Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment attempts to embody a principle I discussed in my remarks and which we in the Budget Committee, I think, within the committee at least, indicated we desired to see happen, which is the creation of a lockbox mechanism into which we would make sure every Social Security surplus dollar would go, so it could not be used for any purpose other than to fix Social Security or, until such a Social Security fix was developed and passed, to reduce the national debt. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I want to make that clear. It is not a substantive amendment, per se. But, Mr. President, we all agree that saving Social Security is our No. 1 priority in this Congress. The President, both in his 1998 and his 1999 address, said we should save the Social Security surplus and use it--in this year's speech, he said we should use it to reduce Federal debt, to ensure that it is not squandered on other spending. This amendment embodies that principle in the form of a sense-of-the-Senate amendment and outlines the course by which I think we can accomplish that in the most appropriate fashion. Indeed, Mr. President, this budget resolution agrees with that prioritization and allows for the entire surplus of Social Security to be protected and to substantially reduce the Federal debt held by the public. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee with whom I have worked on this amendment, and I thank Senator Ashcroft who joined me in offering that, who I think will both speak to this at some point. This is a very straightforward proposal, one I think will best protect the surplus and strengthen our economy so that the future of Social Security can be best ensured. Let me outline some of the provisions. It would strengthen the off- budget status of Social Security as well as provide for additional points of order against any bill, amendment, resolution, or conference report that would violate this off-budget treatment. Second, it would create a subcategory of the gross Federal debt limit, the debt held by the public. If this proposal were ultimately put into effect through law, we would then cap that publicly held debt at the current level of $3.6 trillion. We would also then mandate the reduction of that debt level in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and every 2 years thereafter, by the same amount as the Social Security trust fund surplus in those years. These limits would be automatically adjusted as projected Social Security trust fund surpluses change, so as to ensure that we do not force ourselves to reduce the publicly held debt by a greater amount than we actually have available in the Social Security surplus, as well as to ensure that windfall Social Security surpluses would be protected from being raided. The proposal would also allow for a one-time adjustment to accommodate Social Security reform, should the Congress enact such reform. This proposal, if it were actually passed into law, would reduce publicly held debt from $3.6 trillion to $2.4 trillion by the year 2009. I believe that is an even greater reduction than what the President's framework proposal suggested. It thereby locks away a larger portion of the Social Security surplus. To that end, I might add that the budget resolution we have before us contains advisory caps on the publicly held debt limits which mirror those contained in this proposal. However, I believe it is necessary for the Congress to go beyond those advisory caps and to commit itself to reducing this publicly held debt and locking away the Social Security surplus from being spent on other programs. That is why I am joined by 11 colleagues, including Senators Domenici and Ashcroft, as well as the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, in offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which will state that it is our intention to pursue such a course of action. This amendment would state that it is our intention to pass legislation to reaffirm the off-budget status of the Social Security trust fund, mandate that the Social Security surplus only be used for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, or the reduction of debt held by the public, and provide for protection such as points of order against any legislation which would try to circumvent those protections, ensure the Social Security benefits continue to be paid in full and on time, and accommodate Social Security reform. We think this makes sense. We think it is consistent with colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been talking about it for an extensive period of time. We think it made sense in this budget resolution to go on record saying this is the direction in which we are going to head. It is one thing to talk about saving Social Security and making sure that Social Security surpluses aren't spent, making sure we reduce the public debt with Social Security surpluses, and so on; but I think talk is one thing, action is another. I suggest that the passage of this amendment which I have offered with my colleagues would be the sort of action that would set us on the right course to make sure that ultimately we do in fact protect the Social Security surpluses so they can only be used to fix Social Security or to pay down the national debt. With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I know other colleagues here want to speak on this issue, and in due course, as we go back and forth, I am sure they will. I thank the budget chairman and the current occupant of the manager's chair, and I thank our ranking member as well, for the opportunity to speak. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging, as others have, the work and accomplishment of our Senate Budget Committee, and particularly the work of our chairman, in putting together this budget which we are debating today. A lot of people have tried to take credit with respect to the remarkably strong fiscal position we find ourselves in today. But I remind all of our colleagues that when, in 1995, this Senator arrived, notwithstanding tax increases and other such devices, we still were considering budgets with deficits as great as $200 billion for as far as the eye could see. We had one leader in the Senate, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who said, We are not going to allow that to happen; we are going to begin to strengthen the economy and tighten the belt in ways that eliminate the budget deficit. I am proud to be a member of the committee and never to have voted for anything but a balanced budget since I became a part of that committee. I attribute that to our chairman and his staff for the hard work they have done to craft documents that have moved us in this direction. Let me just briefly outline the budget we are looking at here today for the benefit of our colleagues who may be perhaps reaching the wrong conclusions as to what it contains on the basis of some of the speeches we have heard today. I want to set the record straight. Our budget accomplishes a number of important priorities. First, it sets aside every single dollar of the Social Security surplus so that we can use that Social Security surplus for exactly what the public expects us to use it for, and that is to fix Social Security and to ensure its long- term solvency. Later, I will offer an amendment here which will ask the Senate to take a position in support of the kind of protection and lockbox mechanism that will guarantee that every one of those Social Security dollars is used for that purpose. Second, this budget makes important investments in two areas of public policy where I think there is a broad consensus of support, both inside the Senate as well as across America. One of those areas is education. This budget acknowledges a greater Federal investment in the support of education in our country. It does not dictate how those dollars will be spent, obviously. I think a lot of us feel they ought to be spent in the classroom. With the budget chairman here, I ask if he could respond. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this budget, in fact, increases education spending not only over its baseline increase but even beyond what has been proposed by prominent education advocates such as the President, is that not correct?