Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Will the Chair tell us how much time remains?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ABRAHAM. If you have somebody else who wants to speak, then we will go.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me begin debate on this cloture motion today and take up to 10 minutes. I hope I won't need to use all of that, as there are other speakers on our side. We are here now after having, on three occasions, failed to obtain cloture on a Senate bill to try to lock away the Social Security trust fund moneys and prevent them from being spent on other Federal Government expenditures. The Democrats have filibustered the lockbox for 58 days. This is significant, because an additional $304 million of new Social Security surplus funds are added to the trust fund virtually every day. In my judgment, we should be husbanding these surpluses carefully to provide for future Social Security benefits and to make necessary reforms as easily and seamlessly as possible. But because of this filibuster, $17.6 billion of these future Social Security benefits have been placed at risk of being spent on other non-Social Security programs. This is the equivalent of taking away the annual Social Security benefits for 1.6 million American seniors. Mr. President, today we are attempting a new approach having thrice failed to be able to obtain cloture on a Senate amendment to a budget reform act bill. We are today voting on a different version of the lockbox, one that passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly, and, in my judgment, would therefore seem to be a piece of legislation that we could have overwhelming bipartisan consensus on in the Senate. The question is, Will we do so? All I can say to my colleagues is that in Michigan, seniors surely hope that we will do so--that we will vote cloture, that we will pass the lockbox, and that we will protect their Social Security benefits. Let me introduce you to Gus and Doris Bionchini of Warren, MI. They have been kind enough to come out to Washington this week to help ensure that Social Security lockbox is passed. They have been receiving Social Security for over 10 years and tell me that Social Security is very important to them, as it is to so many Americans, and that they pay most of their bills, especially food and utilities, with their benefits. Gus and Doris tell me that they can't understand why anyone would want to spend their future Social Security benefits on new Government spending, and that they think it is time and imperative Congress pass a law which stipulates that we should not spend a dime of their Social Security dollars on anything other than Social Security. They believe seniors should have a voice. Let me introduce you to someone else, Mr. Joe Wagner, a 70-year-old from Kentwood, MI, a new Social Security recipient, but someone who already finds himself nearly entirely dependent upon his benefits to pay his bills to meet his everyday needs. He said that he strongly supports the original lockbox bill that I introduced with Senators Ashcroft and Domenici and others. He also knows that the President has proposed spending over $30 billion of the Social Security surplus every year. He thinks that is wrong, and I agree with him. Then we have another person for you to meet, Eleanor Happle. Eleanor is a 74-year-old widow who is very active for her age and who enjoys spending time with friends and volunteering at the hospital. She supplements her Social Security benefits by working in an assisted- living facility. I know that she agrees with us that the Social Security surplus should be protected. Finally, here is Vic and Joanne Machuta in front of their home in East Grand Rapids, MI, where they have lived for 20 years. They have been married for 54 years. They have three children. Vic is 73 years old and worked as a police officer for over 35 years. Joanne is also 73 and worked for a bank as well as for Central Michigan University. They have been receiving Social Security for 10 years and believe that the surplus should be used for Social Security as opposed to other Government spending. They also believe that legislation which would make it more difficult for Government to spend their Social Security is a good idea. Now we find ourselves with a new version of the lockbox. It is a looser version, I admit. But we still find the same old foot dragging which we have been suffering through for 58 days. H.R. 1259, the House lockbox legislation, passed the House on May 26 by a vote of 416 to 12--416 for this lockbox proposal in the House, and only 12 against it. But still we are here, of course, to vote on cloture to end broad, uncontrolled debate on this subject. I don't understand that. It seems to me that when the House votes this overwhelmingly clearly this is a version which is a bipartisan consensus, and we should get down to the business of protecting Social Security dollars. That is what at least this Senator thinks. That is what my constituents such as Gus, Doris, Joe, and Eleanor think. I hope today that we will finally have 60 votes for us to consider in a carefully crafted fashion a lockbox proposal that would enjoy bipartisan support. This one certainly does. It did in the House. I believe it will in the Senate. I hope that today we can finally obtain cloture, move forward, and pass this legislation quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Honorable Ulysses Whittaker Boykin on his appointment as a new judge of the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan. On Friday, June 18 he will be invested and begin his official duties. Judge Boykin is very deserving of this appointment. Throughout his career, he has maintained the strongest of commitments to the highest legal standards. From his early days as an associate attorney in some of Michigan's finest law firms to his most recent position as a Partner and Shareholder in the firm of Lewis, White & Clay, Judge Boykin has always distinguished himself and received recognition by his peers for his excellent knowledge of the law and his legal ability. Additionally, Judge Boykin is very involved with his community. From his role with the Detroit Civil Service Commission to his work in mentoring high school and college students, his involvement in these activities and so many more have well prepared him for this appointment. It gives me great pleasure to welcome Judge Boykin to the bench. His reputation as being fair-minded precedes him, and I am confident the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court and the State of Michigan will benefit from his tenure.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 54 participants of Girl Scout Troop 327 from Wayne County, Michigan, as they celebrate 25 years of continuous service at the Mackinac Island Scout Camp. Based in Grosse Pointe, the Troop recruits girls from Livonia, Dearborn, and the entire east side of Detroit. This combined group from the Michigan Metro Girl Scout Council will be traveling to Mackinac Island on Thursday, June 24, 1999 to celebrate their 25th Anniversary of service to the Island. While on the Island, the Girl Scouts will continue their commitment to be better citizens through community service and goodwill deeds. In cooperation with the Mackinac Island State Park Commission, they plan to greet visitors in various public buildings, give directions to tourists, paint dilapidated park benches, and clean up heavily traveled park trails. The beauty of the Island will undoubtedly be preserved because of the Girl Scouts' service and dedication. Past experiences have enabled Troop 327 to gain a wealth of information about the world around them. As members of Governor Engler's Honor Guard, the girls have been responsible for raising 26 United States flags over the country's National Cemeteries, Post Cemetery, and another at the Governor's summer residence. Through their experiences, the Girl Scouts have become more mature while gaining valuable life and human relations skills. Earning the ``Gold Award'' and ``Silver Award'' for their active participation in community service, members of the Troop continue to exemplify their self-professed national motto: ``Girl Scouting: where girls grow strong.'' As individuals, communities and businesses strive to make positive impacts on the world, our younger community sets an example for every generation to follow. I urge my colleagues to join me in praising these girls for their continued efforts. The service provided by Girl Scout Troop 327 has left a mark on their lives, and in future weeks their service will positively affect those who visit Mackinac Island from around the world.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and congratulate the Doherty family as they celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the Hotel Doherty on June 5, in Clare, Michigan. The Hotel Doherty was established in 1924 by the late Michigan State Senator A.J. Doherty, Clare's mayor at the time. The Doherty was built to replace the Caulkins House in 1920, with local people donating the money to purchase the land. The Hotel Doherty is one of the last historic landmark hotels in Michigan. What makes it even more unique is that it has remained as a single-family owned and operated business during all 75 years. Clare's downtown business district has remained vibrant with the help of the Hotel Doherty. The Doherty is an excellent example of how small businesses are the backbone of Michigan's economy. I commend the Doherty family on their 75 years of business and I wish them all the best for future generations.