Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will quickly summarize. My amendment is designed to accomplish two things: To begin an effort to privatize the NEA so it can be as large as it wants to be and as liberated from the strings which Congress has attached to it as it wants to be. I believe this is feasible and I think it would take away from us, finally and once and for all, this ongoing debate between obscenity and censorship. Let the arts be free and creative and at the discretion of an independent entity. At the same time, my amendment would provide new funding to try to maintain and restore such treasures as the Star Spangled Banner, the works of our great composers, Presidential papers, Ellis Island, and Mount Rushmore. By moving in this direction, if my amendment passes, I will be offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which would incorporate the privatization concept, and then begin working on a variety of mechanisms by which I believe we in Congress can legislatively assist a private entity to thrive and be successful.

Mr. ABRAHAM. That will be great. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas to speak on whatever issue he might wish, with respect to this amendment or upcoming amendments.

Mr. ABRAHAM. What I was hoping for, if I can just indicate, was to determine if there was any further discussion or interest on the opposing side of this amendment. If there is, then I would want to speak about my amendment more. If not, I will be prepared to yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arkansas to speak on whatever matter he wants.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield--how much time does the Senator from Arkansas desire?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I just would state at the outset it is not my intention, given the lateness of the day and the other amendments still to come, to necessarily use all of the time on this issue. In fact, I intend to make a brief statement. I will stay here to discuss it at greater length if opponents of this amendment want to engage in more discussion, although I know today most people have expressed themselves already on these issues pertaining to the National Endowment for the Arts. So I am going to make a brief statement and I will then wait to see whether others wish to speak. If not, I am prepared at a certain point to yield back the remainder of the time. This amendment seeks to accomplish several key objectives. First and foremost, it has been my goal since arriving in the Senate to move the NEA in a direction of being a private national entity supporting the arts. I believe that is in the long-term best interests of the taxpayers and of the arts. Since arriving here and well before my arrival, it has been obvious to me that these discussions about the NEA too often turn on questions of accusations from one side that we are spending tax dollars to basically promote things that are unacceptable or even obscene, and on the other side arguments from those who are part of the arts community that we in the Congress are trying to somehow censor the creative activities of people in our country. This will continue, Madam President, as long as taxpayer money is involved. What I worry about as a supporter of the arts is that we will continue to see the NEA reduced in size and scope, both in terms of its budget, as well as in terms of its flexibility, because each time a new issue arises, Congress' response has been to reduce funding and to add more strings and more handcuffs to the Endowment. The best way to address it, I think, is to move in the direction of privatization, move this out of the Government, and allow it to be as large as support for it can be. That is what my amendment seeks to set in motion by reducing for the upcoming year by approximately one-third the size of the Endowment but allowing the Endowment to spend a percentage of its revenues for the beginning of a fundraising program designed to ultimately produce adequate funds to sustain itself as an independently chartered entity. I believe that will be a long-term approach. As I laid out in previous debates, I think there are a variety of indicators that suggest support for the Endowment would be existent, that there would be the kind of private support, given the magnitude of national support already for arts activities in our country of $9 billion per year, given the fact that numerous private institutions are larger than the National Endowment for the Arts, even today. I believe such support would be existent. And so this would be the first step in that direction toward privatization. If my amendment is adopted, I will have sense-of-the-Senate and other amendments that I will bring at appropriate times to buttress this plan of action. The other goal of this amendment is to direct additional Federal dollars in support of other national treasures, some of them arch- related, that I think deserve our commitment: the Star-Spangled Banner, Ellis Island, the papers of our Presidents and Founders, the works of our great composers, Mount Rushmore. All five of these entities or institutions or documents, or in the case of the Star-Spangled Banner, the flag itself, are in various states of deterioration and lack of support. My amendment would divert $30 million from the NEA to the support of these entities at the amounts that have been requested by the people involved with them in order to facilitate restoration where that is appropriate, in order to facilitate maintenance where that is appropriate, in order to supply additional dollars to ongoing restoration projects, and so on. I believe all of us should be able to agree that these five national treasures that I have outlined in this amendment deserve the support of the Congress. By moving in this direction, we can accomplish two very noble objectives, I think: On the one hand, the privatization and liberation of the National Endowment for the Arts, and on the other hand the preservation, restoration, and protection of great national treasures. For those reasons, I call upon my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is perfectly consistent with those who have argued for a national entity to support the arts. I think it is consistent with those who have argued that we shouldn't have taxpayer dollars engaged in that entity. I believe that it is the right way to strike a balance between the rival positions on this and at the same time do great good in preservation of very important national treasures. At this point, Madam President, I yield the floor and see if anyone else wishes to speak on this amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I now ask unanimous consent to have the time remaining on both sides of the debate on the Abraham amendment be yielded back.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged to anyone.