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, 15 minutes. I believe I can make an opening statement and comments on the amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my condemnation of anti-Semitic statements given by Communist Party members of the Russian Duma. I believe that this is an important issued that must be addressed. The Russian Federation vowed to fight against such discrimination when joining the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In order to maintain this commitment, the Russian Duma must censure those in its ranks failing to comply with the recognized OSCE resolution. In the U.S., Congress has joined international organizations and the world community in denouncing the anti-Semitic statements. House Concurrent Resolution 37 asserts that Congress: condemns the statements; commends President Boris Yeltsin and other members of the Russian Duma for rebuking the anti-Semitic statements; and reiterates our firm belief that such discrimination is counter-productive to efforts toward true peace and justice. Furthermore, in dialogue with Russian leaders the U.S. has the opportunity to combat this hate-filled rhetroic. I believe it is of the utmost priority that the anti-Semitic statements be given proper attention in discussions with Russian leaders. I urge my colleagues to join me in not only supported House Concurrent Resolution 37, but also in signing onto the letter to Vice- President Al Gore raising the issue of anti-Semitism with Prime Minister Primakove.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on Tuesday morning, the President made it clear that efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution to the Kosovo crisis had failed and that military action in the form of NATO conducted air strikes employing US military equipment and personnel was imminent. Although I am very disappointed that the President did not include congressional leaders much earlier in this important debate, the fact remains that the President has begun the process, under his authority as Commander-in-Chief, which will lead to air strikes and will put the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. My vote supporting S. Con. Res. 21 was, therefore cast, for the express purpose of conveying support for our troops who, at this moment, are ready to risk their lives on this very dangerous mission. My vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of or authorization for any escalation to more extensive involvement, such as the introduction of ground troops in this conflict. Indeed, before any such escalation of our military commitment in this crisis is contemplated, I believe the President should give Congress a more significant role in the debate than we have thus far and address many critical questions regarding US military involvement. Specifically, the President must clearly explain what US national security interests are at stake, the mission objectives of our military action, the cost and duration of the deployment, and overall exit strategy. Failure to consult with Congress on these important issues in a timely fashion would significantly affect the extent of my support for any subsequent, broader US involvement.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Crapo in introducing a Sense of the Senate Resolution rejecting a new tax proposed by the Clinton administration. As part of the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal, this tax would be levied on the investment income earned by nonprofit trade associations and professional societies. This proposal, which would tax any income earned through interest, dividends, capital gains, rents and royalties in excess of $10,000, imposes a tremendous burden on thousands of small- and mid-sized trade associations and professional societies currently exempt under 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. The administration would like us to believe that this tax is targeted to a few large associations, affecting only those ``lobbying organizations'' which exist as tax shelters for members and to further the goals of special interests. Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. This new tax would affect an estimated 70,000 registered trade associations and professional societies. The bulk of these associations operate at a state and local level, many of whom perform little, if any, lobbying function. In fact, associations rely on investment income to perform such vital services as education, training, standard setting, industry safety, research and statistical data, and community outreach. Through association-organized volunteer programs, Americans contribute more than 173 million volunteer hours per year, at a value estimated at over $2 billion annually. These organizations already contribute millions in taxes for any activities which place them in competition with for-profit businesses. Yet the administration would like to impose a new tax on income earned outside of the competitive business environment, income which is used to fund functions serving the public welfare. Unlike for-profit corporations, investment income does not go to shareholders, individuals, or other companies. Associations do not have the liberty of simply raising prices, as do ordinary corporations, to cover increased costs. Mr. President, faced with an additional increase in taxes of $1.44 billion over the next five years, many associations will be forced to cut back on important services, and some may not survive an economic downturn without the small cushion their investments provide. Without such services provided by associations, the Government will be forced to step in, increasing expenditures and creating additional Government programs and departments. During a time when the Government is projecting on-budget tax surpluses of more than $800 billion over the next 10 years, it is unconscionable that we allow the administration to levy a new tax on these nonprofit organizations.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I along with 19 of my colleagues will be re-introducing the Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation will make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion if this action circumvents a state parental involvement law. Last year, this bill received a majority of votes but fell short of the sixty votes needed for cloture. It is my hope that this year the Senate will listen to the 74 percent of Americans who favor parental consent prior to a minor girl receiving an abortion. This Baseline & Associates poll, conducted last summer, reveals that the American public favors parental consent laws and when asked specifically about this legislation, the American public is even more supportive. Eighty five percent of those who participated in the poll believed that minor girls should not be taken across state lines to obtain an abortion without their parents' knowledge. These poll numbers reinforce what common sense already tells us: parents need to be involved with the major medical and emotional decisions of their children. When they are not involved, the health and emotional well being of their child is in jeopardy. Last year, we heard from Joyce Farley, whose 13 year old daughter was raped, taken across state lines for a secret abortion by the rapist's mother, and dropped off 30 miles from home suffering from complications from an incomplete abortion. Mrs. Farley told of the trauma to her daughter from this stranger's actions. Luckily, Mrs. Farley found out about the abortion and could obtain appropriate medical care for her daughter. If this abortion had remained secret, Mrs. Farley's daughter's life could have been in danger. Whatever one's position on abortion, every American should recognize the crucial role of parents in their minor child's decision whether or not to undergo this procedure. Parental notification and consent laws exist for a reason. While most such laws provide for possible judicial bypass, they by nature intend to protect the rights and integrity of the family. More than 20 states have recognized the need to protect both the minor and the integrity of the family and have parental involvement laws in effect. My legislation adds no new provisions to state-enacted parental involvement laws. It does not impose parental involvement requirements on states that have not passed such laws. The Child Custody Protection Act simply prevents the undermining of parental involvement laws in states that have them. I hope my colleagues will support me in working to quickly pass this common sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I along with 19 of my colleagues will be