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today my good friend Senator Wyden and myself are filing an amendment in the Record to S. 542, the New Millennium Classrooms Act. The Abraham-Wyden amendment would mandate that in order for a company to receive the enhanced computer donation tax credit, the computer must be equipped with an operating system, ensuring donated computers will be fully operational as soon as they are received by schools. All of us can agree that our schools are in desperate need of high tech computer equipment and Internet access. The New Millennium Classrooms Act address this need through enhanced tax incentives for companies donating computers to schools. Mr. President, we can also agree that this valuable equipment is rendered useless if it is given to schools incomplete. To work properly, computers must be furnished with an operating system. Without this software, the equipment simply sits on a shelf until the school itself can find the means to procure and then install the necessary operating system. Mr. President, this equipment offers nothing toward a child's knowledge and education if it is capable of little more than filling storage space and gathering dust. The Abraham-Wyden amendment, recognizing this reality, requires an operating system to be installed on donated computers, guaranteeing complete, quality, ready-to-go equipment. In addition, the Abraham-Wyden amendment would ensure that schools are not subjected to faulty or broken hardware. Without an operating system there is no way to tell if a donated computer is functioning properly. Sophisticated hardware can be easily damaged during transport or even when the donating company's private files and documents are removed. With an operating system installed, ascertaining the condition of the equipment is as simple as plugging it in and turning it one. Without the operating system, it could be weeks before the school is aware of any problems concerning the donation, burdening an already financially strapped school with added, and unnecessary, costs. Mr. President, allow me to reiterate how important this technology is to our children's future. By the year 2000, less than one year from now, more than 60 percent of all jobs in this country will demand high tech skills. Computers and the Internet continue to drastically change the face of business and communications on a global level, developing at a pace far surpassing what anyone predicted even just a few years ago. With the passage of the New Millennium Classrooms Act, all our children will have a chance at succeeding in the new technological millennium. I ask that the text of the letter of support from Microsoft for the New Millennium Classrooms Act be printed in the Record. The letter is printed as follows: Microsoft Corporation, Law and Corporate Affairs, Washington, DC, May 28, 1999. Hon. Spencer Abraham, Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Abraham: Microsoft supports your effort, through the New Millennium Classrooms Act, to increase charitable contributions of personal computers to schools and other non-profit organizations. Microsoft appreciates the enormous needs in our nation's schools for access to technology. We work closely with businesses, charitable organizations, and educators in an effort to increase the technology available in schools in order to create opportunities for learning by our children. to help accomplish this goal, Microsoft supports efforts to stimulate the charitable donation of personal computers to schools. The New Millennium Classrooms Act provides a helpful incentive to spur donations of computers to schools. We also appreciate your interest in ensuring that donated computers have valid operating systems, which helps to promote legitimate software use and to fight software piracy. Under this program, Microsoft will approve a transfer without charge from the donor to the school of the valid Microsoft operating system license on the computer at the time of transfer. We believe the New Millennium Classrooms Classrooms Act is helpful legislation for our nation's schools and we are proud to support it. Thank you for once again demonstrating your leadership on high technology issues and your commitment to our nation's schools and children. Sincerely, Jack Krumholtz, Director of Federal Government Affairs, Senior Corporate Attorney.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999, legislation that will provide targeted relief to small businesses nationwide. Small businesses in Michigan and across this nation are faced with a daily threat of burdensome litigation, a circumstance which has created a desperate need for relief from unwarranted and costly lawsuits. While other sectors of our society and our economy also need relief from litigation excesses, small businesses by their very nature are particularly vulnerable to lawsuit abuse, and find it particularly difficult to bear the high cost of defending themselves against unjustified and unfair litigation. Small businesses represent the engine of our growing economy and provide countless benefits to communities across America. The Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business, for example, has estimated that there are over 20 million small businesses in America, and that these small businesses generate 50 percent of our country's private sector output. My small business constituents relate story after story describing the constraints, limitations and fear posed by the very real threat of abusive and unwarranted litigation. The real world impact translates into high-cost liability insurance, which wastes resources that could instead be used to expand small businesses, to provide more jobs, or to offer more benefits to employees. According to a recent Gallup survey, one out of every five small businesses decides not to hire more employees, expand its business, introduce a new product, or improve an existing product because of the fear of lawsuits--not entrepeneurial risk, not lack of capital resources, but lawsuits. In the same vein, innocent product sellers--often small businesses like your neighborhood corner grocery store--have also described the high legal costs they incur when they are needlessly drawn into product liability lawsuits. The unfairness in these cases is astonishing--the business may not even produce a product, but is still sued for product defects. The reason? It is no secret that courts differ in how favorably they look upon product liability suits--some are receptive, others outright hostile. So even though a local store neither designs nor manufactures the product, it is routinely dragged into court because the plaintiff's attorney desires to pull manufacturers into a favorable forum. That's called ``forum shopping'' on the part of the plaintiff, and the practice causes needless financial damage to America's small businesses. And while the non-culpable product seller is rarely found liable for damages, it must still bear the enormous cost of defending itself against these unwarranted suits. Rental and leasing companies are in a similarly vulnerable position, as they are commonly held liable for the wrongful conduct of their customers even though the companies themselves are found to have committed no wrong. The 105th Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, which provides specific protections from abusive litigation to volunteers. The Senate passed that legislation by an overwhelming margin of 99-1, and the President signed it, making it Public Law 105-19. That legislation provides a model for further targeted reforms for sectors of our economy that are particularly hard hit and in need of immediate relief. I believe it is high time for small business liability reform, time to take this small step, time to shield those not at fault from needless expense and unwarranted distress. Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment and provide a little background on our effort, as I believe it will highlight the desperate need for reform. Small businesses shoulder an often unbearable load from unwarranted and unjustified lawsuits. Data from San Diego's Superior Court published by the Washington Legal Foundation reveals that punitive damages are requested in 41 percent of suits against small businesses. It is simply unfathomable that such a large proportion of our small businesses could be engaging in the sort of egregious misconduct that would warrant a claim of punitive damages. Similarly, the National Federal of Independent Business reports that 34 percent of Texas small business owners are sued or threatened with court action seeking punitive damages; again, the outrageously high rate of prayer for punitive damages simply cannot have anything to do with actual wrongdoing by the defendant. The specifics of the cases are no better. In a case reported by the American Consulting Engineers Council, a drunk driver had an accident after speeding and bypassing detour signs. Eight hours after the crash, the driver still had a blood alcohol level of .09. Nonetheless, the driver sued the engineering firm that designed the road, the contractor, the subcontractor, and the state highway department. Five years later, and after expending exorbitant amounts on legal fees, the defendants settled the case for $35,000. The engineering firm, a small 15 person firm, was swamped with over $200,000 in legal costs--an intolerable amount for a small business to have to pay in defending an unwarranted lawsuit. There are more examples. An Ann Landers column from October, 1995, reported a case in which a minister and his wife sued a guide-dog school for $160,000 after a blind man who was learning to use a seeing- eye dog stepped on the minister's wife's toes in a shopping mall. The guide-dog school, Southeastern Guide Dogs, Inc., which provided the instructor supervising the man, was the only school of its kind in the southeast. It trains seeing-eye dogs at no cost to the visually impaired. The couple filed their lawsuit 13 months after the so-called accident, in which witnesses reported that the woman did not move out of the blind man's way because she wanted to see if the dog would walk around her. The experience of a small business in Michigan, the Michigan Furnace Company, is likewise alarming. The President of that company has reported that every lawsuit in the history of her company has been a nuisance lawsuit. She indicates that if the money the company spends on liability insurance and legal fees were distributed among employees, it would amount to a $10,000 annual raise. That's real money, and that's a real cost coming right out of the pocket of Michigan workers. These costs are stifling our small businesses and the careers of people in their employ. The straightforward provisions of Title I of the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act will provide small businesses with relief by discouraging abusive litigation. This section contains two principal reforms. First, the bill limits punitive damages that may be awarded against a small business. In most civil lawsuits against small