors and 140,000 students of Michigan's next generation are affected by the outreach and activities sponsored by MANS. Through the Michigan Non-public School Accrediting Association, its affiliated Parent Network, and its organization of school resources, MANS works toward school improvement, encourages greater parental participation, and provides a host of services vital to bringing non-public school students the best education they can receive. Through the years, MANS has been instrumental in promoting equal education benefits and services for all children. Regular conferences are held and have gained the enthusiastic support of teachers and administrators, with as many as 6,000 participants having attended recent gatherings. Finally, MANS maintains a role as a respected partner and resource for all levels of government whose actions impact education in Michigan. Mr. President, on behalf of the U.S. Senate, I would like to express appreciation for the many individuals who have given of their time and talent to bring about a better community through MANS. We are thankful for their dedication to Michigan's children.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of campaign finance reform; an issue which has been before the Senate in recent days. Like many members of this Chamber, I count myself on the side of those favoring reform. The question is: what type of reform will have the most positive impact on our electoral system. As this debate has evolved, I have spent considerable time identifying priorities. I have divided these priorities into two separate categories. The first category is comprised of those standards or tests that any reform legislation must meet in order to receive my support. The second category constitutes a set of objectives which I believe should, as opposed to must, be included in any reform legislation. Let me begin by listing the standards or tests that I believe must be met by any reform legislation. First, we must act in a manner that is consistent with the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Mr. President I will not support a campaign finance reform bill that establishes any kind of prior restraint on political speech or empowers any federal bureaucracy to constrain first amendment rights. That is why earlier this year I opposed the constitutional amendment presented to the Senate which would have allowed Congress and its agents, including the Federal Election Commission, to place constraints on first amendment rights. Mr. President, The first amendment to the Constitution and its guarantees of political speech are fundamental. We must not allow any Federal legislation to circumvent them, or attempt to circumvent them. My second priority with respect to campaign finance legislation is that it must not impede or intrude on the prerogatives of the States and local units of government with respect to how they conduct political campaigns. To that end, Mr. President, I will scrutinize any legislative proposal very carefully to determine not only whether it explicitly encroaches on State and/or local election law, but also whether it sets in motion a process which ultimately could require such intrusion in the future. Any campaign finance reform legislation must also, in my judgement, maintain a proper balance between the first amendment rights of the actual candidates and the political parties they represent and the rights of those who are not directly in the arena. Mr. President, I have watched with interest in recent years as special interest groups and others who exist to promote particular issue positions and ideologies have become increasingly active in the electoral process. Through so-called advocacy advertising and independent expenditures these groups have become dominant in many Federal elections. And, as they have grown in dominance, they have diminished the roles of the candidates and political parties. Of course, our first amendment permits this. It is perfectly appropriate for anyone, either individually or in collaboration with others, to advocate their views on issues and campaigns. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that if this is done independently of Federal candidates and the political parties, such individuals or groups may spend vast amounts of resources--well beyond donation limits permitted under Federal law--in furtherance of their causes and candidates. What this has led to, of course, is an environment in which political campaigns are now increasingly a function of the efforts of special interests groups, rather than of the candidates and political parties. Accordingly, we must be very careful, as we enact any campaign financing reforms, to make certain that we do not totally tilt the balance away from the candidates and parties. Otherwise, Mr. President we will end up with a system in which the candidates themselves are more bystanders than participants and in which the various interest groups on all sides of all the issues are doing all of the talking. In my judgement, this would completely undermine the concept of representative democracy and I will not support legislation that enhances the prospects of such an environment. In addition to these requirements, any campaign reform legislation we pass must be balanced. It can not be one-sided in favor of any particular political party or cause. Frankly, Mr. President, one of our parties likes the bill before us too much for my taste. I don't blame them, but it clearly focuses more on constraining sources which fund Republicans than Democrats. To their credit, I think the sponsors of the legislation have endeavored to move in a more balanced direction. That's why the legislation before us has been modified from its original version. But in my judgment it isn't there yet. Finally Mr. President, to have my support, any new campaign finance legislation must address what I find in my State to be the most disturbing aspect of the way American Federal elections are funded: namely, the increasing extent to which the campaigns of candidates for the House and Senate are financially supported by people who are not even constituents of the candidates themselves. When I travel around my State and conduct town meetings, and the issue of campaign finance reform is raised, I ask people what disturbs them the most. Almost every time I hear the same answer--that individuals, political action committees, and special interest groups who don't even live in Michigan are bank-rolling the campaigns of Michigan's Members of Congress. Mr. President, I have not conducted a thorough study of this issue but I do know that a large percentage of the money flowing into almost every campaign comes from individuals who are not the constituents of our elected officials. In fact, in many instances, Members of the House and Senate actually receive a majority of their campaign funds from people they don't even represent. In my view this, more than anything else, is what has undermined public confidence in our system. Sure, people are upset because of large personal or corporate or labor contributions to the national parties. But I think what galls them even more is the fact that their own representatives in Washington are being financed by people from other States or even other countries. Thus, to have my support, a campaign finance reform bill must seek to address this glaring problem. Obviously, the first amendment places certain constraints on how this can be accomplished. In fact, some argue that requiring a certain percentage of funds to come from the candidate's State would not meet a constitutional test. I think that's actually a close call and that such a reform would be constitutional. By the same token, though, I believe we can achieve the same general objective, and not raise a constitutional challenge, by simply adjusting the donor limits, based on whether or not the donors are contributing to someone who represents them. Whether this is accomplished by increasing the personal contribution limit for constituents, decreasing the limits for non-constituents, or a combination of both is a question we can look into. But I think such a change