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

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to call up my amendment at this time, amendment No. 1206.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments discussing the issues pertaining to the National Endowment for the Arts. There are a number of amendments which are either already filed at desk or will be filed between now and, I gather, tomorrow afternoon. There will be further debate on this tomorrow as well. But I wanted to add additional comments, as well as to reiterate some of the points I made yesterday, both in support of the amendment which I have filed, as well as the general issues that have been raised by a number of the others who have spoken with regard to the NEA. Again, I would like to begin as yesterday by pointing out that, like many of the people here in the Senate, I am a strong proponent of the arts; a supporter. In our State we have a number of outstanding institutions too numerous to mention without forgetting important ones. I will just say in our State we make a major commitment and investment in arts activities. There are problems, though, as have been discussed at great length in the last day and a half, with the way the National Endowment for the Arts has functioned. I don't have specific criticisms of individuals, but I do think the results have been ones that have raised concerns. They have been concerns I have had since I came to the Senate in 1995. The principal concern I have is that the way we have proceeded has sort of established an ongoing debate which, on the one hand, has people arguing that the funding of specific types of, either arts institutions or artists, has meant that, in effect, tax dollars have been used for unacceptable or, in some cases it is argued, obscene activity. On the other hand, we hear from those who seek to be recipients of NEA grants, the argument that every time we add more controls here in Congress on the way these dollars are distributed, we are in effect performing a type of censorship on art and creativity in our country. My fear is that ultimately this leads us in a direction where there is a no-win outcome. Everybody loses. I met and discussed this with Jane Alexander. We have talked. I have outlined to her my concern that all it will take is one or two or maybe three more objectionable or provocative grants and we could well see an immediate cessation of support for the National Endowment or for any concept like it. In my State, that would be a bit of a problem because a lot of the institutions, I think, need lead time before we would totally cease support. Also, I think if we continue this debate we are really, in many ways, undermining the arts themselves. Because every time we have national focus on the problems with respect to artistic activity in this country, I think if anything it causes people not only to want to see fewer tax dollars supporting the NEA, and more strings attached to those tax dollars, but I think it diminishes the overall level of interest in and positive feelings toward arts activities. I also am concerned, and have expressed this before, about the way the NEA makes its decisions. Because, as we have seen in the very excellent presentation by the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Alabama and others, the Senator from Texas as well, the distribution of these dollars has not been in any sense based on any kind of ratios based on population or similar criteria, but rather are very disproportionately focused in a small number of communities in our country. I think a lot of people, at least in my State, probably in others as well, are frustrated, again, with the sort of Washington knows best mindset that makes those allocations. When I came to the Senate I spent a lot of time trying to decide how best to address the problem. The conclusion I reached in 1995, about which I have spoken on this floor since, which I worked on when I was a member of the Labor Committee, which I have written about in editorials, is that we ought to move in the direction of a private, privately financed, privatized NEA. In my judgment, moving us outside a situation where it is supported with direct tax dollars will allow the National Endowment to retain its independence, to not have to get embroiled in this debate between censorship and obscenity; to fund projects that this national entity would decide makes sense, and not have to worry about whether there would be political consequences each time it made said decisions. I believe such an approach is in the best interests of the arts. I certainly think it's in the best interests of the NEA. And I think it's in the best interests of the taxpayers who sent us here to make these decisions. Privatization of the NEA cannot happen overnight. So when I was first elected to the Senate, I proposed a 5-year plan to slowly reduce the Federal Government's support for the NEA, giving that entity the opportunity, the time necessary to become privately chartered, to raise money, to build the kind of support necessary to sustain itself at least at the current levels, and in my judgment it would be sustained at a much greater level if it was privately supported. I believe, if we provide a similar kind of timeframe from now forward as I originally contemplated--that is through the year 2000, that is now 3 years away--that would be adequate to accomplish this mission. So, first we need time. Second, we would need to provide, I think, some mechanism, some assistance to the NEA to allow it to move to a situation where it was privately supported. As I say, my proposal is that it be phased out over 3 years. That will give organizations who are looking to receive support, lead time to make long range plans. It will give the NEA time to build support in the private sector for its continuance. As a consequence, I am offering an amendment that would set in motion the first year of that 3-year plan, by reducing the budget for the NEA accordingly, by approximately one-third. At the same time, I think we need to provide