businesses, punitive damages would be available against the small business only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm was caused by the small business through at least a conscious, fragrant indifference to the rights and safety of the claimant. Punitive damages would also be limited in amount to the lesser of $250,000 or two times the compensatory damages awarded for the harm. That formulation is exactly the same as that in the small business protection provision that was included in the Product Liability Conference Report passed in the 104th Congress. Second, joint and several liability reforms for small businesses are included under the exact same formulation used in the Volunteer Protection Act passed in the 105th Congress and in the Protection Liability Conference Report passed in the 104th Congress. Joint and several liability would be limited such that a small business would be liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to the small business's responsibility for causing the harm. If a small business is responsible for 100 percent of an accident, then it will be liable for 100 percent of noneconomic damages. But if it is only 70 percent, 25 percent, 10 percent or any other percent responsible, then the small business will be liable only for a like percentage of noneconomic damages. Small businesses would still be jointly and severally liable for economic damages, and any other defendants in the action that were not small businesses could be held jointly and severally liable for all damages. But the intent of this provision is to provide some protection to small businesses, so that they will not be sought out as ``deep pocket'' defendants by trail lawyers who would otherwise try to get small businesses on the hook for harms that they have not caused. The fact is that many small businesses simply do not have deep pockets, and they frequently need all of their resources just to stay in business, take care of their employees, and make ends meet. Other provisions in this title specify the situations in which its reforms apply. The title defines small business as any business having fewer than 25 employees, the same definition included in the Product Liability Conference Report. Like the Volunteer Protection Act, this title covers all civil lawsuits except those involving certain types of egregious misconduct. The limitations on liability would not apply to any misconduct that constitutes a crime of violence, act of international terrorism, hate crime, sexual offense, civil rights law violation, or natural resource damages, or damages that occurred while the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or any drug. Any finally, like the Volunteer Protection Act, this title includes a State opt-out. A State would be able to opt out of these provisions provided that the State enacts a law indicating its election to do so and containing no other provisions. I do not expect that any State will opt-out of these provisions, but I feel it is important to include one out of respect for principles of federalism. Title II of the Act addresses liability reform for non-culpable product sellers, commonly small businesses, who have long sought help in gaining a degree of protection from unwarranted lawsuits. Product sellers, like your corner grocery store, provide a crucial service to all of us by offering a convenient source for a wide assortment of goods. Unfortunately, current law subjects them to harassment and unnecessary litigation; in about twenty-nine states, product sellers are drawn into the overwhelming majority of product liability cases even though they play no part in the designing and manufacturing process, and are not to blame in any way for the harm. It is pointless to haul a product seller into the litigation when everyone in the system knows that the seller is not at fault. Dragging in the neighborhood convenience store helps no one, not the claimant, not the product seller, and certainly not the consumer. All it does is increase the cost to product sellers of doing business in our neighborhoods, because these businesses are unnecessarily forced to bear the cost of court expenses in their defense. Again, the real-world background presents a compelling case. In one instance, a product seller was dragged into a product liability suit even though the product it sold was shipped directly from the manufacturer to the plaintiff. In the end, the manufacturer--not the product seller--had to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Unfortunately, this was after the product seller has been forced to spend $25,000 in court expenses $25,000 that could have been used to expand the business or to provide higher salaries. Title II would allow a plaintiff to sue a product seller only when the product seller is responsible for the harm or when the plaintiff cannot collect from the manufacturer. This limitation would cover all product liability actions brought in any Federal or State Court. However, we have specifically ensured that the provision does not apply to actions brought for certain commercial losses, and actions brought under a theory of dram-shop or third party liability arising out of the sale of alcoholic products to intoxicated persons or minors. Additionally, rental or leasing companies are often unfairly subjected to lawsuits based on vicarious liability, which holds these companies responsible for acts committed by an individual rentee or lessee. In several states, these companies are subject to liability for the negligent tortious acts of their customers even if the rental company is not negligent and the product is not deffective. This type of fault-ignorant liability is detrimental to the economy because it increases non-culpable companies' costs, costs which are ultimately passed along to the rental customers. Settlements and judgements from vicarious liability claims against auto rental companies cost the industry approximately $100 million annually. In Michigan, for example, a renter lost control of a car and drove off the highway. The care flipped over several times, killing a passenger who was not wearing a seat belt. The car rental company, which was not at fault, nevertheless settled for $1.226 million out of fear of being held vicariously liable for the passenger's death. In another case, four British sailors rented a car from Alamo to drive from Fort Lauderdale to Naples. The driver fell asleep at the wheel, and his car left the road and ended up in a canal. The driver and two passengers were killed, while the fourth passenger was seriously injured. Although the Court found Alamo not to have acted negligently, Alamo was ordered by a jury to pay the plaintiffs $7.7 million solely due to Alamo's ownership of the vehicle. Often even when the injured party and the driver are both at fault, it is the innocent rental company that has to bear the resulting expenses. For example, an individual in a rented auto struck a pedestrian at an intersection in a suburban commercial area on Long Island. The pedestrian, who was intoxicated, was jay-walking on her way from one bar to another. The driver was also intoxicated. The pedestrian unfortunately sustained a traumatic brain injury and was left in a permanent vegetative state. Although the auto rental company was clearly not at fault in this case, the result is predictable: the rental company was forced to settle for $8.5 million out of fear of a much larger jury award. We believe that subjecting product renters and lessors to vicarious liability is not only unfair, but also increases the cost to all consumers. Title II resolves this problem by providing that product renters and lessors shall not be liable for the wrongful acts of another solely by reason of product ownership--product renters and lessors would only be responsible for their own acts. I am pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Hatch, McCain, McConnell, Lott, Bond, Ashcroft, Coverdell. Nickles, Brownback, Gorton, Grassley, Sessions, Burns, Inhofe, Helms, Allard, Hagel, Mack, Bunning, Jeffords, DeWine, Craig, Hutchison, and Enzi as original cosponsors of the legislation and very much appreciate their support for our small businesses and for meaningful litigation reform. The list of business organizations supporting this bill is also impressive, and includes the following: National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, The National Association of Wholesalers, The National Retail Federation, The American Auto Leasing Association, The American Consulting Engineers Council, The Small Business Legislative Council, National Small Business United, The National Association of Convenience Stores. The American Car Rental Association, The International Mass Retail Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the National Equipment Leasing Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Pete Domenici, in recognizing Mr. Austin Smythe's service to the United States Senate. At the end of this week, Austin will join the private sector after 15 years as a key staff member of the Senate Budget Committee. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee over the past 5 years, my staff and I have had the pleasure of working with Austin on a variety of budget-related issues. He has been extremely helpful to this Senator, offering his invaluable advice and expertise in the drafting of several bills and amendments that I have sponsored or cosponsored, most recently the Mandates Information Act and the Social Security Preservation and Debt Reduction Act. As Senator Domenici said in his statement, Austin is ``a Senator's dream staffer''--extremely knowledgeable, hard-working, dedicated, and able to distill complex topics in terms even Senators can understand. We will miss Austin Smythe's contribution to the U.S. Senate and to the Nation and wish him success in his new endeavors.