would move us in the right direction. It would mean that more time would be spent raising money from constituents, and it would mean that the people we represent would produce a far greater percentage of the resources involved in our campaigns. These results would greatly increase our constituents' confidence that we are here to serve them. These, then, are the five tests or standards by which I will measure any election reform effort. For my vote, any piece of legislation must meet all of these tests. Also, I would note Mr. President, that I have separately introduced a campaign reform bill which I believe accomplishes these objectives. At the same time, there are several other issues which I think should be addressed in a campaign finance reform bill. While not indispensable to the legislation from the standpoint of my support, I consider them to be very important matters that must be focused on either at this time or in some future context. First, I believe we must put an end to any explicit or implicit involvement of foreign money in political campaigns. As the Thompson hearings have gone forward, and the investigations of the financing of the 1996 campaign reported, I have been increasingly disturbed at the prospect that a foreign government would endeavor to influence American foreign policy through campaign donations. We need real teeth in our federal statutes to prevent this from ever happening. In addition, a campaign finance reform bill should include fuller disclosure than that which is presently required. I believe campaigns which reach a certain level of activity ought to be reporting, on-line, their contributions in a much more timely fashion. I also believe that independent committees should be required to make the same type of total disclosure. The increasing role that advocacy advertising and independent expenditures are playing in our campaigns demand that the funding sources for such activities be disclosed and made available as part of the campaign debate. Third, I believe there should be more democracy with respect to the activities of political action committees. Whether it's labor PAC's, trade association PAC's, issue advocacy PAC's or corporate PAC's, the leaders of our political action committees too often act in a fashion inconsistent with the wishes of the very people whose money they are spending. I think this is wrong. I think our campaign finance reform bill should create a mechanism by which donors to PAC's are able to easily indicate at least the political parties, if not the specific candidates, they want their fund to benefit. Such a reform in my view would much more effectively justify the existence of political committees in the future. Finally, with respect to my list of things that should be included in a campaign finance reform bill is the subject of fundraising in government buildings. Evidently, the question of what can and can not be done within Federal buildings and on Federal property is in need of clarification. I suggest that we eliminate any uncertainty that might currently exist and expressly prohibit such practices once again. Mr. President, this then constitutes the context in which I believe campaign finance reform must be addressed. As we move forward with amendments and develop a bill, I will be monitoring our progress to determine whether the priorities I've established here today are satisfactorily addressed. Legislation which does so will receive my backing. Legislation which fails to accomplish these objectives will not. In closing, Mr. President, I would also make several additional points. Contrary to the innuendoes contained in much of the media coverage of campaign financing I believe the Members of this body conduct their official business in a fully honorable and respectable fashion. While the way we finance elections sometimes gives rise to the appearance of impropriety, the truth is that the Members of the Senate are motivated by and act on the basis of long established personal philosophies and not campaign donations. I would say without question that the proponents of the legislation before us are fine examples of people whose integrity is unquestioned. If tomorrow Senator McCain found himself with Senator Feingold's contributors and vice-versa, I do not believe either would cast one vote or take one action differently than is their current pattern, and I feel that way about the other Members of this body as well. Mr. President, I think it is important that we say these things and that we not allow the innuendos and criticisms to go totally uncontested. At the same time, though, as we struggle to find consensus legislation, I think all of us have an obligation to take personal action--regardless of what the election financing laws might be at a particular point in time--to reassure our constituents that we are acting in an appropriate fashion. Frankly, Mr. President, I'm tired of hearing political figures on the one hand condemn the way we finance elections and then on the other hand engage in all of the conduct they purportedly abhor, based on the rationale that they will not unilaterally disarm themselves. Instead of exclusively focusing our energies on passing legislation in an effort to, in theory, save us from ourselves, I think each of us should undertake those actions we determine to be most appropriate to address the perception problems which exist regarding campaigns. I think we should set these examples regardless of what the campaign finance laws might permit. If we think it's wrong to receive a disproportionate amount of our campaign contributions from out of our States, then we should stop taking a disproportionate amount of contributions from out of our States. Similarly, if we think independent committees operating on our behalf or in support of our efforts are acting in an inappropriate fashion, we should say so clearly, publicly and definitively. Instead of simply debating campaign finance reform while conducting business as usual, I think every Member of this Chamber who feels strongly about these issues should take some action, independent of anything that might happen legislatively, to make the system better. I intend to do so, Mr. President, regardless of what the outcome might be of these campaign finance reform efforts. If that means I am disadvantaged in my campaign should I decide to seek re-election, so be it. In fact, Mr. President, during my campaign in 1994 I unilaterally acted to limit the flow of PAC and out-of-state dollars to my candidacy. Instead of simply waiting around for Congress to act, I will move ahead on my own. I hope other Members will do the same and that we might lead by example. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I stand today to proudly recognize the city of Holland's sesquicentennial anniversary. One hundred and fifty years ago this unique city was founded by a group of Dutch settlers who envisioned a town similar to their native Holland. Today, the city's rich Dutch heritage is still evident and continues to be a source of great pride for residents. The State of Michigan is home to not only Dutch ancestry but a wide array of different cultures and ethnicities. I strongly believe this multiculturism serves Michigan well as a useful learning tool which links our communities together. Holland has built upon this notion by fully embracing its distinct ancestry and showcasing their Dutch traditions for all to experience and enjoy. On its 150th anniversary, Holland has pulled out all the stops to ensure this special occasion does not slip away unnoticed. Befitting of this celebration is a visit from Her Royal Highness Princess Margrite of the Netherlands whose presence will serve as a capstone to the festivities. This momentous visit by the Princess and other dignitaries of The Netherlands offers a fine tribute to Holland and highlights the city's strong Dutch roots. Mr. President, I am honored to pay tribute to the city of Holland on its 150th anniversary, and extend my congratulations to Mayor McGeehan and the residents of Holland on this auspicious occasion.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to about 5 minutes.