Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to actually announce to the Senate and to, at least from a distance, celebrate the 90th birthday of one of the great citizens of my State of Michigan, and also one of the truly great citizens of America, Max Fisher. Mr. Fisher is a friend of many of us who have served in public office--certainly in Michigan, and even here at the national level-- because of his longstanding involvement in the political process. But he is much more than a political activist, he is a business leader of great renown, having built very successful companies in our State and around the country. He has grown those companies and employed many, many Americans in a variety of different functions. After establishing his business success, he then turned his attention to our State of Michigan and, most particularly, to his hometown of Detroit. There, for the last several decades, he has been one of the community's great leaders, very much involved in the development of Detroit, the rebirth of Detroit after the riots in that city in the sixties. He has been very active in the governance of southeastern Michigan in a variety of ways, investing his own time and resources in many worthwhile causes aimed at making certain that the Detroit metropolitan area remained a strong, economically vibrant, compassionate community, which it is today. Mr. Fisher's involvements go beyond, however, his own hometown. He became active in the political process in the early 1960s. He became very involved in the activities of the then Governor George Romney, and then through that he began an involvement with the Republican Party on a national level. His interests, however, transcended his party. It clearly is an interest born of a love of this country and of the issues we confront. As a consequence, he has served as an advisor to many who have held office, both in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives, and even the Presidency itself. He has been a close advisor and a close friend to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, and I believe also some on the other side of the aisle as well. Indeed, tonight, at a celebration of his 90th birthday, several of our former Presidents will be in attendance to demonstrate their friendship and admiration for him. Max Fisher's interests have gone beyond the shores of the United States as well. He is a great champion of the nation of Israel. He has played a very active role in the American Jewish community, various organizations and foundations; and, through several of those, he has provided a great deal of support and assistance to the development of the nation of Israel. I know that he is held in great esteem there as he is here in the United States. His interest in others transcends just one particular cause. It basically applies to virtually every cause I am familiar with. His name is inevitably linked to charitable organizations, to foundations, and various other community service entities in our State, as well as across this country, that try to make America and Michigan better places to live and better places to raise families. In any event, Mr. President, Max Fisher has led a great life, and he has contributed much during that life to all of us, and to his nation in particular. So I wish to pay tribute to him on the event of his 90th birthday and also to pay tribute to him for the many things he has done to advance us, whether it is in the political arena, the business arena, the charitable arena, or a variety of others. Unfortunately, because of our schedule, I will not be able to participate in the events this evening that will commemorate his birthday. I know that I speak for a number of our colleagues, who have friendships with Max, in sending him, on all of our behalf, warm congratulations on this important event. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield it on the basis of the time that has been yielded under the previous quorum call.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, a recent, near-tragic incident has come to my attention; an incident which in my view casts significant light on the debate over partial birth abortion. According to the Associated Press, on June 30 of this year Dr. John Biskind delivered a full-term baby girl. Unfortunately, this little girl was almost killed. She suffered cuts to her face and a skull fracture. Officials have refused to comment on her condition. She is scheduled to be adopted by a Texas couple, so it is my hope that she will experience a full recovery. But we should not lose track of the cause of her injuries: Dr. Biskind attempted to perform a partial birth abortion. The 17 year-old mother had come to Dr. Biskind's A-Z Women's Center seeking an abortion. The clinic performed an ultrasound, determining that what they had here was a 23.6 week fetus, and determined to perform a partial birth abortion. Dr. Biskind thought he was performing this inhuman procedure on a fetus two thirds of the way to term. That would be bad enough. But in fact Dr. Biskind's clinic made an unbelievable mistake in the ultrasound. The girl actually was approaching full term. And Dr. Biskind did not realize this fact until he already had begun aborting her. This is astounding, Mr. President. According to Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a Phoenix physician and chairman of Arizona Right to Life, a 24-week- old fetus weighs an average of 2 pounds, whereas a 36 week-old fetus weighs about 6 and a half pounds. As Dr. Gerster commented, ``I don't know how such a grave error could be made in estimating the size. There shouldn't be that kind of discrepancy in an ultrasound. It's horrendous.'' Horrendous indeed, Mr. President. But this was not the first horrendous mistake made by this abortionist. Dr. Biskind was censured by the medical board in 1996 when a patient bled to death after undergoing an abortion. He also was reprimanded in 1989 for misdiagnosis or mistreatment of a patient, and in 1990 for improperly prescribing drugs. A similar complaint was dismissed in 1994. This incident, and Dr. Biskind's deplorable record as a physician, cast on ugly light on an unfortunate procedure. Too many women in America are being subjected to partial birth abortions. Whatever one's views on the abortion issue itself, and I am strongly pro-life, there is no basis for defending partial birth abortion. The procedure is never, let me emphasize that Mr. President, never necessary for the life or health of the mother. It is in fact an unnecessarily dangerous procedure that increases the chance of physical harm to the mother, and which most reputable doctors refuse to even consider performing. Defenders of partial birth abortion have relied on a number of untruths, including the false story that the procedure is performed only in rare occasions. We now know, Mr. President, that that just isn't so. We also know that there are abortionists like Dr. Biskind out there who let their patients bleed to death and who allow an ultrasound in their clinic to be botched so badly that they almost kill a fully formed baby girl. It is time to shut down clinics like Dr. Biskind's. If defenders of abortion rights are really serious about defending women's health, they should join with me and those of my colleagues who have sought to ban partial birth abortion. They also should fight with me to keep women from having to undergo any kind of abortion. Clearly, Mr. President, America is not doing enough for her expectant mothers. Too many are abandoned by their husbands, boyfriends, and families in their time of special need. Too many feel alone and powerless in the face of an unexpected pregnancy. Too many fall into the hands of the Dr. Biskind's of this world because they have not been fully informed of their options, including the availability of loving couples like the one that is adopting the girl Dr. Biskind almost aborted. I intend to work as hard as I can, Mr. President, to bring practices like Dr. Biskind's to an end. It is long past time, in my view, for us to overturn President Clinton's veto of the ban on partial birth abortion. It also is long past time for us to make women more aware of the adoption option as we seek to make the better choice--the choice of life--easier to make. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the associated press story, as it appears in the Washington Times, be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From The Washington Times, Fri., July 10, 1998] Abortion Aborted For Birth of Girl--Fetus' Age was Miscalculated Phoenix (AP)--A doctor performing a partial-birth abortion on what he says he thought was a 23-week fetus realized in the middle of the procedure that the pregnancy was much further along and instead delivered a full-term baby. Police and the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners are investigating Dr. John Biskind and the June 30 birth at A-Z Women's Center, which terminates pregnancies through the 24th week. ``At this point, it doesn't appear anybody will be charged with anything,'' Sgt. Mike Torres said. The 6-pound, 2-ounce girl suffered a skull fracture and cuts on her face and remained hospitalized yesterday. Officials refused to comment on her condition. A Texas couple plans to adopt the girl, authorities said. The 17-year-old mother went to the clinic June 29 seeking to undergo a procedure in which the doctor delivers a fetus feet first up to its neck, punches a hole into its skull and sucks out its brain through a tube, killing the child. Ultrasound testing at the clinic determined her fetus was 23.6 weeks' developed, the doctor said. During the procedure the next day, Dr. Biskind realized the pregnancy was much further along, halted the abortion and delivered the infant, police said. A woman who answered the phone at the abortion clinic said Dr. Biskind had no comment. ``We're dealing with the police on this,'' said the woman, who would not give her name. Police and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office are investigating to determine whether a crime was committed. Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a Phoenix physician who is chairwoman of Arizona Right to Life, said the average weight for a 24- week fetus is about 2 pounds and about 6\1/2\ pounds at 36 weeks. ``I don't know how such a grave error could be made in estimating the size,'' she said. ``There shouldn't be that kind of discrepancy in an ultrasound. It's horrendous.'' The medical board censured Dr. Biskind in 1996 after a patient bled to death following an abortion. The patient's family has a lawsuit pending against him. He also was reprimanded in 1989 for misdiagnosis or mistreatment of a patient and for improperly prescribing drugs in 1990. A similar complaint was dismissed in 1994.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Majority Leader's resolution on Taiwan. This resolution will reassure the people of Taiwan that the United States will stand by its pledges, particularly those included in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. It is unfortunate to say the least, Mr. President, that it has become necessary to pass this resolution. But President Clinton's statements while in the People's Republic of China make it imperative that we reiterate and reaffirm our commitment to Taiwan's democratic principles, to its right to maintain a viable, sufficient self-defense capability, and to a future for Taiwan that is determined by peaceful, democratic means. President Clinton's unwise and damaging statements during his visit to communist China have thrown in doubt our commitment to Taiwan. The President's three noes''--no independence for Taiwan, no recognition for a separate Taiwanese government, and no support for Taiwan's membership in international organizations--cast doubt on America's willingness to stand by its commitments and raise the prospect of future conflict in South Asia. Were the President's statements allowed to stand, they would constitute an abandonment of Taiwan to its fate at the hands of a communist regime that has shown itself willing to slaughter its own people and resort to force and intimidation whenever useful. This is unacceptable, Mr. President, and we must not let it stand. As the world's first free nation, and as the leader of the free world, we have a responsibility to stand up for nations like Taiwan which have moved toward democracy and free markets. We owe it to the people of Taiwan to renew our commitment to their democratic institutions and to their right to determine their own future on a democratic basis. It also is important to note, Mr. President, that the People's Republic of China has engaged in shows of force and attempted military intimidation toward Taiwan over the course of several decades. Only two years ago, in 1996, the United States found it necessary to send aircraft carriers to the area to let the Chinese communist government know that we would respond should they take military action against Taiwan. By explicitly stating that the United States would not support the Taiwanese people's right to determine their own future in a democratic manner, President Clinton sent a strong signal to the communist government in Beijing that we might stand idly by while it took control of Taiwan by force. Mr. President, it was precisely this kind of miscalculation that precipitated the war in Korea, a war in which American troops ended up facing the Chinese army and in which thousands of brave American soldiers lost their lives. It is imperative, in my view, that Congress act swiftly and surely to see to it that history does not repeat itself. The United States stands by the people of Taiwan in their determination to protect themselves and their democratic principles from any forceful reintegration into China. We must make our stance clear for the people of Taiwan, for the cause of freedom, and for the cause of peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on Senate action last month on S. 1415, the comprehensive tobacco settlement legislation, and to explain the votes I cast on various amendments, motions to invoke cloture, and other procedural matters relating to this legislation. At the outset, I would like to thank the floor manager of the legislation, Senator McCain, for his absolutely outstanding work on the tobacco settlement legislation. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the distinguished Senator from Arizona took on the difficult task of bringing our Committee together to report out comprehensive tobacco settlement legislation. Mr. President, I believe that passing a tobacco bill would be good, but only if it is the right bill. In my judgment, if we are to pass such a bill, it should follow a number of important principles. First, it should increase funding for research on tobacco-related illnesses. Second, it should provide funds for smoking cessation programs, anti- tobacco education programs, and counter-advertising. Third, it should include programs to combat drug abuse among our kids, a crisis that demands just as much attention as youth smoking. Fourth, it should not place unfair burdens on our small businesses. And finally, it should accomplish these goals without imposing a huge net tax increase on the American people. Last summer, the tobacco industry started this process when it entered into a settlement with the Attorneys General of several States, a settlement which required congressional action. I voted to report out this legislation from the Commerce Committee, with the hope that it could be modified in ways to achieve the above-stated goals through more amendments to the legislation, through consideration in the House, and through an eventual conference. While many improvements were added to the legislation--such as the addition of the Coverdell-Craig-Abraham ``Drug Free Neighborhoods Act'' and the Gramm amendment to reduce the marriage penalty tax--more were clearly needed to achieve the goals set forth above. My vote for cloture was designed to move the process ahead in the hope that we could pass a bill and that it would meet the standards set forth above. It did not signal my intent to vote for final passage of any legislation that remained following the amendment process. Had cloture succeeded, it was my intention to work with others in offering amendments to modify the bill to achieve my aforestated goals. Following the failure to invoke cloture, it became clear that we were not going to be able to move the bill forward in the way I would have liked. In light of this, and my belief as a member of the Budget Committee that we should