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 1999, legislation that will provide targeted relief to small businesses nationwide. Small businesses in Michigan and across this nation are faced with a daily threat of burdensome litigation, a circumstance which has created a desperate need for relief from unwarranted and costly lawsuits. While other sectors of our society and our economy also need relief from litigation excesses, small businesses by their very nature are particularly vulnerable to lawsuit abuse, and find it particularly difficult to bear the high cost of defending themselves against unjustified and unfair litigation. Small businesses represent the engine of our growing economy and provide countless benefits to communities across America. The Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business, for example, has estimated that there are over 20 million small businesses in America, and that these small businesses generate 50 percent of our country's private sector output. My small business constituents relate story after story describing the constraints, limitations and fear posed by the very real threat of abusive and unwarranted litigation. The real world impact translates into high-cost liability insurance, which wastes resources that could instead be used to expand small businesses, to provide more jobs, or to offer more benefits to employees. According to a recent Gallup survey, one out of every five small businesses decides not to hire more employees, expand its business, introduce a new product, or improve an existing product because of the fear of lawsuits--not entrepeneurial risk, not lack of capital resources, but lawsuits. In the same vein, innocent product sellers--often small businesses like your neighborhood corner grocery store--have also described the high legal costs they incur when they are needlessly drawn into product liability lawsuits. The unfairness in these cases is astonishing--the business may not even produce a product, but is still sued for product defects. The reason? It is no secret that courts differ in how favorably they look upon product liability suits--some are receptive, others outright hostile. So even though a local store neither designs nor manufactures the product, it is routinely dragged into court because the plaintiff's attorney desires to pull manufacturers into a favorable forum. That's called ``forum shopping'' on the part of the plaintiff, and the practice causes needless financial damage to America's small businesses. And while the non-culpable product seller is rarely found liable for damages, it must still bear the enormous cost of defending itself against these unwarranted suits. Rental and leasing companies are in a similarly vulnerable position, as they are commonly held liable for the wrongful conduct of their customers even though the companies themselves are found to have committed no wrong. The 105th Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, which provides specific protections from abusive litigation to volunteers. The Senate passed that legislation by an overwhelming margin of 99-1, and the President signed it, making it Public Law 105-19. That legislation provides a model for further targeted reforms for sectors of our economy that are particularly hard hit and in need of immediate relief. I believe it is high time for small business liability reform, time to take this small step, time to shield those not at fault from needless expense and unwarranted distress. Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment and provide a little background on our effort, as I believe it will highlight the desperate need for reform. Small businesses shoulder an often unbearable load from unwarranted and unjustified lawsuits. Data from San Diego's Superior Court published by the Washington Legal Foundation reveals that punitive damages are requested in 41 percent of suits against small businesses. It is simply unfathomable that such a large proportion of our small businesses could be engaging in the sort of egregious misconduct that would warrant a claim of punitive damages. Similarly, the National Federal of Independent Business reports that 34 percent of Texas small business owners are sued or threatened with court action seeking punitive damages; again, the outrageously high rate of prayer for punitive damages simply cannot have anything to do with actual wrongdoing by the defendant. The specifics of the cases are no better. In a case reported by the American Consulting Engineers Council, a drunk driver had an accident after speeding and bypassing detour signs. Eight hours after the crash, the driver still had a blood alcohol level of .09. Nonetheless, the driver sued the engineering firm that designed the road, the contractor, the subcontractor, and the state highway department. Five years later, and after expending exorbitant amounts on legal fees, the defendants settled the case for $35,000. The engineering firm, a small 15 person firm, was swamped with over $200,000 in legal costs--an intolerable amount for a small business to have to pay in defending an unwarranted lawsuit. There are more examples. An Ann Landers column from October, 1995, reported a case in which a minister and his wife sued a guide-dog school for $160,000 after a blind man who was learning to use a seeing- eye dog stepped on the minister's wife's toes in a shopping mall. The guide-dog school, Southeastern Guide Dogs, Inc., which provided the instructor supervising the man, was the only school of its kind in the southeast. It trains seeing-eye dogs at no cost to the visually impaired. The couple filed their lawsuit 13 months after the so-called accident, in which witnesses reported that the woman did not move out of the blind man's way because she wanted to see if the dog would walk around her. The experience of a small business in Michigan, the Michigan Furnace Company, is likewise alarming. The President of that company has reported that every lawsuit in the history of her company has been a nuisance lawsuit. She indicates that if the money the company spends on liability insurance and legal fees were distributed among employees, it would amount to a $10,000 annual raise. That's real money, and that's a real cost coming right out of the pocket of Michigan workers. These costs are stifling our small businesses and the careers of people in their employ. The straightforward provisions of Title I of the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act will provide small businesses with relief by discouraging abusive litigation. This section contains two principal reforms. First, the bill limits punitive damages that may be awarded against a small business. In most civil lawsuits against small businesses, punitive damages would be available against the small business only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm was caused by the small business through at least a conscious, fragrant indifference to the rights and safety of the claimant. Punitive damages would also be limited in amount to the lesser of $250,000 or two times the compensatory damages awarded for the harm. That formulation is exactly the same as that in the small business protection provision that was included in the Product Liability Conference Report passed in the 104th Congress. Second, joint and several liability reforms for small businesses are included under the exact same formulation used in the Volunteer Protection Act passed in the 105th Congress and in the Protection Liability Conference Report passed in the 104th Congress. Joint and several liability would be limited such that a small business would be liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to the small business's responsibility for causing the harm. If a small business is responsible for 100 percent of an accident, then it will be liable for 100 percent of noneconomic damages. But if it is only 70 percent, 25 percent, 10 percent or any other percent responsible, then the small business will be liable only for a like percentage of noneconomic damages. Small businesses would still be jointly and severally liable for economic damages, and any other defendants in the action that were not small businesses could be held jointly and severally liable for all damages. But the intent of this provision is to provide some protection to small businesses, so that they will not be sought out as ``deep pocket'' defendants by trail lawyers who would otherwise try to get small businesses on the hook for harms that they have not caused. The fact is that many small businesses simply do not have deep pockets, and they frequently need all of their resources just to stay in business, take care of their employees, and make ends meet. Other provisions in this title specify the situations in which its reforms apply. The title defines small business as any business having fewer than 25 employees, the same definition included in the Product Liability Conference Report. Like the Volunteer Protection Act, this title covers all civil lawsuits except those involving certain types of egregious misconduct. The limitations on liability would not apply to any misconduct that constitutes a crime of violence, act of international terrorism, hate crime, sexual offense, civil rights law violation, or natural resource damages, or damages that occurred while the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or any drug. Any finally, like the Volunteer Protection Act, this title includes a State opt-out. A State would be able to opt out of these provisions provided that the State enacts a law indicating its election to do so and containing no other provisions. I do not expect that any State will opt-out of these provisions, but I feel it is important to include one out of respect for principles of federalism. Title II of the Act addresses liability reform for non-culpable product sellers, commonly small businesses, who have long sought help in gaining a degree of protection from unwarranted lawsuits. Product sellers, like your corner grocery store, provide a crucial service to all of us by offering a convenient source for a wide assortment of goods. Unfortunately, current law subjects them to harassment and unnecessary litigation; in about twenty-nine states, product sellers are drawn into the overwhelming majority of product liability cases even though they play no part in the designing and manufacturing process, and are not to blame in any way for the harm. It is pointless to haul a product seller into the litigation when everyone in the system knows that the seller is not at fault. Dragging in the neighborhood convenience store helps no one, not the claimant, not the product seller, and certainly not the consumer. All it does is increase the cost to product sellers of doing business in our neighborhoods, because these businesses are unnecessarily