help. Consequently, my amendment would provide the NEA with the authorization to go forward and use some of its dollars to begin the fundraising activities needed for it to be an independent entity. In addition, it would be my plan, if my amendment is agreed to, to subsequently introduce a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would encapsulate the full privatization plan that I contemplate. It would also be my plan to work with other interested Members of the Senate to provide additional tools that would make it more feasible for the NEA to function in a private sense. For example, ideas which we have looked at already would be the creation of a special postage stamp which would be marketed and sold at a greater amount than 32 cents, with the proceeds being made available to the private entity. Other ideas which have been discussed would include such things as a tax checkoff on the tax form through which people could direct a small number of dollars they would otherwise be paying to the NEA. So, in fact, the people who really wanted to support it would be given this opportunity. There are a variety of other ways that we can do it. The point is, I believe it is very feasible to generate private-level support at least as great as we are providing currently, at approximately $100 million a year. I say that for the following reasons. First of all, we already know that in this country the arts are supported on an annual basis by approximately $9 billion of activity and support of this type. In addition, we have specific institutions, arts institutions, in this country, such entities as the Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and many others, that have an annual operating budget considerably greater than the National Endowment for the Arts. So it is certainly the case that support is out there across this country to provide the kind of resources necessary for the entity to function privately and absolutely would be the case if such funds were available if we provided some of the tools that I mentioned earlier. In addition, as I have indicated in previous speeches on this, I think there are a number of other mechanisms that could be available to the National Endowment for the Arts if it became a private entity to raise funds. They range from fundraising events, where the artists, the very artists, in fact, who come and knock on our doors urging us to support the entity, could produce and support fundraising activities on behalf of that private entity. My belief is that such events, whether they are simple dinners or they are concerts and performances of that sort, could generate enormous amounts of money. In fact, I was noting the other day that one of the artists who has been down to see Members of Congress, Garth Brooks, just had a concert in Central Park, NY. Approximately 700,000 people attended that concert. It was broadcast on the HBO network. I am sure a huge amount of revenue was generated by the event. Those are the kinds of things I would think artists would be available to do in support of the NEA, especially those artists who have come to us and have said, this is a worthwhile project that ought to be supported. I also believe there could be support generated for special events. As I pointed out in the Labor Committee when I brought a similar amendment before that committee a couple of years ago, each year during the various televised awards ceremonies celebrating the arts, such as the Oscars, the Emmys, the Tonys, the country and western musical award shows, and so on, we hear a great deal of support expressed for the NEA by the very performers who attend those events and give away awards. Those programs are literally built around the appearance of these pro- NEA entertainers, and it is my suspicion that those programs generate extraordinarily substantial profits for the networks that broadcast them. Indeed, I believe just a couple of years ago it was estimated that the Academy Awards show drew a worldwide audience of over 500 million people. Certainly, that is the type of programming that could be turned into a fundraising opportunity for a private entity supporting the arts. Indeed, as I pointed out a couple of years ago, only 5 percent of the audience that watched were still willing to pay to watch through a pay- per-view broadcast of that type of program. It would generate more revenue, given the rates that one charges for those pay-per-view shows, more revenue than the NEA's current budget. Again, all these are opportunities that I think exist out there, and I believe we should move in the direction of providing the NEA with the chance to benefit from that type of support. There are others as well: Collaborative efforts of artists ranging from the kind of support we saw a few years ago for USA for Africa when the ``We Are the World'' recording produced approximately $60 million of support for that cause, to similar types of collaboration, or the possibility of reimbursements for commercially successful grants and events which the NEA provides the seed money for. In short, Mr. President, a variety of opportunities, I think, exist, and I think, therefore, it is feasible for the private entity to at least generate the type of support that we provide annually and, in my judgment, probably considerably more support as if it truly was, as I believe it can be, a national level organization. Another question, of course, that also has been raised by my amendment is, are there other important American treasures--perhaps arts related, perhaps not--that we ought to be considering funding? So what my amendment does, in addition to beginning the process of privatization of the NEA, is to expend the dollars which would be reduced from the NEA's budget on the preservation of American treasures, the restoration of national treasures. Let me outline the specifics. First of all, $8 million for the restoration of the Star Spangled Banner. The cost to transfer the flag to begin its restoration will be approximately $1 million alone. It was recently reported in the media that the total cost could