keep the budget balanced, I voted with Senator Stevens on his budget point of order. Senator Stevens raised a point of order that the tobacco legislation was inconsistent with the budget agreement reached last year between the Congress and the President. I voted against the motion to waive that point of order, which sent the legislation back to the Commerce Committee where, perhaps, we can devise a more acceptable bill. Mr. President, let me just comment briefly on some of the major amendments that were voted on during the course of the floor consideration of this bill. I joined Senators Craig and Coverdell in offering the ``Drug Free Neighborhoods Act'' as an amendment to the tobacco legislation. We are falling very far behind in the war on drugs, and teenage drug use has particularly become much worse in recent years. In the last six years, for instance, the percentage of high school seniors admitting that they had used an illicit drug has risen by more than half. Sadly, nearly 20 percent of our eighth graders use illegal drugs. This amendment provided needed resources for drug interdiction and deterrence and particularly addressed the alarming trends in drug use among teenagers. As we address the harmful health consequences of tobacco, we need to also remember that drug use among teenagers is worsening and is even more unhealthy, dangerous, and unacceptable. I voted for Senator Gramm's amendment to reduce the size of the net tax increase proposed in the bill by reducing the marriage penalty tax for working families earning less than $30,000. Under the bill as reported out of Committee, the burden of the price or tax increase from 65 cents to $1.10 per pack of cigarettes would have fallen disproportionately on working class Americans. I believed that we ought to give some of this revenue back in the form of relief from the unfair marriage penalty tax, which requires married people to pay higher taxes than they would if they were single. On the Reed amendment, which would have denied the advertising deduction for any business found in violation of FDA tobacco advertising regulations, I opposed this amendment and felt that the legislation had begun to stray further away from the core goals that should concern the Congress. Under that amendment, which was narrowly adopted, if the FDA finds that one advertisement of a tobacco product failed to comply with marketing and advertising rules issued by the FDA nearly two years ago and still under litigation, the offending company would lose the entire business expense deduction for all of its advertising in that year. The Congress should not be giving the FDA or any other regulatory agency such expansive and punitive authority. The possibility of such a penalty could chill advertising and deter legitimate, protected speech. In my view, this raises serious constitutional concerns and liberty interests that should at the minimum be seriously considered in the appropriate committees. This is unsound public policy, unsound tax policy, and an unwise expansion of federal regulatory authority. It also sets poor precedent and raises constitutional concerns. No matter what we think of the uses of advertising, the Constitution protects the right of free speech. I supported Senator Gregg's amendment to eliminate the liability caps that had been included in the manager's amendment. I had concerns about our taking action to limit the liability of the tobacco industry without enacting other legal reforms that are desperately needed by so many industries. I found it highly incongruous that we would not extend the same liability protections to industries that produce life-saving products as we do for the tobacco industry. For example, I would have liked to see us include reforms to permit the development and manufacturing of beneficial products, such as pacemakers and other medical devices. Too often, biomaterials needed to manufacture those products have been unavailable due to litigation concerns. I had supported Senator Ashcroft's amendment in the Commerce Committee that would have added the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act to the tobacco settlement legislation. The biomaterials legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, offers liability protections to manufacturers of biomaterials, which are needed to produce life-saving devices but which have been tragically unavailable in some instances because of litigation concerns. Such important health-related legislation as the biomaterials bill would be appropriate to include as part of tobacco settlement legislation, and, in my view, should in fact be directly linked to and included in the legislation. In summary, I would like to again commend my colleagues for their hard work on the legislation and the majority leader for bringing this important legislation to the floor and giving the full Senate ample opportunity to debate and consider the bill. While I had hoped we could come together on the issue, I think it became far more complex than any of us had imagined. A number of amendments, many of which I supported, changed the nature of the legislation so fundamentally that the legislation really must be revisited from square one. With almost no restrictions on payments for damages and penalties, for instance, it became clear that the industry would never agree to voluntary advertising restrictions. In my view, tobacco advertising is one of the most powerful factors in influencing the decisions of teenagers with respect to smoking, and it was one of the key parts of that legislation that we were not going to get. I will continue to work with my colleagues on this issue, and with my own Governor and state legislature. I am pleased that Leader Lott is considering setting up a bipartisan task force to revisit this important issue. There is much that can still be done on it, and I believe that we have learned a great deal in going through this process once.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to support the Majority Leader's legislation, S. 2214, reducing the top capital gains tax rate from 20 to 15 percent, and reducing from 18 to 12 months the holding period required on capital gains. Mr. President, this legislation is good news for the economy, and it is good news for America's working families. Ours is a global economy, Mr. President. And in my view it is crucial, if we want to continue enjoying our current prosperity, that we do more to maintain our competitive edge. Even with last year's capital gains tax cut, at 20 percent America's long term capital gains tax rate remains among the industrialized world's highest. Further, countries like Australia and the United Kingdom, which have higher rates, also allow taxpayers to index the cost of the asset on which they make gains. We pay a high price for our high capital gains tax, Mr. President. As Stanford Dean John B. Shoven points out, higher capital gains rates increase the cost of investing in capital and equipment. As a percentage of Gross National Product, the United States invested less in nonresidential projects from 1973 to 1992 than any of our major competitors. And investment in plant and equipment has fallen to only half the level of the 1960's and 1970's. Without updated plant and equipment, productivity lags and we cannot compete with other nations. Lowered capital gains taxes would directly address this problem. National Council of Policy Assessment Senior Fellows Gary and Aldona Robbins predicted, before last year's reduction in the top capital gains tax rate, that a cut of 50 percent in that rate, to 14 percent, would lower the cost of capital by 5 percent. This would induce investors to increase the capital stock by $2.2 trillion in 5 years. And that larger stock of capital would create 721,000 new jobs and increase GDP cumulatively by almost $1 trillion. That's a lot of jobs and a lot of growth, Mr. President. Particularly when we can achieve them simply by allowing the American people to keep more of what they earn. And we are well on our way to spurring this growth and job creation. For example, Mr. President, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the recent cut in the top capital gains tax rate from 28 to 20 percent will increase capital gains realizations by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That's a trillion dollars, Mr. President, that will be freed from stagnant investments for more productive purposes. We should also keep in mind, Mr. President, that this tax cut will benefit the vast majority of the American people. In addition to creating jobs and keeping our businesses competitive in the global marketplace, this capital gains tax cut will directly aid America's working families. It is time to recognize, Mr. President, that America's middle class is fully integrated into our free market economy. The vast majority of working Americans are not just wage-earners, they are investors as well. Americans who own stocks, bonds and other investments on which they may take capital gains are investors. Small business owners, nonprofessional salaried employees and blue collar workers with a company retirement plan are investors. As economist Lawrence Kudlow points out, ``Today's investor class could total as many as 125 million people. That's equivalent to virtually the entire working population of the U.S..'' How does Mr. Kudlow come up with this number? According to a recent Nasdaq survey, 43 percent of all Americans own stocks--more than double the 21 percent reported in 1980. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 51 percent of Americans own at least $5,000 in stocks, mutual funds or other retirement saving vehicles. And the American Savings Education Council reports that nearly half of all American workers contribute an average of 5 percent of their gross income to 401(k) individual retirement plans. Forty-nine percent of America's investors are women, 38 percent are non-professional salaried workers--and both groups have annual incomes of $75,000 or less. Nearly two thirds of investor families have incomes under $50,000. Mr. President, these responsible, hard-working, middle class Americans are concerned about their futures; they are attempting to build and nurture a nest-egg for themselves, their retirement and their children. These Americans know that wealth is created through innovation and hard work in free markets. They know that saving is crucial to their future and to the future of this nation. They saw the dangers big- government social engineering posed to our economy and brought about the most significant political revolution in this country in 50 years, putting the free-market Republican party in control of both Houses of Congress. Mr. President, middle class investors in America support our nation through disproportionate savings and investment. In return these middle class Americans seek fair treatment. They seek policies that do not penalize them for their hard work and financial responsibility. And in my view it is time we gave it to them. And that means lowering the capital gains tax to 15 percent. It is also important to note, Mr. President, that it is the moderate income person who is penalized most by high capital gains tax rates. The increase in moderate income workers reporting capital gains is largely due to the increasing use of mutual funds. These funds allow more and more Americans to invest in the stock market by pooling resources in the hands of a fund manager who buys and sells stocks. The only down side to this profitable arrangement, Mr. President, is created by the tax code. Individuals investing in mutual funds cannot balance their capital gains by selling off other stocks showing capital losses as wealthy people can. This means that a significant proportion of mutual fund investors show capital gains on a regular basis--and see their returns reduced because of capital gains taxes--even though they are not controlling individual investment decisions. If we want Americans to save more, Mr. President, in my view it makes sense to make savings pay more by taxing it less. This cut in capital gains taxes will make savings and investment more attractive to Americans by increasing the net return on investments. Finally, Mr. President, I believe it is important at this point to address the fear expressed by a number of people that this tax cut would bust the budget. Fortunately for us, that simply is not true. As I have already mentioned, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the most recent cut in the capital gains tax rate will produce $1 trillion over the next 10 years in increased capital gains realizations. That translates, Mr. President, into an increase of $47 billion in federal revenues. This further cut in the top marginal capital gains tax rate will only magnify that increase in revenue. Indeed, Congress' own Joint Economic Committee last year published a study, written by economists James Gwartney and Randall Holcombe of Florida State University, finding that revenue from the capital gains tax would be maximized at 15 percent. Thus, the tax cut we are considering today would achieve the maximum federal revenue possible from this tax, while in addition spurring economic growth and job creation. This is a truly win-win situation, Mr. President. We now have an opportunity to encourage savings and investment, spur continued economic growth and maximize federal revenues. I urge my colleagues to grant the American people the benefits of this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Leahy in sponsoring the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act. This legislation will help us better understand and prevent crimes against Americans with disabilities. Mr. President, Americans with disabilities are four to ten times as likely as other Americans to be the victims of crimes. That means that 54 million Americans are at increased risk of victimization because they suffer from one or more disabilities. We have long known that criminals are opportunists, and that they target the weakest members of society for exploitation. As a result we have initiated programs to heighten public awareness of crime against women, children, and the elderly. Americans with developmental disabilities deserve the same consideration. Many disabled Americans have been the victims of crime, Mr. President. Indeed, many of these Americans have been repeat victims because their condition renders them less likely to report incidents to the proper authorities. If some Americans are unsafe from crime, Mr. President, all Americans are unsafe. Criminals who prey on the disabled are not only showing their lack of morality and victimizing a particularly vulnerable segment of our society, they are degrading our entire nation. To the extent they are allowed to continue their criminal activities they endanger all Americans. That is why this legislation is so important. It will direct the Attorney General, in conjunction with the National Research Council, to develop a research program to help us better understand and prevent crimes against the disabled. It also directs the Attorney General to include in the annual National Crime Victims Survey statistics regarding crimes against victims with developmental disabilities. These measures, Mr. President, will help us to heighten awareness of crime against the disabled and help us put a stop to it. It will help us to make our streets and our homes safer for all Americans by protecting the most vulnerable among us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a special event that will take place in the City of Detroit. July 8, 1998 will mark the 16th Annual Metro Detroit Youth Day on Belle Isle in Detroit. This event is designed to help improve relationships between young people and community businesses in the Metro Detroit area. More than 16,000 young people are expected to take part in the daylong activities. This event is significant in that community volunteers, from across Metro Detroit, have come together to make a difference in young people's lives. The many organizers of this event have recognized the need for more youth activities, emphasizing physical education and good sportsmanship in improving the lives of Metro Detroit Youth. It is for this reason that they have sponsored this wonderful program that has grown more successful each year. Over the course of the last 16 years, this event has garnered tremendous support from the people within the Metro Detroit community from both the private sector and from all levels of government. This year over ninety organizations serve as co-sponsors. At this time I would