forced to bear the cost of court expenses in their defense. Again, the real-world background presents a compelling case. In one instance, a product seller was dragged into a product liability suit even though the product it sold was shipped directly from the manufacturer to the plaintiff. In the end, the manufacturer--not the product seller--had to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Unfortunately, this was after the product seller has been forced to spend $25,000 in court expenses $25,000 that could have been used to expand the business or to provide higher salaries. Title II would allow a plaintiff to sue a product seller only when the product seller is responsible for the harm or when the plaintiff cannot collect from the manufacturer. This limitation would cover all product liability actions brought in any Federal or State Court. However, we have specifically ensured that the provision does not apply to actions brought for certain commercial losses, and actions brought under a theory of dram-shop or third party liability arising out of the sale of alcoholic products to intoxicated persons or minors. Additionally, rental or leasing companies are often unfairly subjected to lawsuits based on vicarious liability, which holds these companies responsible for acts committed by an individual rentee or lessee. In several states, these companies are subject to liability for the negligent tortious acts of their customers even if the rental company is not negligent and the product is not deffective. This type of fault-ignorant liability is detrimental to the economy because it increases non-culpable companies' costs, costs which are ultimately passed along to the rental customers. Settlements and judgements from vicarious liability claims against auto rental companies cost the industry approximately $100 million annually. In Michigan, for example, a renter lost control of a car and drove off the highway. The care flipped over several times, killing a passenger who was not wearing a seat belt. The car rental company, which was not at fault, nevertheless settled for $1.226 million out of fear of being held vicariously liable for the passenger's death. In another case, four British sailors rented a car from Alamo to drive from Fort Lauderdale to Naples. The driver fell asleep at the wheel, and his car left the road and ended up in a canal. The driver and two passengers were killed, while the fourth passenger was seriously injured. Although the Court found Alamo not to have acted negligently, Alamo was ordered by a jury to pay the plaintiffs $7.7 million solely due to Alamo's ownership of the vehicle. Often even when the injured party and the driver are both at fault, it is the innocent rental company that has to bear the resulting expenses. For example, an individual in a rented auto struck a pedestrian at an intersection in a suburban commercial area on Long Island. The pedestrian, who was intoxicated, was jay-walking on her way from one bar to another. The driver was also intoxicated. The pedestrian unfortunately sustained a traumatic brain injury and was left in a permanent vegetative state. Although the auto rental company was clearly not at fault in this case, the result is predictable: the rental company was forced to settle for $8.5 million out of fear of a much larger jury award. We believe that subjecting product renters and lessors to vicarious liability is not only unfair, but also increases the cost to all consumers. Title II resolves this problem by providing that product renters and lessors shall not be liable for the wrongful acts of another solely by reason of product ownership--product renters and lessors would only be responsible for their own acts. I am pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Hatch, McCain, McConnell, Lott, Bond, Ashcroft, Coverdell. Nickles, Brownback, Gorton, Grassley, Sessions, Burns, Inhofe, Helms, Allard, Hagel, Mack, Bunning, Jeffords, DeWine, Craig, Hutchison, and Enzi as original cosponsors of the legislation and very much appreciate their support for our small businesses and for meaningful litigation reform. The list of business organizations supporting this bill is also impressive, and includes the following: National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, The National Association of Wholesalers, The National Retail Federation, The American Auto Leasing Association, The American Consulting Engineers Council, The Small Business Legislative Council, National Small Business United, The National Association of Convenience Stores. The American Car Rental Association, The International Mass Retail Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the National Equipment Leasing Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to call to the attention of the Senate a letter of endorsement given to my bill, the New Millennium Classrooms Act, by a group of 11 senior executives of Silicon Valley's leading technology and venture capital firms. Mr. President, the New Millennium Classrooms Act, through tax-based incentives, would provide schools and companies the means by which partnerships can be created and computers, software, and related technological equipment can be brought to our schools. Encouraging private investment and involvement, the New Millennium Classrooms Act achieves this important goal without unduly increasing Federal Government expenditures, creating yet another federal program or department and will keep control where it belongs--with the teachers, the parents, and the students. Providing today's children with high technological equipment and software will provide them with the necessary and invaluable computer skills needed to ensure their future success and our nation's status as the technological and economic leader in the New Economy. I ask that the letter from the Silicon Valley firms be printed in the Record. The letter follows: April 15, 1999. Hon. Spencer Abraham, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Abraham: As senior executives of the nation's leading technology companies and venture capital firms, we write to commend you for your continued support of policies that will help to ensure our nation's technological and economic leadership. Specifically, we thank you for introducing the New Millennium Classrooms Act (S. 542), an important step toward making computers, software and the Internet available to American schoolchildren. By relying on market-based incentives, your legislation will increase the supply of computer technology available to children in grades K-12. We are particularly supportive of enhanced provisions to encourage the donation of computers and equipment to schools that serve underprivileged students, allowing all American children the opportunity to prepare for the New Economy on equal footing. Your legislation will allow the potential of our nation's children to be fully realized in the 21st century, while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for continuing your leadership on issues critical to the success of America's New Economy. Sincerely, Wilfred Corrigan, CEO, LSI Logic, Corp.; Carl Feldbaum, President, Biotechnology Industry Organization; Dr. Dwight D. Decker, President, Conexant Systems; Michael Goldberg, CEO, OnCare; Floyd Kvamme, Partner, Keiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Willem Roelandts, CEO, Xilinx; Scott Ryles, Managing Director, Merrill Lynch; Ted Smith, Chairman, FileNet; Burt McMurtry, Partner, Technology Venture Investors; Michael Rowan, CEO, Kestrel Solutions; Dr. Henry Samueli, CTO & Co- Chairman, Broadcom.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, with Memorial Day soon upon us, I wanted to share with my colleagues some of the testimony from yesterday's Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing on ``The Contribution of Immigrants to America's Armed Forces.'' It featured some dramatic testimony from both immigrants and native-born individuals. Let me begin by quoting the testimony of Elmer Compton, a native of Indiana who served in Vietnam. When I look at my wife, son and daughter, I cannot keep from thinking of one particular immigrant by the name of Al Rascon and the contribution he made to me and my family on March 16, 1966. The heroic and gallant actions of Al Rascon on that day, I believe saved my life, as well as other members of my team. On March 16, 1966, Al Rascon was with the Recon Platoon on a search and destroy mission known as Operation Silver City. My team had engaged a well-armed enemy force. The enemy force had fire superiority that immediately pinned down the entire point squad with heavy machine gun fire and numerous hand grenades. Through the intense fire of automatic weapons and grenades, Rascon made his way to point where my squad was pinned down and could not move in any direction. Wounded himself, Rascon continued to work his way to my position, attending to wounded as he did. After reaching my position I could see that he was in great pain. He began to patch me up. As I was placing M16 fire in the direction of the enemy, two or three hand grenades were thrown in the direction of Rascon and myself, landing no more than a few feet away. Without hesitation, Rascon jumped on me, taking me to the ground and covering me with his body. He received numerous wounds to his body and face. I truly believe his actions that day saved my life. What more can a person do for God, Country and his fellow man. In closing, I think of the Military Code of Conduct. The First Code, I am an American fighting man, I serve in the forces which guard our Country and our way of life. And I am prepared to give my life in its defense.' The immigrants I had the privilege to know and serve with upheld this Code. Again, thank you for this opportunity. Erick A. Mogollon, a Guatemalan-born immigrant and Gulf War veteran, is a Senior Chief Petty Officer with the U.S. Navy. At the hearing he summed up the views of many immigrant soldiers and sailors when he testified, After having had the opportunity to meet so many shipmates over the course of my career, I can honestly say that the contribution of immigrant American's can never be fully measured. These Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, have left their motherland, been welcomed by the United States and have given of themselves to the defense of this nation. For many immigrants, they have given and will continue to give because of their deep appreciation and dedication to the Untied States. They know, first hand, how it is to live without the protection and security they now count on, and will give their lives to protect it. The statement of Paul Bucha, president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, also included some strong declarations that I believe are worth sharing. Mr. Bucha testified, Tens of thousands of immigrants and hundreds of thousands of the descendants of immigrants have died in combat fighting for America. I put to you that there is a standard, a basic standard, by which to judge whether America is correct to maintain a generous legal immigration policy: Have immigrants and their children and grandchildren been willing to fight and die for the United States of America? The answer--right up to the present day--remains a resounding ``yes.