re-introducing the Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation will make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion if this action circumvents a state parental involvement law. Last year, this bill received a majority of votes but fell short of the sixty votes needed for cloture. It is my hope that this year the Senate will listen to the 74 percent of Americans who favor parental consent prior to a minor girl receiving an abortion. This Baseline & Associates poll, conducted last summer, reveals that the American public favors parental consent laws and when asked specifically about this legislation, the American public is even more supportive. Eighty five percent of those who participated in the poll believed that minor girls should not be taken across state lines to obtain an abortion without their parents' knowledge. These poll numbers reinforce what common sense already tells us: parents need to be involved with the major medical and emotional decisions of their children. When they are not involved, the health and emotional well being of their child is in jeopardy. Last year, we heard from Joyce Farley, whose 13 year old daughter was raped, taken across state lines for a secret abortion by the rapist's mother, and dropped off 30 miles from home suffering from complications from an incomplete abortion. Mrs. Farley told of the trauma to her daughter from this stranger's actions. Luckily, Mrs. Farley found out about the abortion and could obtain appropriate medical care for her daughter. If this abortion had remained secret, Mrs. Farley's daughter's life could have been in danger. Whatever one's position on abortion, every American should recognize the crucial role of parents in their minor child's decision whether or not to undergo this procedure. Parental notification and consent laws exist for a reason. While most such laws provide for possible judicial bypass, they by nature intend to protect the rights and integrity of the family. More than 20 states have recognized the need to protect both the minor and the integrity of the family and have parental involvement laws in effect. My legislation adds no new provisions to state-enacted parental involvement laws. It does not impose parental involvement requirements on states that have not passed such laws. The Child Custody Protection Act simply prevents the undermining of parental involvement laws in states that have them. I hope my colleagues will support me in working to quickly pass this common sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Great Lakes Chamber Music Festival, a dynamic organization which has made an incredible contribution to Michigan's culture. The Chamber's concerts have really left their imprint on our State, with some twenty concerts in and near Detroit each year, many of which occur in the venues of the Festival's sponsors--St. Hugo of the Hills Catholic Church, Temple Beth El, and Kirk in the Hills. Additional concert locations range from the Detroit Zoo to the Detroit Institute of Arts. The Festival is administered by Detroit Chamber Winds & Strings, which performs a number of the concerts. But today, I would like to take a moment to officially welcome the Chamber to our nation's capital for what is expected to be a stellar performance in the Library of Congress on Friday evening. The Great Lakes Chamber Music Festival was born in 1994. The Festival is sponsored by three religious institutions, representing Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant faiths, and Detroit Chamber Winds & Strings, a prominent chamber music ensemble. Pianist James Tocco has been Artistic Director of the Festival since its inception. A native Detroiter, Mr. Tocco has brought a rotating contingent of world-class musicians to the Festival, creating an event of national significance. The list of performers reads like a long ``Who's who'' in chamber music, including Ruth Laredo, Peter Oundjian, Paul Katz, Miriam Fried, Gilbert, Kalish, Philip Setzer, the St. Lawrence Quartet, Peter Wiley, Ida and Ani Kavafian, and others. The Festival provides a major educational initiative to assist ensembles emerging to professional stature. Entitled the Shouse Institute, this program brings groups from throughout the world to Detroit for performances and coachings by Festival artists. These young artists attend the Festival tuition-free and receive complimentary lodging. So in welcoming the Great Lakes Chamber Festival to Washington, D.C., and thanking all of those from the Chamber that made this possible, I also would like to single out Gwen and Evan Weiner, dear friends of our family who introduced the Chamber to me and who have played a critical role in enhancing cultural life in Michigan, as well as Harriet Rotter, another close friend who has contributed a great deal of time and energy to this effort. Gwen, Evan, Harriet, and the many others who are involved with the Chamber Festival are sterling examples of community leadership at its best, and I am pleased they are here today. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard and dedicated work of Maury Okun, the Chamber Festival's Executive Director, an invaluable member of the Chamber Festival team. Again, I want to commend all those involved in making The Great Lakes Chamber Music Festival a tremendous success, and extend my warmest wishes and best of luck for the concert Friday night and in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas. I wanted to just briefly speak in relationship to the Harkin-Specter amendment with regard to the tobacco recoupment issue and the issue of exactly what should happen to the funds that the States are now entitled to receive as a result of the legal settlement that was achieved between 46 States and the tobacco companies. Mr. President, this, to me, should be a pretty clear-cut result. The States entered into this litigation. They did all the work. They made the case persuasively. They were finally able to prevail on the merits, in terms of convincing the other side to engage in a settlement. So, for those reasons, it does not seem to me to be particularly difficult to conclude that the benefits, the proceeds, the settlement moneys ought to go to the States. I believe, since the States did this on their own and since the States are certainly quite knowledgeable about the needs of their constituents, that we should allow them not only to be the recipients of those funds but we should give them the discretion to make the decisions that are necessary as to what priorities to set in spending those dollars. Let me just begin briefly with the basic case itself. The States joined together. The Federal Government did not play a role in the technical sense, or as a party to the proceedings. Indeed, in his State of the Union Address the President even indicated he was directing the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to bring a separate litigation on behalf of the people of the United States against the tobacco companies. Presumably, one would not bring that case if one did not think that the States' decisions were separate from any kind of Federal component. Once the States won, of course, money became available. Unfortunately, at that point the Federal Government, through the Health Care Finance Administration, is attempting to intercede in the President's budget to a very substantial degree, trying to wrest control of a substantial portion of those dollars. As I recall, roughly 60 percent of the first 5 years' revenues to the States which, under the President's budget, would, instead, be diverted to Washington. The basis for their claim is, in my judgment, a weak one, predicated on the argument that Medicaid overpayments are to be returned to the States. This is not a Medicaid overpayment from the Federal Government. This is a settlement between the States and these tobacco companies, a settlement fairly reached and a settlement based on the States' belief that their citizens had been in some ways the victims of the illnesses relating to tobacco. That said, we have now moved to a slightly different stage. In the content of this supplemental appropriation bill is language which would make it absolutely and explicitly clear that the States will receive these dollars. Now, we have before us an amendment that says: OK, if the States are going to get the money they still have to spend it on the priorities set by bureaucrats in Washington. Indeed, it is my understanding that the proposed amendment would essentially place the Secretary of Health and Human Services in a position to determine what programs qualify for, and whether States are in compliance with, these Federal mandates for 25 years. Basically, what this amendment says is approximately 50 percent, 50 percent of the settlement moneys have to be spent the way Washington dictates, and that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide not only what that dictation means but whether the States have done it. The States will be required to engage in extensive recordkeeping and an annual process of appealing for approval, the same kind of bureaucratic redtape that costs money and complicates, in my judgment, far too many things we do already. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and it's not just this Secretary but any Secretary over the next quarter of a century, doesn't agree with the States, they can then veto, in effect, the States' expenditures costing the States as much as approximately $123 billion during that time. The bottom line is, I think, a fairly simple one. Who knows best what the needs of the States are, the States themselves or bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services? I believe the States do. I think we can trust the States to make the right decisions as to how to spend the moneys derived from the tobacco settlements. That is assuming, of course, that we have any right to tell them in the first place. I do not even acknowledge that. But assuming there even was a right of the Federal Government in some respect, I just cannot imagine why anybody here in Washington is going to do a better job than people at the State level in making these judgments. The priorities that have been set which relate to such things as counteradvertising or youth awareness or public health priorities, are priorities virtually every State has already set for themselves. Many of the States, including I believe my own, have done great things along the way to try to discourage smoking by young people and to address public health needs. If they have done that well, the notion that they now have to spend new moneys recouped through this settlement on these programs at least in my judgment would be a grievous error. So it comes back to something we talk about a lot around here: Who should set priorities and who knows best? In my view, the people at the local and State level, on issues and problems like this, do know best. They ought to make the decisions as to how the money, which was rightfully won by them in these lawsuits, ought to be spent. And we in Washington ought to be happy that there is going to be an abundance of resources going to the States to address the top priorities of those States. The notion that we have to dictate how 50 percent or even 30 percent or 10 percent of these dollars have to be spent, I think both, A, incorrectly presumes that somehow we had a stake in the lawsuit and, B, that, somehow we know better. I believe it has been proven time after time that we do not know better, particularly in these types of matters which obviously have peculiarities that differ from State to State. So, for those reasons I rise in opposition to the amendment. I look forward to working with the Senator from Texas and with a variety of other Senators who have been working together as cosponsors of the legislation that is included in the supplemental appropriation bill, to make sure that first and foremost the States get access to all the money won in the settlements and that, second, the States have the right to make the decisions as to how to spend those dollars. So, Mr. President, I hope we will be successful in preventing agreement to this amendment. I look forward to working on this until it is completed. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Samuel R. Dismond Jr. and HealthPlus of Michigan for their strong commitment to health, education and the well-being of the Genesee Valley area. Dr. Dismond is the current chief of staff at Hurley Medical Center. Throughout his distinguished medical career, he has served on a number of influential boards. Dr. Dismond has also been recognized numerous times for his contributions to the medical profession. By supporting his community and actively promoting research in health related fields, Dr. Dismond has made a difference in a number of patient's and associate's lives. HealthPlus of Michigan has worked tirelessly to promote lung health within their organization and their community, including efforts to help any willing employee or patient quit smoking. This was accomplished by offering various smoking cessation and behavioral support programs. However, the biggest step HealthPlus has taken was instituting guidelines requiring every physician affiliated with HealthPlus to inquire about his or her patient's smoking status during each visit and to track it within their permanent medical records. Also, the physician must encourage every smoker to attempt to stop smoking. HealthPlus has also donated money to the American Lung Association so that they might help to teach area children about asthma. It is with great pleasure that I announce to the U.S. Senate Dr. Samuel R. Dismond as the recipient of this year's American Lung Association ``1998 Individual Health Advocate of the Year'' and HealthPlus as the ``1998 Corporate Health Advocate of the Year.'' These awards will be presented at the 16th annual Health Advocate of the Year Awards Dinner on March 18, 1999 in Grand Blanc, Michigan. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Dr. Dismond and HealthPlus of Michigan.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor S. 261, the Trade Fairness Act of 1999. I believe this legislation is crucial to our attempts to save American jobs from unfair competition and dumping. Specifically, Mr. President, we must implement this legislation to protect our steelworkers from imports dumped into our domestic markets by our Russian, Asian and Brazilian competitors. American steelworkers have proven that they are our nation's backbone. They provide the materials on which our shipping, manufacturing, indeed our entire industrial base rely. In my state's Upper Peninsula two mines, the Tilden and the Empire, employ almost 2,000 Michiganians. Last year the workers in these mines produced over 15 million tons of iron ore pellets. They paid $8 million in taxes. Time and again they have stood up for America, and it is time for America to stand up for them. We must stand up for these hard working men and women, Mr. President, because they face a very real threat to their livelihoods. Let me cite a few numbers. By October of last year Japan had already doubled its imports to the United States from the year before. Just in that month of October, Japan sent 882,000 tons of steel to the United States, an all-time record. Finally, in that month alone 4.1 million net tons of steel were imported to the United States. The reasons for this steep increase in imports are threefold. First, the Federal Reserve's longstanding tight money policy produced actual deflation in commodity prices, deflation from which our steel industry has yet to recover. Second, the Asian, Russian and Brazilian economic crises are forcing those countries to rely on exports to keep their economies afloat. The U.S. is the world's biggest market, and so they have targeted us. Third, the International Monetary Fund convinced these countries to raise interest rates and devalue currencies, which allowed their steel to undercut our prices. Combined, these factors have encouraged the unfair trade practice of dumping, selling steel in the United States at prices below the cost of production. This practice threatens disastrous consequences for our steelworkers and for our economy. Already, Mr. President, 10,000 workers have been laid off, with more than twice that many put on reduced hours. We cannot stand by while American workers lose their jobs. We cannot abide the unfair trade practice of dumping. We have worked hard--these men and women have worked hard--to build a prosperous America. We cannot sacrifice them to pay for bureaucrats' mistakes, be they in Washington, Tokyo, or Moscow. Mr. President, I have never made a secret of my strong, free-trade views. But free trade must also be fair trade. Our laws already recognize this principle. After all, we already have trade laws on the books intended to deal with these kinds of issues. It is time to enforce them. In addition, however, I