run as high as $15 million. Currently, the Smithsonian's calculating this amount will not confirm this number, but the $8 million we would earmark in my amendment represents a responsible amount to begin the preservation effort of the Star Spangled Banner itself, the actual flag which prompted Francis Scott Key to write America's National Anthem. The amendment would also provide $8 million for the preservation of Presidential papers. Our former Presidents were prolific writers, Mr. President. Their works survive to this date. Private enterprises worked for over 40 years to preserve the works of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, and other Founding Fathers, and they will not survive another two centuries. The National Archives has focused its resources on preserving modern electronic records of local and State archives. The National Historic Publications and Records Commission once provided about one-third of the funding for the preservation of the Presidents' works, but has recently announced that the projects will now have to contend with whatever is left after it has satisfied the local archives proposal. The fact is the preservation of Presidential papers is now at some risk. As a consequence, approximately $8 million of these earmarked funds would go to maintaining active support adequate to maintain our Presidents' documents. Two million dollars in this amendment is directed at the restoration of Ellis Island, the site of the arrival of so many people in the United States. On islands 2 and 3, the old hospital ward, the crematorium and housing for immigrants are in desperate condition and appear in the same condition as when they were abandoned by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1954. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has listed these buildings as 1 of the 11 most endangered historic sites in America. The $2 million which my amendment would earmark to Ellis Island restoration would prevent water intrusion and provide the ventilation and other support services necessary to preserve this national treasure. There are other components, as well, to my amendment, one which would go toward helping to address a serious problem at Mount Rushmore, to maintain that facility in good condition, as well as preservation of the manuscripts and original works of great American composers which are at some risk now of being, like the Presidents' papers, inadequately supported. In short, my amendment does several things. It sets us on the course to privatize the National Endowment for the Arts as opposed to an immediate abolition, a 3-year timeframe in which we would slowly give that entity the opportunity to move in the direction of privatization. Second, it would protect and provide support to protect key national treasures--the Star Spangled Banner, our Presidential papers, the manuscripts and original works of great American composers, Ellis Island, and Mount Rushmore. Finally, I think it would help end the division that continues to exist at all levels with respect to the National Endowment for the Arts. By making the Endowment a private entity, we will take this issue, this very divisive issue, out of the Congress, give the arts the opportunity to act and give this entity the opportunity to act in an independent fashion without a lot of strings and a lot of limitations and allow us, as a consequence, I think, to move on in other directions. We would still have a national entity. We would still have that entity supporting worthwhile projects as it deemed, but we would no longer have the ongoing battle I have outlined between the argument on the one hand that we are too often using taxpayers' dollars for objectionable activities and the argument on the other that every time we apply strings to these dollars, we are engaging in a form of censorship. Mr. President, I think this is the right course to follow because it would accomplish the goals I have set forth, and tomorrow I will be speaking in greater detail on this during the debate time that has been set aside. At this point, I yield the floor. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would reauthorize the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which is scheduled to expire on September 30, 1997. Senator Kennedy has joined me in developing this reauthorizing legislation, and I am pleased to be introducing it with him. I am also pleased to have Senators Hatch, Leahy, Murkowski, Durbin, Stevens, Reed, Gorton, Inouye and Torricelli as original cosponsors. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program permits aliens from designated countries to enter the United States as temporary visitors for up to 90 days with a passport, but without the additional visa that normally would also be required to enter our country. The program became effective in 1988, and was originally limited to eight countries and for a duration of three years. Twenty-five countries now participate, and the program's authorizing statute has been amended and extended five times--a clear tribute to the program's success. Last year's immigration reform law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, extended the Visa Waiver Pilot Program through September 30, 1997. The program was extended for only 1 year so that we could consider related issues in more detail and apart from the multitude of immigration issues Congress was considering last year. Visa waiver countries are now selected by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of State, a change that was instituted through last year's immigration reform law. In order to be eligible for the program, countries must meet a number of statutory requirements, which aim to ensure that aliens admitted under the program are generally low risk and will not overstay their authorized period of stay in the United States. Mr. President, this program has proven a great success. It has significantly furthered international travel and tourism. Nonetheless, I believe the program's authorizing statute can be improved in a number of ways to address administrative