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the testimony delivered by Mr. Bucha and Senior Chief Mogollon be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment to authorize the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon, Mr. Rascon, a Mexican-born immigrant, represents the finest tradition of service to this country. This award, after these many years, will correct an oversight and provide Mr. Rascon with the recognition he has earned. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Representative Lane Evans, who I am working with on this issue and who has worked to help correct the oversight that prevented the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Mr. Rascon. To best understand the courage exhibited by Mr. Rascon, I would like to quote an excerpt from the study ``The Military Contributions of Immigrants'' published by Empower America, the American Immigration Law Foundation, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, Heroes and Heritage, the Japanese American Veterans Association, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. The study describes in detail Mr. Rascon's actions on March 16, 1966: Alfred Rascon was born in Chihuahau, Mexico and immigrated to the United States with his parents in the 1950s. He served two tours in Vietnam, one as a medic, and was known as ``Doc.'' When Rascon volunteered for the service he was not a citizen but still a lawful permanent resident. He was 17 years old but tricked his mother into signing his papers so he could enlist. On March 16, 1966, bullets flew and grenades exploded, and Rascon's platoon found itself in a maelstrom of North Vietnamese firepower. When an American machine gunner went down and someone called for a medic, Rascon, 20 at the time, ignored his orders to remain under cover and rushed down the trail amid a hail of enemy gunfire and grenades. To better protect the wounded soldier, Rascon placed his body between the enemy machine gun fire and the soldier. Rascon turned. He was shot in the hip. Although wounded, he managed to drag the soldier off the trail. Rascon soon discovered the man he was dragging was dead. Specialist 4th Class Larry Gibson crawled forward looking for ammunition. The other machine gunner was already dead and Gibson had no ammunition with which to defend the platoon. Rascon grabbed the dead soldier's ammo and gave it to Gibson. Then, amid relentless enemy fire and grenades, Rascon hobbled back up the trail, snared the dead soldier's machine gun and, most importantly, 400 rounds of additional ammunition. The pace quickened and the grenades dropped. One ripped open Rascon's face. It didn't stop him. He saw another grenade drop five feet from a wounded Neil Haffy. He tackled Haffy and absorbed the grenade blast himself, saving Haffy's life. Though severely wounded, Rascon crawled back among the other wounded and gave them aid. A few minutes later, Rascon saw Sergeant Ray Compton being hit by gunfire. As Rascon moved toward him, another hand grenade dropped. Instead of seeking cover Rascon dove on top of the wounded sergeant and again absorbed the blow. That time the explosion smashed through Rascon's helmet and ripped into his scalp. He saved Compton's life. When the firefight ended, Rascon refused aid for himself until the other wounded were evacuated. So bloodied by the conflict was Rascon that when soldiers placed him on the evacuation helicopter, a chaplain saw his condition and gave him last rites. But Alfred Rascon survived. Today, Rascon, now 50, lives in Howard County, Maryland. The soldiers who witnessed Rascon's deeds that day recommended him in writing for a Medal of Honor. Years later, these soldiers were shocked to discover that he had not received one. The men continue to this day to seek full recognition and the awarding of the Medal of Honor for Alfred Rascon. Perhaps the best description of Alfred Rascon's actions came 30 years later from fellow platoon member Larry Gibson: I was a 19-year-old gunner with a recon section. We were under intense and accurate enemy fire that had pinned down the point squad, making it almost impossible to move without being killed. Unhesitatingly, Doc [as he was called] went forward to aid the wounded and dying. I was one of the wounded. Doc took the brunt of several enemy grenades, shielding the wounded with his body . . . In these few words I cannot fully describe the events of that day. The acts of unselfish heroism Doc performed while saving the many wounded, though severely wounded himself, speak for themselves. This country needs genuine heroes. Doc Rascon is one of those.'' Rascon was once asked why he acted with such courage on the battlefield even though he was an immigrant and not yet a citizen. Rascon replied, ``I was always an American in my heart.'' Mr. President, the approach of Memorial Day is a proper occasion for us to reflect on what it means to live in a nation that can attract young men and women who were not even born here to volunteer and, if necessary, die for their adopted country. It is an occasion to reflect on what it means to live in a nation where to this day the children of immigrants volunteer and serve. Today, over 60,000 active military personnel are immigrants to his country. This desire to serve is consistent with our history. More than 20 percent of the recipients of our highest military award, the Congressional Medal of Honor, have been immigrants. Indeed America remains free because in no small part she has been blessed with many American heroes willing to give their lives in her defense. During his last year in office, Ronald Reagan traveled out to a high school in Suitland, MD. Surrounded by students he was asked about America and what it means to be an American. President Reagan looked out at the young people and responded: I got a letter from a man the other day, and I'll share it with you. The man said you can go to live in Japan, but you cannot become Japanese--or Germany, or France--and he named all the others. But he said anyone from any corner of the world can come to America and become an American. We owe a debt to all those people, wherever they or their parents were born, who have kept our Nation free and safe in a dangerous world. And we owe a continuing debt of gratitude to those today who serve, guarding our country, our homes and our freedom. Like all good things, freedom must be won again and again. I hope all of us will remember those, immigrants and native born, who have won freedom for us in the past, and stand ready to win freedom for us again, if they must. May we never forget our debt to the brave who have fallen and the brave who stand ready to fight. I believe the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon is richly deserved. This award will demonstrate America's appreciation of Alfred Rascon's valor in combat and recognize his extraordinary service to this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. amendment no. 437 (Purpose: To prohibit the return of veterans memorial objects to foreign nations without specific authorization in law) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section and renumber the remaining sections accordingly: ``SEC. . PROHIBITION ON THE RETURN OF VETERANS MEMORIAL

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to a Detroit Free Press article, published on Tuesday of this week, entitled, ``Federal gun cases decrease: Decline in Michigan greater than in U.S.'' This article notes that from 1993 to 1997, there has been a very significant decline in the number of gun prosecutions brought in Detroit. Mr. President, over the last two weeks, we in this body engaged in lengthy debate on the question of how effective or useful different proposals to regulate firearms were likely to be in stemming violent crime, most especially juvenile crime. I supported some of the proposals and opposed others. This article, however, brings home another important point raised in this debate: no matter what laws this Congress passes, their effect on violent crime will almost certainly be negligible if the Administration is not willing to use them to prosecute violent criminals. Unfortunately, the Free Press article provides little ground for optimism on this score. According to the Free Press, between 1993 and 1997 the number of people prosecuted in Detroit in cases investigated by the BATF dropped by 55%, compared with a 36% drop nationally. The Free Press also reports that there has been a nearly 50% decrease in prosecutions involving the three largest categories of federal gun laws, from 221 to 112 respectively. When asked about this, U.S. Attorney Saul Green of Detroit reportedly stated that the decrease in prosecutions in the Eastern District of Michigan follows a downward trend in crimes. In fact, however, while there has been some improvement on that score, Detroit's violent crime rate has been falling significantly less than that of most large metropolitan areas, and it remains unacceptably high. Meanwhile, the much more dramatic decline of violent crime in Richmond, Virginia, where federal officials have pursued a policy of vigorous prosecution of gun offenders, strongly suggests that if the Administration were following the same course in Detroit, we would be doing better. As the Detroit Free Press article points out, police records show that there were 559 murders in Detroit in 1993, compared to 453 in 1998. But that still left Detroit with the highest murder rate