believe the fact that these trade laws are not being enforced shows the need for reform. That is why I am cosponsoring the Trade Fairness Act. This legislation will lower the threshold for establishing injury to our industries so that we may more effectively protect them from unfair trade practices. Under this law imports that have a causal link to substantial injury in an industry will trigger action. Substantial injury will be determined by the International Trade Commission, considering ``the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms; the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports; changes in the levels of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization, profits and losses, and employment.'' In addition, this legislation establishes a comprehensive steel import permit and monitoring program modeled on similar systems in Canada and Mexico. The program would require importers to provide information regarding country of origin, quantity, value, and Harmonized Traffic Schedule number. The legislation also requires the Administration to release the data collected to the public in aggregate form on an expedited basis. The information provided by the licensing program will allow the Commerce Department and the steel industry to monitor the influx of steel imports into the U.S. Presently, it is very difficult to obtain timely information regarding the volume of steel that enters the country. It usually take 2-3 months before specific figures can be obtained. This makes it very difficult to gauge the extent of the problem when the damage is occurring. Mr. President, this legislation provides us with the tools we need to protect working Americans from unfair foreign competition. It will prevent undue hardship while upholding the standards of free, fair and open trade. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the forty-third anniversary of Tunisia's independence. Although Tunisia received its independence in 1956, America has maintained close ties with Tunisia since 1797. This historic partnership has promoted peace and cooperation between our two countries. In America's early years, Tunisia provided important commercial advantages and a safe harbor for American vessels establishing maritime trade in the Mediterranean. During America's darkest hour, the Civil War, Tunisia supported the anti-slavery movement, and its leaders conversed with American officials on the significance of human dignity. During World War II, Tunisia continued to fight for the values of the free world by supporting American and Allied forces as they landed in North Africa. After the war, Tunisia sought American support for its independence; and in 1956, the United States was the first world power to recognize Tunisia's newly won sovereignty. Since that time, the United States and Tunisia have garnered further achievements in bilateral cooperation. Impressive strides have been taken in advancing the development of Tunisia, as well as sustaining further security and stability in all relations. Tunisia and the United States have also been important allies in striving for progress towards peace in the Middle East. As the relationship between Tunisia and the United States continues to grow, I believe it is important that we take time to observe this important milestone. In echoing the historic words of President Dwight Eisenhower, it is my sincere hope and desire that Tunisia continues to consider the United States as its friend and partner in freedom.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to mark the ninth anniversary of the restoration of Lithuania's independence. I also rise to pay tribute to the Lithuanian people for their perseverance and sacrifice, which enabled them to achieve the freedom they now enjoy. On March 11, 1990, the newly elected Lithuanian Parliament, fulfilling its electoral mandate from the people of Lithuania, declared the restoration of Lithuania's independence and the establishment of a democratic state. This marked a great moment for Lithuania and for lovers of freedom around the globe. The people of Lithuania endured a 51-year foreign occupation. Resulting from the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, this Soviet occupation brought with it communist dictatorship and cultural genocide. But the Lithuanian people were not defeated. They resisted their oppressors and kept their culture, their faith and their dream of independence very much alive even during the hardest times. The people of Lithuania were even able to mobilize and sustain a non- violent movement for social and political change, a movement which came to be known as Sajudis. This people's movement helped guarantee a peaceful transition to independence through full participation in democratic elections on February 24, 1990. Unfortunately, the peace did not last. In January 1991, ten months after restoration of independence, the people and government of Lithuania faced a bloody assault by foreign troops intent on overthrowing their democratic institutions. Lithuanians withstood this assault, maintaining their independence and their democracy. Their successful use of non-violent resistance to an oppressive regime is an inspiration to all. On September 17, 1991, Lithuania became a member of the United Nations and is a signatory to a number of its organizations and other international agreements. It also is a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and the Council of Europe. Lithuania is an associate member of the European Union, has applied for NATO membership and is currently negotiating for membership in the WTO, OECD and other Western organizations. The United States established diplomatic relations with Lithuania on July 28, 1992. But our nation never really broke with the government and people of Lithuania. The U.S. never recognized the forcible incorporation of Lithuania into the U.S.S.R., and views the present Government of Lithuania as a legal continuation of the inter-war republic. Indeed, for over fifty years the United States maintained a bipartisan consensus that our nation would refuse to recognize the forcible incorporation of Lithuania into the former Soviet Union. Our relations with Lithuania are strong, friendly and mutually beneficial. Lithuania has enjoyed Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) treatment with the U.S. since December, 1991. Through 1996, the U.S. has committed over $100 million to Lithuania's economic and political transformation and to address humanitarian needs. In 1994, the U.S. and Lithuania signed an agreement of bilateral trade and intellectual property protection, and in 1997 a bilateral investment treaty. In 1998 the U.S. and Lithuania signed The Baltic Charter Partnership. That charter recalls the history of American relations with the area and underscores our ``real, profound, and enduring'' interest in the security and independence of the three Baltic states. As the Charter also notes, our interest in a Europe whole and free will not be ensured until Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are secure. Mr. President, I commend the people of Lithuania for their courage and perseverance in using peaceful means to regain their independence. I pledge to work with my colleagues to continue working to secure the freedom and independence of Lithuania and its Baltic neighbors, and I join with the people of Lithuania as they celebrate their independence.