like to extend my appreciation and best wishes to Mr. Ed Deeb who has again chaired this event and brought it to new levels of success. I wish all the children participating and the sponsors tremendous success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on Friday, June 26th, the day the Senate adjourned for the July 4th recess, I introduced the Trade Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 1998. This bill would clarify an ambiguity in an important U.S. antitrust law and thereby ensure that U.S. law will be effectively utilized to combat anticompetitive foreign cartels, acts, and conspiracies designed to unfairly exclude American products from overseas markets. The principal aim of my bill is to codify the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) current--and correct--interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) which is currently embodied in Footnote 62 of the International Antitrust Guidelines. This footnote makes it clear that there are no unnecessary jurisdictional obstacles to challenging anticompetitive acts and conspiracies that take place outside our borders. The FTAIA authorized the U.S. to assert jurisdiction over anticompetitive conduct abroad that has a ``direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable'' effect on export trade or commerce or those engaged in export trade or commerce with foreign nations. However, in 1998 DOJ issued International Enforcement Guidelines which included Footnote 159, a new interpretation of FTAIA confining U.S. enforcement efforts solely to anticompetitive conduct that affected U.S. consumers, without regard to its effect on U.S. exporters. Specifically, the footnote announced that henceforth ``the Department [would be] concerned only with adverse effects on competition that would harm U.S. consumers * * * .'' Fortunately, in 1992, DOJ announced that Footnote 159 would be superseded by a policy which recognized that harm to U.S. exporters was sufficient to trigger an antitrust enforcement action regardless of whether there were harmful effects on U.S. consumers. Thus, the interpretation was revised to affirmatively permit DOJ to enforce ``our antitrust laws against anticompetitive practices that harm U.S. commerce.'' That interpretation now appears in Footnote 62 of the current International Enforcement Guidelines. While the correction to Footnote 159 was drafted by Assistant Attorney General Jim Rill in the Bush Administration, it is important to note that it has been fully endorsed by the Clinton Administration. Assistant Attorneys General Rill, Bingaman, and Klein should all be recognized and commended for their strong leadership in strengthening international antitrust enforcement and for bringing cases under the authority of the FTAIA. Let me describe why this provision in our trade law is so important and why it is crucial that it be properly interpreted and enforced. The opening of global markets has advanced America's current economic prosperity, but it also poses fundamental challenges for U.S. antitrust laws. One example is the U.S. flat glass industry. For the better part of a decade, America's leading flat glass producers have been seeking access to the Japanese market, the largest and richest in Asia. American companies are already leaders in producing and selling high- quality innovative glass products around the world. U.S. firms have been very successful in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America--but not yet Japan. The fact is that securing effective distribution channels for American glass has not proved to be a significant barrier to entry in any country other than Japan. It is not for a lack of trying. In 1992, President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Miyazawa negotiated an agreement in which Japan committed that the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) would study anticompetitive practices in the flat glass sector. For over a quarter- century, the Japanese market has been controlled by a cartel, consisting of the three leading Japanese producers--Asahi, Nippon, and Central. Because of the cartel, market shares for the three companies have been remarkably constant: Asahi has had a 50% market share, Nippon has had 30%, and Central has had 20% for nearly three decades, while other major markets in Europe and North America have undergone dramatic competitive shifts. When the JFTC, one year later, issued its report, it found a long- standing history of anticompetitive practices in the Japanese flat glass industry, but concluded that enforcement action was ``inappropriate.'' In 1995, the Clinton Administration concluded a new trade agreement in the U.S.-Japan Framework talks. Japan committed to ``deal with structural and sectoral issues in order substantially to increase access and sales of competitive foreign goods and services.'' For their part, Japanese flat glass manufacturers and distributors pledged publicly that the market would be open on a non-discriminatory basis for competition by all suppliers, foreign and domestic alike. It was agreed that the U.S. and Japanese Governments would jointly monitor progress to verify that Japanese distributors would deal in imported glass, ``recognizing that token dealings or use does not demonstrate diversification of supply sources.'' So what happened? Trade agreements have done nothing to shake the glass cartel's stranglehold on Japan's distribution system. Instead, despite a remarkable series of U.S.-Japan trade agreements, commitments, and undertakings, the market share of U.S. producers has increased from 1.0% to 1.5%, even though imported foreign-affiliated glass costs about 30% less. In short, despite years of intensive efforts by U.S. negotiators, an illegal cartel continues to control the Japanese glass market to the exclusion of U.S. producers. Two weeks ago, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Richard Fisher presented the latest U.S. proposal to the Government of Japan. The proposal was drafted by the Antitrust Division of DOJ. USTR is asking the Japanese Government to establish antitrust-type compliance plans for its glass sector that would be modeled on the compliance plans currently in effect at most major U.S. corporations. In other words, we are not asking anything from Japanese companies that we do not already expect of U.S. companies. But reportedly senior Japanese officials flatly rejected the U.S. proposal, making it clear that they have little regard for robust compliance plans that would deter anticompetitive conduct on the part of management and sales personnel. Mr. President, it is precisely such intractable trade disputes that the FTAIA was intended to address, and it is vital that we make use of the one instrument we currently have at our disposal to rectify such problems. Given the confusion and uncertainty that has surrounded this provision of our antitrust trade law due to the conflicting interpretations that various administrations have attached to it, it is important for us to eliminate any vestige of ambiguity that may still remain even after we have gone back to its original interpretation. By clarifying the jurisdictional requirements of the FTAIA, it is my hope that we can encourage DOJ and injured U.S. industries to make broad use of this important power by challenging cartels, such as those blocking distribution of U.S. flat glass in Japan, in the U.S. courts, before U.S. juries, under U.S. law. My bill makes simply a straightforward point: anticompetitive foreign cartels and conspiracies are subject to U.S. antitrust laws, and foreign companies who engage in such activities will be held accountable and dealt with accordingly. We must ensure that American firms and workers have a timely and effective remedy against those who would engage in anticompetitive acts designed to exclude American products or services from the international marketplace. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and to cosponsor and support it. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to offer a few brief remarks on behalf of Ms. Victoria Ann Roberts, who has just been confirmed by this body to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Ms. Roberts has built an impressive professional resume, as managing partner for a Detroit's Goodman, Eden, Millender and Bedrosian, as an Assistant United States Attorney, and as the president of the State Bar of Michigan. Ms. Roberts has also taken a long and active interest in several community organizations that have greatly benefitted Metropolitan Detroit. She served on the board of directors of the Fair Housing Association of Detroit from 1985-91 and was its chair from 1986 to 1989. In addition, she has worked with Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Michigan since 1987, serving as Secretary, Vice President, and member of the Board of Directors and Advisory Board. I think all of this points to an individual who brings a well-rounded and very successful set of legal credentials to the Federal Bench, and to a person who has consistently given to her community and her state as a volunteer in a variety of very important ways. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate Ms. Victoria Roberts on this confirmation, and I look forward to following her career as a judge on the federal bench.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to speak briefly. I am not sure if we had an official time agreement on this amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Could I inquire of the Chair as to what the pending business is?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I have some brief remarks I have to add to those by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I may have additional comments later, but I think this will be all that I have to add. Mr. President, I rise today with the Department of Defense, the U.S. Strategic Command, the United States Navy, the Commander of the Atlantic Fleet Submarine Force, the Wisconsin State Conference of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Wisconsin and Michigan District of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the Upper Peninsula Building and Construction Trades Council, in opposing the amendment offered by my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold. Because our time is limited, I will get right to the point. The program which is defined in this amendment as the ELF program is of critical importance to the United States military. It has been for many years, and continues to be today, even in this post-cold-war environment. No other system can replace it, and if we eliminate it, our submarines will be forced to operate at lower speeds, shallower depths, less maneuverability, and will therefore be more vulnerable to detection and attack from hostile forces. Last year, the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, General Habiger, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: As the only system capable of communicating with submarines operating deep beneath the ocean surface, ELF is key to enhancing the security and flexibility of that submarine force. Without ELF, submarines must communicate at shallow depth and slow speed with increased vulnerability to detection and decreased operation flexibility. The capability to operate at depth and speed is even more important in today's post Cold War environment. . . . From a security standpoint, ELF is critical to maintaining our hedge against current and future ASW [anti-submarine warfare] threats. In fact, Mr. President, the Department of Defense recently wrote the Senate Armed Services Committee and stated that maintaining our deterrence and commitments under current arms control agreements and unilateral U.S. initiatives require the continued operation of ELF. The United States Navy is planning additional upgrades to this system because new command and control procedures will place an even greater reliance on ELF. Similar statements of support have been made by the previous and prospective Commanders of the U.S. Strategic Command, Admiral Chiles and Admiral Mies. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the letters from the Department of Defense, and both Admirals be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM. The second argument made by the opponents of ELF are that significant cost savings can be achieved by closing ELF. However, if the operational requirement is still valid, as we have shown that it is, and if that requirement can only be met with this facility, then an investment of about $15 million per year is, in my opinion, a very worthwhile expenditure to provide the greatest operational capability for U.S. submarine forces. Furthermore, because of the requirement delineated by the Department of Defense to keep this capability for our arms control deterrence requirements, the Department states they will have to spend additional money on research for a replacement system which has not yet been developed, additional money which would swallow up any of the costs savings claimed by the opponents of ELF. Finally, Mr. President, the opponents of ELF claim the facility is an environmental hazard. As for the environmental impact, the Navy has initiated and funded an ongoing environmental monitoring program managed by an independent organization, I.I.T. Research Institute of Chicago, Illinois and R.D.L. Corporation. The combined results of these studies have found no adverse effect on animals, plants, or micro- organisms. And, Mr. President, this study was exhaustive. It studied such diverse ecological issues as the degradation of bogs in Wisconsin, tree physiology and growth, earthworm, soil amoebas and slime molds, bees, birds, chipmunks--everything. It found no adverse effect on the environment because of the ELF transmissions. This study was further reviewed by the National Research Council in 1997, and they agreed with the Navy's findings of no adverse ecological effects. Furthermore, in 1996, the National Academy of Science, in an exhaustive study of the effects of electromagnetic radiation on humans, determined that After examining more than 500 studies spanning 17 years of research, the committee said there is no conclusive evidence that electromagnetic fields play a role in the development of cancer, reproductive and developmental abnormalities, or learning and behavioral problems. That, Mr. President, is pretty conclusive evidence, I think, of ELF's safety. So, Mr. President, we have a choice. We can choose to squarely analyze the scientific research at hand, listen to the operational requirements of military Commanders, and provide our submarines, and the men and women that sail them, the best possible chance of achieving their mission, let alone survival. Or we can choose to force our sailors to operate without the equipment they need, placing them in greater danger. For just under $150,000 per submarine, the equivalent of the personnel costs of seven junior sailors, we can provide every submarine the capability of running deep, fast, silent and deadly instead of shallow, slow, noisy and vulnerable. Mr. President, please let me close with a quote from Joe Stranger, President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Wisconsin State Conference. The United States still has enemies that relish our demise and this [ELF] system is a decided advantage to any submarine operation in protection of our way of life. This system does not only protect this Country, but also protects those valuable lives of American servicemen and women who operate those submarines in the line of duty. I do not believe the minimal savings is worth the risk. Mr. President, I could not say this any better. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and protect our sailors. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important event that will take place in the state of Michigan. Alpha Sigma Tau, a national sorority, will be celebrating its 100th anniversary this summer. Alpha Sigma Tau was founded at Michigan State Normal College, (now Eastern Michigan University) Yspilanti, Michigan on November 4, 1899. The Founding Sisters were: Helene M. Rice, Adiance Rice, May Gephart, Ruth Dutcher, Mayene Tracy, Eva O'Keefe, Mabel Chase and Harriet Marx. Alpha Sigma Tau aims to attract women of good character and spirit. One of the sororities' main goals is scholastic achievement. Alpha Sigma Tau was nationalized in 1925. There are 59 active collegiate chapters and 3 active existing colonies in the United States. In 1949, the sorority became a National Panhellenic Council member and was represented on the Executive Committee from 1979 until 1985. Alpha Sigma Tau was honored to have a member serve as President from 1983-85. Alpha Sigma Tau National Foundation, founded in 1985, offers a wide variety of scholarships, awards, grants and loans to the sorority sisters. Additionally, the sorority contributes philanthropically to several causes. The celebration of the 100th anniversary will take place at the Centennial Convention at the Sheraton Inn in Ann Arbor, Michigan from Tuesday, June 23 until Saturday, June 27. The celebration will include over 300 collegiate and alumnae women and their guests. Alpha Sigma Tau will be presenting Eastern Michigan University with a gift to commemorate the occasion. I extend my warmest regards to all who are involved with this celebration.