per capita for cities with a population of approximately one million or more--and the sixth highest among the U.S.'s 225 largest cities. Moreover, while in 1998 the rate of reported violent crimes decreased 6% nationally, in Detroit it actually increased by 13%, according to FBI figures. Nor is this simply a one-year anomaly. In 1997, the number of murders in Detroit increased by 9% from 1996 and Detroit's murder rate ranked 5th worst among the U.S.'s 225 largest cities. Meanwhile, our rate of serious crime decreased by only 1%, compared to a 3.2% decrease nationally. Similarly, in 1996, Detroit's rate of violent crimes decreased by only 3%, compared to a 7% decrease nationally. Nor is Detroit's relatively small numerical improvement explained by the fact that it is a major metropolitan area. To the contrary, it is mostly the biggest cities, like New York, that have seen the largest drops in crime rates over the past few years. The fact that Detroit is lagging behind the nation's improving violent crime rates, along with the fact that it is continually among nation's 5-7 worst cities with respect to its homicide rate, clearly indicates that this is no time for anyone in Detroit, including the federal government, to be relaxing our crime-fighting efforts. Meanwhile, recent data from Richmond, Virginia's Project EXILE strongly suggest that aggressive prosecution and severe punishment of gun law violations would be of major help. In 1998, the year following the implementation of Project Exile in Richmond, the homicide rate in Richmond decreased by approximately 1/3. The rate of firearm-related homicides in Richmond dropped even more--66%, from 122 in 1997 to 78 in 1998. This takes me back to where I started. I voted in favor of several of the measures the Senate adopted last week because I believe that they can be useful tools in stopping gun violence. But quite simply, no gun laws, either those currently on the books or any new ones that Congress may enact, can be effective if the Attorney General does not enforce them through aggressive prosecution. The Detroit Free Press's article of two days ago confirms that right now, both in Detroit and nationally, aggressive prosecution is not what we are seeing. For our children's sake, it is high time for it to begin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Detroit Free Press article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the wartime heroism and distinguished military service of Commander David H. McClintock and Captain Bladen D. Claggett, retired officers of the United States Navy. Few men have exhibited the degree of bravery shown by these two men during the Second World War. While fighting for the U.S. Navy, these men took part in the greatest naval battle of all time, Leyte Gulf. Their actions at this, the most substantial attack of the Pacific War, severely limited the Japanese fleet at Leyte Gulf and eventually led to a Japanese retreat from the area. In October of 1944, Commander David H. McClintock of the U.S.S. Darter discovered the Japanese main fleet and fired the first shots of the Battle for Leyte Gulf sinking the Japanese Flagship Atago, and crippling the Japanese heavy cruiser Takao. Captain Bladen D. Claggett of the U.S.S. Dace was also involved in the battle engaging and sinking the Japanese heavy Cruiser Maya. In attempting to close on the crippled cruiser, the Darter ran aground. The Darter's entire crew was rescued by the Dace, which ran the risk of grounding herself during the rescue. The actions of these two brave men and their crews will be remembered forever, not only because of the heroics involved, but because they played a major role in preventing a disastrous defeat of the landing force at Leyte Gulf. Today, I salute the captains and crews of the U.S.S. Darter and U.S.S. Dace. I commend Captain David H. McClintock and Captain Bladen D. Claggett for their distinguished careers and contributions to the United States of America. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Captain David H. McClintock and Captain Bladen D. Claggett, who will be present at a ground-breaking ceremony May 29th, 1999, to establish an exhibit to the Marquette Maritime Museum commemorating their most heroic deeds.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Irene Auberlin, the ``Mother Teresa'' of Detroit. Mrs. Auberlin is the founder of World Medical Relief (WMR), an organization which, to date, has distributed more than $500 million worth of medical goods both in Detroit area, where she lived, and abroad. Mrs. Auberlin was a quiet home-maker until she saw a television program about orphans in Korea in 1953. She provided supplies to the nuns who ran the orphanage, thus beginning over 46 years of service to the poor. Since then, WMR has sent food, medical equipment, and supplies throughout the United States and to over 120 countries. In 1966, WMR began a monthly prescription program that still exists today, providing medicine to elderly poor in the Detroit area. Mrs. Auberlin received over 60 awards and commendations, including The President's Volunteer Action Award and Silver Medal, presented to her by President Reagan. On behalf of the residents of Michigan, the United States, and elsewhere, I want to thank Irene for all that she did to help those in need.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. No more than 10 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I suspect I will not use all of the time that I have been allotted, but I do want to speak here today in opposition to the amendment before us offered by the Senator from Texas. Especially in light of the grave concerns that all of us share about the readiness of our Armed Forces and the significant steps that Congress took in the supplemental appropriations bill to address this problem, as well as in the budget which we passed earlier this year, I strongly believe that section 806 of the defense reauthorization bill should be retained. This is not because I think that having Federal prisoners working is not important. To the contrary, I think it is very important. I firmly believe that the development through work, self-discipline and other virtues that enable people to lead productive lives is probably the single greatest hope for rehabilitation in a prison setting. Indeed, it is disappointing that, according to the May 20 Wall Street Journal, only 17 percent of Federal prisoners work under the current Federal Prison Industries program. But providing for national defense is the Federal Government's paramount responsibility. Given the very serious problems we are facing with respect to our military readiness, we need to take every possible step to rectify these problems as quickly and as effectively as possible. There is no question in my mind that the requirement that the Department of Defense contract with FPI for certain products, and giving FPI a veto over the Defense Department's going elsewhere, is an obstacle to our efforts to fix these problems. The routine, significant failure by FPI to provide goods that the Defense Department has contracted for on a timely basis--almost half of the time in 1995, and over a third of the time in 1996--is simply unacceptable. To have the Defense Department depend on FPI for over 300 different products under these circumstances is also simply unacceptable. Finally, in this era of tight budgets, to be spending precious defense resources on FPI goods that we could be obtaining at lower prices from the private sector is also unacceptable. We should obviously address these problems by allowing the Department of Defense to go elsewhere and to do so without getting advance permission from FPI. I am glad the Armed Services Committee, at the prompting of my colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, has so provided in the reauthorization bill that recently passed out of committee. I would add that the provision adopted by the Armed Services Committee still requires the Department of Defense to give FPI the opportunity to compete for contracts for almost all products and only permits the Department of Defense to go elsewhere if it determines that the product being offered by FPI is not comparable in price, quality, and time of delivery to products available from the private sector. The only exceptions are for national security systems, products integral to or embedded in a product not available from FPI, or products that cost less than $2,500. In those instances, under section 806, the Department of Defense does not have to seek a bid from FPI, but in all other instances DOD would continue to be required to do so. It will be argued that we cannot follow this course without jeopardizing another important Federal policy, that of putting Federal inmates to work. But if that were really our only option, we would be facing a much harder choice, since we would arguably be having to choose between pursuing a course critical to securing tranquility abroad and a course important to securing domestic tranquility. I do not believe we are really faced with that dilemma. Rather, I am convinced that the limits this legislation imposes on the FPI monopoly can plainly be offset by expanding other opportunities for prisoners to work. This could be done, for example, by having the FPI focus on products that we do not produce domestically and that we are now importing from abroad. Or it could be done by putting prisoners to work on functions that are currently being assigned to government entities such as recycling. It will be argued that we should come up with the new opportunities first and then consider proposals along the lines of section 806 if the other options prove workable. I disagree. I believe we should put the needs of our national defense ahead of the needs of prisoners. I have no real question that if we do so, we will discover that in fact we are able to devise policies that adequately address both sets of needs. I will just close by restating what I said last year in a similar debate. None of us who are advocating a change in policy here are advocating the elimination of work requirements for Federal prisoners. But when Federal prisoners in the work they do are taking jobs away from law-abiding Americans who have never committed a crime, then I think we have to reexamine our policy. To me, it makes sense to devise a prison work policy that does not