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on my decision to support two resolutions concerning the Middle East peace process. Both of these resolutions express congressional opposition to any efforts by either party in the peace process to attempt, through unilateral actions, to pre-judge or pre-determine the outcome of the negotiations currently taking place between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I would like to take a moment to explain why I decided to cosponsor these resolutions. I believe that one of the most important foreign policy issues facing America today is how to encourage peace in the Middle East. Reaching a peace agreement at this time is extremely critical, not only to our strategic interests in the region, but to the parties themselves. I remain optimistic that despite the various setbacks, it will still be possible for the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace. However, in my view, the only way to achieve such a peace is for the parties to abide by the plan of negotiations as set out in the context of Madrid, Oslo, and most recently, in the Wye Plantation Agreement. This plan clearly sets forth a structure which dictates the timetable and order of discussing certain very critical issues. I am particularly concerned that any unilateral actions by the parties or co-sponsors which might pre-judge the outcome or change this plan would have a great potential to undermine what limited chance we have for peace in the Middle East. Within this context, the parties, with the full support of the co- sponsors, agreed to delay the discussion of many of the most critical and difficult issues until final status negotiations, and promised not to take any unilateral actions which might pre-judge or pre-determine the outcome of those issues. My opposition to unilateral actions by any party or co-sponsor, including the United States, is well known and on the record. It was, for example, the principal basis for my opposition in 1995 to S. 1322, which mandated the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Similarly, just as I was concerned about the potentially injurious impact on the peace process of prematurely addressing issues relating to Jerusalem, I am equally concerned about the impact of a unilateral and premature declaration by the Palestinians regarding statehood. I believe such a unilateral declaration by the Palestinian Authority would almost certainly undermine future progress toward a peace accord. It is my understanding that the Administration's position is consistent with these congressional resolutions, and in fact the United States has maintained ongoing discussions with the Palestinians to discourage them from unilaterally declaring a state outside the context of the negotiations. My support for both of these resolutions are based on this principle alone: That any unilateral actions by either parties or co-sponsors are disruptive and damaging to the peace process as a whole. My support for these resolutions is not a comment regarding what the Palestinian authorities should do if the peace process fails and no final status agreement can be reached. Nor is it a comment on the merits of a Palestinian state. Nor, finally, is it a suggestion that a Palestinian state should not be created as part of the final status agreement should the parties decide upon that themselves. Indeed, for the process to be successful, the Palestinians must be permitted to exercise their independence. My support for these resolutions is thus exclusively and solely a statement that in my opinion, a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state at this time would probably destroy any chance to reach a just and lasting peace between the parties. Peace is too important--and too much effort toward achieving such a peace has been expended by all parties and co-sponsors for it to be jeopardized in this way.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Mr. John Ginopolis for his continuing dedication to support efforts that benefit children. John Ginopolis has served on the board of trustees for Children's Hospital of Michigan since 1984 and also serves on the Executive Committees for the Children's Hospital Pediatric Clinical Services Board. A tireless fundraiser, John's annual events help support two endowments, The George Ginopolis Endowment for Hermatology/Oncology and the Ginopolis-Karmanos Pediatric Cancer Research Endowment. In 1987, John Ginopolis jointed Sparky Anderson in Sparky's creation of Caring Athletes Team for Children's and Henry Ford Hospitals (CATCH) which has issued grants in excess of $1 million and built an endowment of more than $3 million. John has served on CATCH's board of trustees since its inception, and in 1989 John was inducted into the CATCH Hall of Fame. It is with great pleasure that I announce that John Ginopolis is the recipient of this year's March of Dimes ``Humanitarian of the Year Award.'' He will be given his award at the 27th annual March of Dimes ``Sweetheart Ball'' on Saturday, March 6, 1999, in Dearborn, Michigan. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Mr. Ginopolis.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Mr. Walter C. Watkins, Jr., recipient of this year's March of Dimes ``Humanitarian of the Year Award.'' Mr. Watkins' distinguished career in the field of banking began in 1968, when he joined NBD as a management trainee. Mr. Watkins has since gone on to become the President of NBD Bank in Michigan, and head of BANK ONE'S middle market customers in Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky. Mr. Watkins is a member of the board of Fisk University, as well as the boards of the Detroit Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC). In addition, Mr. Watkins serves on the advisory board of Black Family Development, Inc., and is a member of the Urban Bankers Forum, the Leadership Detroit Alumni Association, and 100 Black Men of Greater Detroit. Mr. Watkins' community involvement also extends to past board affiliations with the Detroit Medical Center, the Public Administration Foundation, and the Rehabilitation Institute, where he served as chairman. I want to commend Mr. Watkins for his distinguished career and numerous contributions to the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Mr. Watkins, who will receive his award at the 27th annual March of Dimes ``Sweetheart Ball'' award dinner on Saturday, March 6, 1999, in Dearborn, Michigan.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Ms. Pam Aguirre, for her strong commitment to the Detroit area Hispanic community. After working her way up through her father's company, Mexican Industries, she was ultimately named CEO and later chairman of the board. Under her guidance and leadership, Mexican Industries has blossomed into one of the most successful Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States, with over 1,500 employees and annual sales of $167 million. Ms. Aguirre has received recognition for her dedication to the Hispanic community and for Mexican Industries' involvement with charitable organizations. In 1996 she was presented with the ``Hispanic Business Alliance Award,'' and she and Mexican Industries have been featured in Working Woman magazine as one of the ``The Top Fifty Woman- Owned Businesses.'' Her dedication to community involvement is also illustrated in her participation on several boards. Among these are the Economic Club of Detroit, the Boy Scouts, Michigan Minority Business Development, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Hank Aguirre Cancer Foundation. It is with great pleasure that I announce Ms. Pam Aguirre as the recipient of this year's March of Dimes ``Humanitarian of the Year Award.'' She will be given this award at the 27th annual March of Dimes ``Sweetheart Ball'' on March 6, 1999, in Dearborn, Michigan. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Ms. Aguirre.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge Mr. Ruben Burks for his continuing dedication to the UAW, and his support of children in the Flint community. Mr. Burks has been a member of the UAW since 1955 when he went to work as an assembler at General Motors in Flint, Michigan. Throughout his career in the UAW, Mr. Ruben has served in several capacities, including shop committeeperson, alternate committeeperson, and Local 598 executive board member. In 1970 Mr. Burks was appointed to the International Union staff where he served UAW members in General Motors and independents, parts, and suppliers plants. Last year Mr. Burks had the privilege of being elected secretary-treasurer of the UAW, making him responsible for various administrative departments of the international Union. In addition, he directs the UAW's Veterans department. A long-time community activist, Mr. Burks is actively involved in numerous civic, charitable, and youth organizations in the Flint community, including the Special Olympics, March of Dimes, Red Cross, and Easter Seals. He has also served as a director of the Flint Urban League, Goodwill Industries of Flint, and the Sam Duncan Memorial Scholarship Fund. Mr. Burks is also an active member of the advisory board of the University of Michigan at Flint. It is with great pleasure that I announce that Mr. Ruben Burks will be the recipient of this year's March of Dimes ``Humanitarian of the Year Award.'' Mr. Burks is being honored with this award as a result of his tireless commitment to the Flint community. He will receive this award at the 27th annual March of Dimes ``Sweetheart Ball'' on March 6, 1999, in Dearborn, Michigan. I wish to extend my sincerest congratulations to Mr. Burks.