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the passing of one of the great leaders of Michigan's conservation community. On Saturday, my friend Richard Jameson, the executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, succumbed to liver cancer. Rick was 48 years old. Rick was an environmentalist and an avid outdoorsman whose roots extended beyond our state. A native of Oklahoma, he received his bachelor's and master's degrees in natural resources management from Michigan State University and began working for the Michigan United Conservation Clubs in 1976. Rick's expertise and hard work were quickly recognized and in 1980 he headed back to his home state to serve as executive director of the Oklahoma Wildlife Federation. He continued in that capacity for eight years until 1988, when MUCC was fortunate enough to lure him back to serve as assistant executive director. Rick was a strong and dedicated environmentalist. Among his accomplishments was the passage of Michigan's beverage container deposit law; a law which has been widely acknowledged as greatly reducing litter in our state. Rick also played a vital role in providing Michigan voters the opportunity to pass a constitutional amendment that will ensure a constant source of funds for Michigan's state parks. Rick was also an avid outdoorsman. Here, too, he achieved important successes. He was instrumental in securing the overwhelming approval of a campaign which will guarantee that Michigan game animals are managed on the basis of sound biological science. He also helped defeat another initiative which would have virtually eliminated bear hunting in the state of Michigan. In short, Mr. President, I believe that Rick Jameson was one of the few individuals who truly understood the importance of both conservation and sportsman's rights. He spent his life's work protecting both as few others could. And Rick was a fighter. Despite suffering the effects of both his illness and the chemotherapy he was undergoing, Rick continued to work as long as possible. My office consulted with him as recently as last month, soliciting his input on legislation I have drafted and on other bills pending in the Senate. When it came to conservation, hunting and fishing, there was no one in the state whose opinion I trusted more than Rick's. Rick is survived by his wife of 18 years, Robbie, his daughter, Christine, and two brothers. My thoughts and prayers go out to them.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senator Mack and Senator Grams, in sponsoring the ``Printed Circuit Investment Act.'' This legislation will remove a significant barrier to technological investment and innovation in this country by updating the tax code's treatment of the electronic interconnection industry. Mr. President, manufacturers of printed wiring boards and printed wiring assemblies currently must depreciate their production equipment over a 5 years period. Given the speed with which technological advances continue to come in our high-tech industry, 5 years is an unreasonable amount of time for depreciation. In effect, the tax code is penalizing these companies for keeping up with their competition in the global marketplace. This not fair, nor is it in accordance with our national interests. In the fast-paced information age in which we live, we cannot afford to hobble our high-tech companies with outdated tax policies. This is why I am pleased to support legislation reducing to 3 years the time over which companies in the electronic interconnection industry must depreciate their production equipment. Through this measure we can encourage greater investment among electronic interconnection manufacturers and keep our high-tech industry competitive in the global marketplace. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address the ongoing debate in the Senate connected to the pending business, I believe, regarding United States relations with the People's Republic of China. As the Senate considers the Department of Defense authorization bill, S. 2057, a number of my colleagues and I have been working to try to find a vehicle, or vehicles, through which to present amendments to this bill, intended to put United States-China relations on the path toward what we consider to be meaningful engagement. Many of our amendments have already been filed. Two of these, one to combat slave labor in China and the other to monitor People's Liberation Army companies operating in the United States, were adopted by voice vote last month. This shows, I believe, the substantial support among Senators for measures upholding principles of freedom and human rights and measures protecting the national security interests of the United States. Today I would like to clarify the intents of the remaining amendments and the context in which we hope to offer them. Put simply, I and my colleagues seek meaningful engagement with the Chinese Government, consistent with our moral principles and with our national security interests. On this, I believe, all Americans are agreed. Unfortunately, this administration's policies towards China have, in my opinion, failed to produce that kind of relationship. For that reason, I believe amendments intended to promote meaningful engagement are necessary. Some people have charged that any attempt to go beyond current policies of what I consider to be hollow engagement with China will necessarily lead to isolationism. I disagree. I believe a more reasoned approach lies between the extremes of appeasement on the one hand and isolationism on the other. The problem with current discussions regarding United States-China relations, in my view, is best illustrated by debates over most-favored-nation trading status. Until recently, debates over our relations with China have focused almost entirely and exclusively on whether we should extend or revoke China's MFN status. It is time, in my view, to move the discussion out of the MFN box and to find common means to achieve common American goals. Revoking MFN would punish Americans with higher prices without significantly affecting the Chinese Government and its policies, and it would also punish innocent Chinese citizens by withdrawing economic opportunities provided by United States trade and investment. Even in the short term, in my view, we should not underestimate trade and investment's positive impact. ``Already,'' writes China expert Stephen J. Yates of the Heritage Foundation, Chinese ``employees at U.S. firms earn higher wages and are free to choose where to live, what to eat, and how to educate and care for their children.'' It is my belief that MFN, by itself, is a necessary element of any meaningful engagement between the United States and China. However, MFN alone is not sufficient to bring the changes so sorely needed in China or to protect the principles and interests of the United States. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has not pursued the policies necessary to make meaningful engagement possible. The administration has claimed that our current relationship with the People's Republic of China has improved through a process of constructive engagement. On this view, the Chinese Government has improved its behavior in a number of areas out of a desire to maintain good relations with the United States. Specific examples have been cited, including the release of a small number of dissidents, movement toward protection of intellectual property, and China's alleged steadiness during the continuing Asian financial crisis. I understand my colleagues' continuing hopes that these events might lead to better relations in the future between the United States and China. However, in my view, these hopes must be tempered by a realistic assessment of current Chinese Government practices and behavior. We all want the United States to be able to engage in an open and frank relationship with the Chinese Government, one in which each side can present its views on a broad range of issues, confident that the other side will promptly respond to their concerns and live up to international standards of human rights and mutual security. Unfortunately, our relationship with China has yet to reach that stage of mutual trust and responsibility. In particular, a clear-eyed view of China's human rights record shows that the hollow engagement that has characterized America's role in its relations with China in recent years has not led to substantive reform. Although the international community roundly condemned the Chinese Government's crushing of prodemocracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square along with the killing of thousands of student protesters and the imprisonment of many more, Chinese officials continue to claim their actions were justified. They continue to insist that their violent actions were a valid response to a counterrevolutionary riot. Indeed, Chinese officials now want to place our President at the scene of this crime as a sign of their righteousness. Likewise, even as the administration continues to claim a new era of Chinese nonproliferation resulting from the recent summit, fresh reports have arisen of Chinese assistance to Iranian missile programs and the Chinese decision to abandon previous assurances to observe the Missile Technology Regime's export control standards. Finally, it is important to recognize that definitive investigations are underway regarding the administration's export control policy toward China and its effect on national security. But it is also important to note that the administration has uniformly waived any sanctions for even the most egregious of Chinese actions harming our national security interests. The bottom line is that we currently lack the tools with which to pursue meaningful engagement with China. Current policies of hollow engagement allow Chinese leaders to believe that the United States will overlook almost any action on their part simply in order to keep them happy. This provides China's leaders with little incentive to change their behavior or beliefs to bring them more closely into alignment with international standards. The result is that our Government now constantly finds itself reacting to China's actions in an incoherent, ad hoc fashion. This has produced an unfortunate and increasing abandonment of the principles of freedom and defense of fundamental human rights on which our Nation is based, as well as a failure to fully protect the national security interests of the United States. The United States must, in my view, enunciate a clear and compelling policy disapproving Chinese violations of human rights and international conventions regarding national security. This requires, at a minimum, that we recognize that China's current leadership neither accepts nor acts upon the principle of friendship in international or domestic relations. Mr. President, I think this is an important debate. I think it is a debate that we need to have here in the Senate. I regret that the current procedural roadblocks that seem to exist will make it very difficult for us to fully act through the amendments that many of us would like to bring up and prevent us from having the kind of full and clear discussion in this debate that I think the Senate should make happen. Consequently, I find myself a bit frustrated today. I would like to applaud the Senator from Arkansas for the ongoing efforts he has engaged in to try to bring these issues to the floor of the Senate, to try to make it possible for us to have the kind of debate that I think many of us wish would occur. I hope that his efforts with many of us working together can be ultimately successful. If it cannot happen in the context of the current bill, then I think a group of us will find other vehicles coming to the floor of the Senate on which it can be possible for us to have this debate. But whether it happens now or happens later, I think the message to the administration should be clear and to the American people it should be clear: We are deeply concerned about the human rights policies of China. We are deeply concerned about the implications of their policies on American national security, and we in the U.S. Senate are not going to sit idly by and allow these policies to continue without ultimately having the kind of full and detailed debate, discussion and action that they require. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from New Mexico for giving us the chance to do this today. I appreciate his indulgence. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I was initially going to seek to dispense with the reading of the resolution. But it sounds so good that I could not help to want to hear and allow our gallery to hear, as well, those words. We in Michigan, and hockey fans, I think, throughout the world, are excited by the victory Tuesday night of the Detroit Red Wings in the Stanley Cup hockey finals. Earlier today, Senator Levin, on his behalf and my own, introduced a resolution to commemorate that victory. I will not take the time of the Senate to read the entire text of that resolution again. But I would like to stand here today to acknowledge and express the pride that he and I and the Detroit Red Wings fans, not only in Michigan but everywhere else, have as the team on Tuesday won its second consecutive Stanley Cup hockey championship. Last Friday, I had the opportunity to host the visit of the Stanley Cup itself to the Senate. We had the chance to share with our colleagues a little bit about the history of that most ancient trophy, which commemorates each year the winner of hockey's ultimate championship. As I say, this is the second straight year that championship has been won by the Detroit Red Wings. It is also the second straight year that the Red Wings have won the championship with a four-game sweep, clearly an indication of the talent and the abilities of this team. I think this year's victory was also special for a variety of other reasons that I would like to mention. First, as evident throughout the season and certainly during the final days of the playoffs, this victory was special because of the presence in the players' spirits and minds, and then ultimately at the arena itself, of Vladimir Konstantinov, one of the stars of last year's championship who was innocently the victim of an auto accident and injury that made it impossible for him to play this year. We all wish him a speedy recovery, although he is still wheelchair bound. It was a special win because the players dedicated the season to him and to the team trainer, Sergei Mnatsakanov, who likewise had been injured in that automobile accident. It marked the eighth straight Stanley Cup victory for Scotty Bowman, and that ties him with his mentor, Toe Blake, for the most victories of this championship in the history of the NHL. It was a special victory because team captain Steve Yzerman, in his 15th season, was awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy, which is a trophy that goes to the most valuable player in the playoffs. Those of us who have followed Red Wing hockey throughout that time know just how much he has meant not only to Detroit hockey but hockey in the NHL, one of the great players of all time. We in Michigan refer to Detroit as ``Hockeytown U.S.A.'' That has been our designation, but I think this victory, coupled with last year's victory, will make it clear, to everyone who may have had some doubts as to where the ultimate center of hockey spirit in this country is, that at least until they are dethroned, Detroit, MI, is that center and the Detroit Red Wings are the team that deserve the accolades they were able to achieve on Tuesday night. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 251, which was introduced earlier today by Senator Levin on his behalf and my behalf.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.