injure law-abiding citizens. I believe that requiring the FPI to be competitive in its bidding process and not granting it a monopoly are the right way to achieve this end. That way the taxpayers are protected from paying excessively for furniture or other items that are produced by the Prison Industries, and those individuals working in the private sector in competition with the Prison Industries have a legitimate opportunity to secure government contracts. To me, that is the American way, the competitive process. To me, if the Federal Prison Industries can't be competitive in that setting, where it has so much of a subsidy advantage to begin with, then it seems to me that the system isn't working the way it should be. I hope that we will vote to retain in place section 806 and that, at least in the specific context of the Department of Defense, we will follow the lead that has already been laid out by Senator Levin in the authorization bill as it comes to the floor. To me, that is a sensible course for us to pursue. It strikes the right balance. It by no means eliminates the work requirement for prisoners, but it does provide people who are law-abiding citizens, companies that are law-abiding companies, a chance to do business with the government in a very vital and sensitive area, specifically that of national security. To me, that is a sensible middle ground. Therefore, I hope that our colleagues will vote in opposition to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that my amendment to the pending Juvenile Justice bill was included in a package of amendments cleared by the managers. I would like to talk briefly about why this provision is crucial to combatting school violence. As I am sure many of my colleagues are aware, the Holland Woods Middle School in Port Huron, Michigan, made national news this past week. Four children, the youngest of them 12 years old, were arrested for plotting to do ``something worse'' than the tragedy that occurred in Littleton, Colorado. Police in Port Huron believe that the plot was more than a prank. They believe the students planned to rob a gun store for the weapons needed to carry out their plan. Here we have yet another sign, Mr. President, of the epidemic in this country of violence and fear in our schools. All across the country, schools are experiencing bomb threats and students and teachers are beginning to fear entering the classroom. The Detroit News front page headline from yesterday summed it up: ``Fear, threats invade Metro classrooms.'' The News went on to report that one- third of the 560 students at Holland Woods Middle School stayed home Monday, the first day of classes since police discovered the plot to massacre students there. Mr. President, students should not fear for their lives when they enter the school building. Indeed, they have a right not to be put in this kind of fear, particularly on school grounds. I believe we must do more to help schools deal with threats of violence. We must give schools more options to prevent the type of tragedy that occurred in Littleton and that also might have occurred in Port Huron. Following the incident in Holland Woods Middle School, Assistant Superintendent Thomas Miller outlined the school system's response to increasing security at their schools. The school system's plan would include 24-hour security guard surveillance at all schools and a bomb- sniffing dog. Other proposed security measures could include metal detectors, the elimination of coats in classrooms and photo identification badges for pupils and teachers. Mr. President, my provision would allow schools facing these serious security problems to access Safe and Drug Free School money to address their security needs and to truly keep their schools ``safe.'' In light of the growing number of violence in our schools and an increase in the number of threats, we must provide local school districts with further, effective options in combatting the proliferation of guns, explosives, and other weapons in our schools. My provision will also help schools deal with the scourge of drugs, a scourge which not only ruins individual lives but also breeds the kinds of isolation, maladjustment and violence we have seen so often in recent years. Currently, school districts may use funds allocated under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act for a variety of programs aimed at reducing drug use and school violence. School districts need additional options. My amendment would allow local school districts to access funding under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act for use in conducting locker searches for guns, explosives, other weapons, or drugs and for the drug testing of students. Drug use constitutes a full-fledged epidemic in our schools, Mr. President. In a recent Luntz survey, three fourths of high school students said that their schools are not drug free. 41 percent reported seeing drugs sold on school grounds. And now the drug menace is moving into our middle schools. 46 percent, almost half of our middle school kids, go to schools that are not drug free. With the explosion in drug use we also have seen a massive proliferation of guns in our schools. The Departments of Education and Justice report that 6,093 students were expelled for bringing guns to school during the 1996-97 school year alone. This is the situation supposedly addressed by the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act. So, what is this act, written into law in 1986 and with current funding levels at $566 million, accomplishing? Tragically little, Mr. President. Congress passed the Safe and Drug Free School Act allocating funds to fight drug use and the violence it breeds. But that money is not being spent wisely, on programs that actually succeed in reducing drug use and gun violence in our schools. Instead, Mr. President, a report in the Los Angeles Times has found that grant money is being used to pay for questionable activities like motivational speakers, puppet shows, tickets to Disneyland, dunking booths and magic shows. Surely we can use this law for something more than what President Clinton's own drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, calls a program to ``mail out checks.'' Our children and their teachers deserve better. Indeed, Mr. President, they are demanding better. For three years running, teens in the Luntz survey have deemed drugs the most important problem they face. Most teens favor random locker searches and drug testing of all students. And their teachers agree. Four out of five teachers favor locker searches and a zero tolerance policy on drugs. Two thirds favor at least some form of drug testing. Mr. President, our teachers and our children have recognized the obvious: we must find those who are bringing guns and explosives into our schools if we are to stop gun and other forms of violence affecting our kids By the same token, Mr. President, you must find those who are using and dealing drugs before you can effectively deal with the drug problem in our schools. My amendment accepts the common sense logic expressed by our teachers and students. My amendment does nothing to alter the availability of funds for other options in the fight against drugs and gun violence in our schools. It merely adds to the list the option of using these funds for locker searches and drug testing. It, rightly in my view, leaves the final decision on these issues to those who know the needs of their schools best--local authorities. But it adds an important option to the list from which they can choose. I am pleased that this common sense proposal has been cleared by the managers. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mr. John Floreno who has been named the Italian American of the Year by the Italian Study Group of Troy. The annual recognition is presented to those who make significant contributions in promoting and maintaining the importance of the Italian culture. John Floreno dedicated himself for over 20 years to the Italian American Cultural Society in Warren, Michigan, in many ways, including raising funds to build the cultural center, arranging for the purchase of the center's property, and providing for significant repair costs for the center. Over the years, John has been recognized through many distinguished awards for his dedication to the Italian heritage. It was through John's leadership that the construction of the center went forward. The Center is a central location where the community can gather to teach and preserve the Italian culture for future generations. I am proud to say that Michigan is home to one of the most vibrant Italian communities in the United States. They have brought countless contributions to the Great Lakes State. Our Italian community in Michigan has played an important role in enhancing the Italian culture, identity and pride of Italian-Americans, by teaching the importance of family, church and local community. I want to express my congratulations to John Floreno for his years of dedication in keeping those traditions alive. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mr. Franco Iaderosa who has been named the Italian American of the Year by the Italian Study Group of Troy. The annual recognition is presented to those who make significant contributions in promoting and maintaining the importance of the Italian culture. Franco Iaderosa has dedicated himself to many years of service to the rich heritage of the Italian-American community in Michigan through his outstanding leadership as Education Director of the N.O.I. Foundation which promotes the Italian Language curriculum in both public and private Detroit schools. It is through Franco's commitment to the education of our children that Italian history, culture and traditions can be preserved and enhanced in our communities. I am proud to say that Michigan is home to one of the most vibrant Italian communities in the United States. They have brought countless contributions to the Great Lakes State. Our Italian community in Michigan has played an important role in enhancing the Italian culture, identity and pride of Italian-Americans, by teaching the importance of family, church, and local community. I want to express my congratulations to Franco Iaderosa for his years of dedication in keeping those traditions alive. Mr. President, I yield the floor.