failings and, more generally, some of our Nation's very serious illegal immigration problems. For instance, under the program, any country designated a Visa Waiver Program participant may be placed in probationary status if it does not maintain a low disqualification rate and may eventually be removed from the program. The disqualification rate represents the percentage of nationals from a particular country who applied for admission to the United States. at a port of entry as non-immigrants and who violated the terms of their nonimmigrant visas, were excluded from admission upon trying to enter or withdrew their applications for admission. But, due to problems in the administration of the program, no country has ever been removed from the program, and countries' continuing eligibilities have not even been assessed. What can we do to improve this situation? First, we simply must improve the current abysmal record of tracking--and even counting--visa overstayers. Estimates released earlier this year by the INS put the number of illegal aliens in the United States at 5 million; 41 percent of these illegal aliens entered the United States legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Moreover, we recently learned that the INS cannot even accurately assess overall numbers of those who enter legally and overstay, despite the current use of an entry-exit matching system through the I-94 cards. The current paper-based entry-exit control system relies on a card, the I-94 form, half of which is collected upon entry and the other half of which is collected by the airline or other carrier on exit. Ideally, the INS then would match up the two halves of the card. This system should permit the INS to identify individual overstayers. Yet the INS has used it only to collect aggregate numbers of overstayers. Even for that limited purpose the system has failed. We recently learned that INS data based on the I-94's has been virtually unusable since 1992. The inspector general of the Department of Justice recently issued an alarming report on the subject of nonimmigrant visa overstayers. In that report, which was issued on September 4, the inspector general found that INS's primary information system on nonimmigrants, is not producing reliable overstay data, either in the aggregate, or on individual nonimmigrants, and noted that INS is unable to perform its responsibilities for monitoring the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, including determining whether a country should be placed on probation or terminated from the program. We need to take immediate action to correct these failings and require INS to carry out its responsibilities. Mr. President, on July 17 I held a subcommittee hearing to examine this program. In addition to learning about weaknesses in the INS's monitoring of visa overstayers, we also learned that, in the view of many nations, the visa refusal rates countries must meet to gain admission to the program are set too low given the somewhat subjective nature of the visa awards process. Since the program's inception, efforts to modify numerical criteria have continually resurfaced. Some narrow efforts have been successful for a time, but none have resolved the issue on a more permanent basis. Rather than have any sort of special probationary status reappear from time to time or create any special status for particular countries, in my view it is better to set these criteria at a more fair level once and for all and to apply the requirements of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program rigorously to newly admitted countries and to countries already in the program. This legislation addresses the problem of numerical criteria by slightly broadening potential eligibility for the Visa Waiver Program. At the same time, this legislation contains three provisions tightening the program, along with a provision improving administration and one extending the program for 5 years. Allow me to be specific: First: The bill would modify the refusal rate countries must meet to be eligible for the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Under current law, 8 U.S.C. 1187(c), in order to be eligible for pilot program status, a country must have a low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate of 2 percent per year on average over the previous 2 fiscal years, and its refusal rate must not exceed 2.5 percent in either year. The refusal rate is the percentage of nonimmigrant visa applications that are rejected at U.S. Embassies and consulates overseas. Our legislation would change those numbers to 3 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively. Our goal here in changing the numbers should not be to guarantee that any particular countries will be admitted into the program or to increase participation generally for its own sake. Rather, we should seek to make the criteria more fair and as a whole more reflective of reasons for which a country should be entitled to visa waiver status. A number of witnesses testified at our hearing that the Republic of Korea--commonly referred to as South Korea, should be admitted to the program. While I am confident that South Korea will eventually be admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, I should note that, since South Korea's refusal rate numbers may exceed 3 percent for the current fiscal year, South Korea may not be eligible for admission to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program immediately. Mr. President, increasing the refusal rate numerical cutoffs from 2 percent/2.5 percent to 3 percent/3.5 percent will not have a dramatic effect on the number of countries eligible for the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Fourteen countries meet the current refusal rate criteria but have not been admitted to the program for other reasons. Four others-- Botswana, Chile, Greece, and South Korea, do not meet the current criteria, but may meet a modified cutoff of 3 percent/3.5 percent, depending on what happens with their FY97 numbers. Changing the numerical cutoff by 1 