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Sessions, Levin, Kennedy and Harkin to introduce an important piece of legislation that will honor one of the most important figures in the American civil rights movement, Rosa Parks. Given her immense contributions to our Nation, we believe it is only fitting that she be honored with a Congressional Gold Medal. For decades, Mr. President, African-Americans in this country, this birth place of freedom, were treated as second class citizens, or less. Even after the moral enormity of slavery had finally been ended, African-Americans were subjected to discrimination, segregation and, if they resisted, prosecution and even lynching. Rosa Parks set in motion the events that brought to an end the shameful history of Jim Crow. Rosa Parks refused to obey the segregation laws in her home city of Montgomery, AL, and go to the back of the bus. When confronted, she refused give up her seat on that bus to a white man, even when threatened with jail. She was arrested, and the reaction would change the face of this Nation. Over 40,000 people boycotted Montgomery buses for 381 days. Faced with official condemnation and violence, these brave men and women maintained their unity until the bus segregation laws were finally changed. Their actions brought about the 1956 Supreme Court decision declaring the Montgomery segregation law unconstitutional and spurred the civil rights movement to further action; action which produced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, breaking down the barriers of legal discrimination against African-Americans and establishing equality before the law as a reality for all Americans. Rosa Parks set these historic events in motion. She was the first woman to join the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP and served as an active volunteer for the Montgomery Voters League. Because of her strength, perseverance and quiet dignity, all Americans have been freed from the moral stain of segregation. And this mother of the civil rights movement continues to be active in the struggle for equality and the empowerment of the disenfranchised. Ms. Parks has received many awards in recognition of her efforts for racial harmony, including the NAACP's highest honor for civil rights contributions, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, and the first International Freedom Conductor Award from the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. Throughout her life, Rosa Parks has been an example of the power of conviction and quiet dignity in pursuit of justice and empowerment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting legislation to bestow upon her the Congressional Gold Medal she so well deserves. Mr. President, I remember as a young student in grade school being told the story of the woman who said she would not move to the back of the bus. I did not know who that was by name. I just remember being so struck and touched by that story. I did not realize someday I would have the opportunity to meet that lady. She lives in my State of Michigan today. I have had a chance to get to know her a bit, but, more importantly, to work with her organizations there which do fine work for our communities and for our country. So Mr. President, I am very proud to be here today to offer this Congressional Gold Medal proposal. I want to thank our cosponsors. We are very hopeful that others will join us so we can pass this proposal as soon as possible. At this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here today along with Senators Sessions and Levin to introduce a very important piece of legislation. I wonder if I could obtain unanimous consent so we might have the speaking in the order in which I would introduce the legislation. Then, after I finish speaking with respect to the legislation, Senator Sessions and then Senator Levin, in that order, would also have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Sessions, Levin, Kennedy and Harkin to introduce an important piece of legislation that will honor one of the most important figures in the American civil rights movement, Rosa Parks. Given her immense contributions to our Nation, we believe it is only fitting that she be honored with a Congressional Gold Medal. For decades, Mr. President, African-Americans in this country, this birth place of freedom, were treated as second class citizens, or less. Even after the moral enormity of slavery had finally been ended, African-Americans were subjected to discrimination, segregation and, if they resisted, prosecution and even lynching. Rosa Parks set in motion the events that brought to an end the shameful history of Jim Crow. Rosa Parks refused to obey the segregation laws in her home city of Montgomery, AL, and go to the back of the bus. When confronted, she refused give up her seat on that bus to a white man, even when threatened with jail. She was arrested, and the reaction would change the face of this Nation. Over 40,000 people boycotted Montgomery buses for 381 days. Faced with official condemnation and violence, these brave men and women maintained their unity until the bus segregation laws were finally changed. Their actions brought about the 1956 Supreme Court decision declaring the Montgomery segregation law unconstitutional and spurred the civil rights movement to further action; action which produced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, breaking down the barriers of legal discrimination against African-Americans and establishing equality before the law as a reality for all Americans. Rosa Parks set these historic events in motion. She was the first woman to join the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP and served as an active volunteer for the Montgomery Voters League. Because of her strength, perseverance and quiet dignity, all Americans have been freed from the moral stain of segregation. And this mother of the civil rights movement continues to be active in the struggle for equality and the empowerment of the disenfranchised. Ms. Parks has received many awards in recognition of her efforts for racial harmony, including the NAACP's highest honor for civil rights contributions, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, and the first International Freedom Conductor Award from the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. Throughout her life, Rosa Parks has been an example of the power of conviction and quiet dignity in pursuit of justice and empowerment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting legislation to bestow upon her the Congressional Gold Medal she so well deserves. Mr. President, I remember as a young student in grade school being told the story of the woman who said she would not move to the back of the bus. I did not know who that was by name. I just remember being so struck and touched by that story. I did not realize someday I would have the opportunity to meet that lady. She lives in my State of Michigan today. I have had a chance to get to know her a bit, but, more importantly, to work with her organizations there which do fine work for our communities and for our country. So Mr. President, I am very proud to be here today to offer this Congressional Gold Medal proposal. I want to thank our cosponsors. We are very hopeful that others will join us so we can pass this proposal as soon as possible. At this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Wyden, Hatch, Kerrey, Coverdell, Daschle, Jeffords, Lieberman, Allard, Gorton, McConnell, and Burns in introducing the New Millennium Classrooms Act. This legislation will effectively encourage the donation of computer equipment and software to schools through tax deductions and credits. In addition, enhanced tax credits would be applied to equipment donated to schools within designated empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and Indian reservations. Advanced technology has fueled unprecedented economic growth and transformed the way Americans do business and communicate with each other. Despite these gains, this same technology is just beginning to have an impact on our classrooms and how we educate our children. It is projected that 60 percent of all jobs will require high-tech computer skills by the year 2000, yet 32 percent of our public schools have only one classroom with access to the Internet. Mr. President, it is imperative that we act now to provide our nation's students with the necessary technological background so they can succeed in tomorrow's high-tech workplace and ensure our country's future position in competitive world markets. The Department of Education recommends that there be at least one computer for every five students. According to the Educational Testing Service, in 1997, there was only one computer for every 24 students, on average. Not only are our classrooms sadly under-equipped, but even those classrooms with computers often have systems which are so old and outdated they are unable to run even the most basic software programs, are not multi-media capable and cannot access the Internet. Mr. President, one of the more common computers in our schools today is the Apple IIc, a computer so archaic it is now on display at the Smithsonian. While this technological deficiency affects all of our schools, the students who are in the most need are receiving the least amount of computer instruction and exposure. According to the Secretary of Education, 75.9 percent of households with an annual income over $75,000 have computers, compared to only 11 percent of households with incomes under $10,000. This disparity exists when comparing households with Internet access as well. While 42 percent of families with annual incomes over $75,000 have on-line capability, only 10 percent of families with incomes $25,000 or less can access the Internet from their homes. Rural areas and inner cities fall below the national average for households that have computers. Nationwide, 40.8 percent of white households have computers, while only 19 percent of African-American and Hispanic households do. This disparity is increasing, not decreasing. And, Mr. President, this unfortunate trend is not confined simply to individual households, it is present in our schools as well. Education should be a great equalizer, providing the means by which Americans can take advantage of all the opportunities this country can offer, regardless of background. Yet, Educational Testing Service statistics show schools with 81 percent or more economically disadvantaged students have only one multi-media computer for every 32 students, while a school with 20 percent or fewer economically disadvantaged students will have a multi-media computer for every 22 students. That is a difference of 10 students per computer. Furthermore, schools with 90 percent or more minority students have only one multimedia computer for every 30 students. Mr. President, this is simply unacceptable. The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 contains a provision, The 21st Century Classrooms of 1997, which allows a corporation to take a deduction from taxable income for the donation of computer technology, equipment and software. Unfortunately, since The 21st Century Classrooms Act of 1997 has been implemented, there has not been a significant increase in corporate donations of computers and related equipment to K-12 schools. The current incentives do not provide enough tax relief to outweigh the costs incurred by the donors. Moreover, the restrictions limiting the age of eligible equipment to two years or less and the narrow definition of ``original use'' has greatly limited the number of computers available for qualified donation. As a result, the Detwiler Foundation, a California-based organization with unparalleled status as a facilitator of computer donations to K-12 schools nationwide, reports they ``have not witnessed the anticipated increase in donation activity'' since the enactment of the 1997 tax deduction. Mr. President, to increase the amount of technology donated to schools, the New Millennium Classrooms Act would expand the parameters of the current tax deduction and add a tax credit, which operates like the R&D tax credit. Specifically, the bill would do the following: First, this legislation would allow a tax credit equal to 30 percent of the fair market value of the donated computer equipment. An increased tax credit provides greater incentive for companies to donate computer technology and equipment to schools. This includes computers, peripheral equipment, software and fiber optic cable related to computer use. Second, it would expand the age limit to include equipment three years old or less. Many companies do not update their equipment within the two year period. This provision increases the availability of eligible equipment. Three year old computers equipped with Pentium- based or equivalent chips have the processing power, memory, and graphics capabilities to provide sufficient Internet and multi-media access and run any necessary software. Third, the current limitation on ``original use'' would be expanded to include the original equipment manufacturers or any corporation that reacquires the equipment. By expanding the number of donors eligible for the tax credit, the number of computers available will increase as well. Lastly, enhanced tax credits equal to 50 percent of the fair market value of the equipment donated to schools located within designated empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and Indian reservations would be implemented. Doubling the amount of the tax credits for donations made to schools in economically-distressed areas will increase the availability of computers to the children that need it most. Bringing our classrooms into the 21st century will require a major national investment. According to a Rand Institute study, it will cost $15 billion, or $300 per student, to provide American schools with the technology needed to educate our youth; the primary cost being the purchase and installation of computer equipment. At a time when the government is planning to spend $1.2 billion to wire schools and libraries to the Internet, the demand for this sophisticated hardware will be greater than ever. The Detwiler Foundation estimates that if just 10 percent of the computers that are taken out of service each year were donated to schools, the national ratio of students-to-computers would be brought to five-to-one or less. This would meet, or even exceed, the ratio recommended by the Department of Education. The New Millennium Classrooms Act will provide powerful tax incentives for American businesses to donate top quality high-tech equipment to our nation's classrooms without duly increasing Federal Government expenditures or creating yet another federal program or department. Encouraging private investment and involvement, this Act will keep control where it belongs--with the teachers, the parents, and the students. This bill is not simply another ``targeted tax break.'' Broad-based tax relief and reform efforts should work to lower tax rates across the board while continuing to retain and improve upon the core tax incentives for education, homeownership, and charitable contributions. The New Millennium Classrooms Act expands the parameters and thus the effectiveness of an already existing education and charity tax incentive, one which will effectively bring top-of-the-line technology into all of our schools. With the passage of the New Millennium Classrooms Act, all our children will have an equal chance at succeeding in the new technological millennium. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section by section analysis, and a letter from the Detwiler Foundation be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues an article on ``Improving Human Rights in China'' written by Jim Dorn, vice president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute. Dorn advocates that Congress return to legislation ``designed to change China's stand on human rights and to liberate the Chinese people from religious and political persecution.'' This call is particularly timely given the most recent wave of repression against those inside China who seek to widen freedom and political discourse in that country. Higher taxes in the form of higher tariffs is not the answer, as Dorn points out. However, that does not mean America and the U.S. Congress, and, indeed, the President, should not be strongly advocating the rule of law and respect for political dissent in China. I recommend Jim Dorn's piece to my colleagues and encourage continued vigilance in the defense of civil liberties and freedom for the Chinese people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Abraham pertaining to the introduction of S. 482 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')