percent would thus mean that 18 rather than 14 countries not admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program might now meet the refusal rate criteria. Of those four additional countries, only South Korea is likely to meet other program requirements in the near future. The second reform in this legislation will improve reporting of visa overstayer numbers and disqualification rates. Current law provides that countries can be removed from the Visa Waiver Pilot Program if their visa overstay and disqualification rates--i.e., the rate of those turned away at ports of entry as inadmissible, exceed 2 percent of those seeking admission as nonimmigrants under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Yet the INS has produced no data on overstay numbers since 1992 and has accordingly been unable to fulfill its statutory duties. To address this serious shortcoming in administration of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, the bill would require that the Attorney General: First, make precise numerical estimates for each pilot program country of that country's visa overstay and disqualification rates, and second, report those estimates to Congress within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year. In addition, for any new country to be admitted under the slightly revised refusal rate criteria, the Attorney General would have to certify that the country's visa overstay and disqualification rates had been within the statutory limits. Third, this legislation provides for enhanced passport security requirements. Under current program requirements, a country may not be admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program unless it certifies that it has or is in the process of developing a program to issue machine- readable passports to its citizens. At the subcommittee hearing we held on this issue in July, the INS suggested that participant countries also be required to issue fraud resistant passports. This legislation actually builds on the INS's proposed requirement. It would require that countries seeking admission to the program issue machine-readable and highly fraud-resistant passports. It would no longer be enough for countries to certify that they were moving toward issuing these passports. The proposed bill would also extend this requirement to countries already in the program. Despite the requirement in current law that countries at least be developing machine-readable passport programs, there is no requirement that they follow through. Likewise, there has been no follow-up by the State Department to ensure that they eventually meet the requirement. For countries in the program as of September 30, 1997, the bill provides that the Attorney General may not redesignate a country as a pilot program country unless the country certifies that it has issued or will issue as of a date certain machine-readable and highly fraud-resistant passports and unless the country subsequently complies with any such certification commitments. Fourth, this legislation links expansion of Visa Waiver Pilot Program with INS development of an automated entry-exit control system. The illegal immigration reform bill requires the Attorney General to develop, by September 30, 1998, an automated entry-exit control system that will match arrival and departure records and make possible identification of individual aliens who overstay their visas. INS indicates that they will have this system up and running on time for ports of entry other than our land borders. To ensure that the Visa Waiver Pilot Program will not be expanded before INS complies with those requirements--and to add some incentive for them to do so--the Abraham-Kennedy bill would require that no new country be admitted to the program until 30 days after the Attorney General certifies to Congress that the automated entry-exit control system mandated by the illegal immigration reform law is operational at all ports of entry excluding the land borders. I note that there may be some question as to whether last year's law intended to have the automated entry-exit control system apply to the land borders, and I will be working separately to clarify that Congress intended the provision to apply only to entry and exit at ports of entry excluding the land borders. Fifth, this legislation provides modified roles for the Secretary of State and Attorney General to reflect their respective Agency's expertise. Last year's immigration reform law also altered the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Attorney General with respect to decisions under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. That program previously provided that relevant determinations would be made jointly by the Secretary and the Attorney General. The illegal immigration bill provided that such determinations are to be made by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary. Under the Abraham-Kennedy bill, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, would have the lead role only in terms of initially allowing a country into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. The Secretary is given this role because she compiles the refusal rates and is in a better position to assess a country's passport program than the Attorney General. Once countries are admitted to the program, however, the Attorney General would play the lead agency role in determining whether a country will remain in the program or be placed on probation for having excessive overstay and disqualification rates. This is in keeping with the Attorney General's responsibility for determining these figures and over aliens once they arrive at a port of entry to the United States. Finally, the proposed bill includes a 5-year extension of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, setting an expiration date of September 30, 2002. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the extension of this important program in conjunction with the changes that Senator Kennedy and I have developed. This legislation will rationalize an important program that has brought significant benefits to our Nation, while instituting important safeguards to protect that program's integrity. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, last Thursday, Senator Hollings and I introduced a resolution that aims to protect truth in labeling and, specifically, the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label. It would express the sense of Congress that the Federal Trade Commission should retain the current standard for labeling products ``Made in USA.'' For over 50 years now, Mr. President, consumer goods have been labeled ``Made in USA'' when, and only when, they were made all or virtually all in the United States. But recently the FTC announced plans to allow companies to use the ``Made in USA'' label on products for which U.S. manufacturing costs represent as little as 75 percent of total manufacturing costs and the product was last substantially transformed in the United States. Alternatively, a product could be labeled ``Made in USA'' if it was last substantially transformed in the United States and all its significant inputs were last substantially transformed in the United States. In practice, Mr. President, this means that products containing no materials or parts of U.S. origin could nonetheless be labeled as ``Made in USA.'' Should the company expend 75 percent of its manufacturing costs or engage in the final substantive assembly or other modification of the product in the United States, it could display the ``Made in USA'' label on the product, even if its entire content, including manufactured parts, came from overseas. In my view, Mr. President, such rules would in effect condone false advertising. Many Americans look specifically for the ``Made in USA'' label because they want to support American workers. These loyal Americans do not believe that they are purchasing products mostly made in the USA, let alone products for which most manufacturing costs were incurred in the USA, or which were substantially transformed in the USA. Quite rightly, consumers who look for the ``Made in USA'' label believe that in purchasing a product with that label they are getting something made all or virtually all in the United States. Also important, Mr. President, are the expectations of the many companies that have made substantial investments in plant and equipment, as well as hiring and training, in the United States. These companies have a right to expect that the ``Made in USA'' label, which they have worked so hard to earn and maintain, will continue to apply only to products made all, or virtually all, in the United States. To dilute the requirement for use of the ``Made in USA'' label would be to lower the value of that label. It would allow companies operating substantially overseas to deceive American consumers who are attempting to support truly American made products and workers. It would discourage companies from investing in this country by telling them, in effect, that they will no longer receive any benefit for keeping jobs at home. The result would be a loss of American jobs and morale, as well as a critical blow to consumer confidence in the veracity of product labels. Mr. President, the American people have a right to expect that the ``Made in USA'' label will mean what it says. For over 50 years they have depended on that label to assure them that they are purchasing products made all or virtually all in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending the message to the FTC that we must keep things that way.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would reauthorize the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which is scheduled to expire on September 30, 1997. Senator Kennedy has joined me in developing this reauthorizing legislation, and I am pleased to be introducing it with him. I am also pleased to have Senators Hatch, Leahy, Murkowski, Durbin, Stevens, Reed, Gorton, Inouye and Torricelli as original cosponsors. The Visa Waiver Pilot Program permits aliens from designated countries to enter the United States as temporary visitors for up to 90 days with a passport, but without the additional visa that normally would also be required to enter our country. The program became effective in 1988, and was originally limited to eight countries and for a duration of three years. Twenty-five countries now participate, and the program's authorizing statute has been amended and extended five times--a clear tribute to the program's success. Last year's immigration reform law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, extended the Visa Waiver Pilot Program through September 30, 1997. The program was extended for only 1 year so that we could consider related issues in more detail and apart from the multitude of immigration issues Congress was considering last year. Visa waiver countries are now selected by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of State, a change that was instituted through last year's immigration reform law. In order to be eligible for the program, countries must meet a number of statutory requirements, which aim to ensure that aliens admitted under the program are generally low risk and will not overstay their authorized period of stay in the United States. Mr. President, this program has proven a great success. It has significantly furthered international travel and tourism. Nonetheless, I believe the program's authorizing statute can be improved in a number of ways to address administrative failings and, more generally, some of our Nation's very serious illegal immigration problems. For instance, under the program, any country designated a Visa Waiver Program participant may be placed in probationary status if it does not maintain a low disqualification rate and may eventually be removed from the program. The disqualification rate represents the percentage of nationals from a particular country who applied for admission to the United States. at a port of entry as non-immigrants and who violated the terms of their nonimmigrant visas, were excluded from admission upon trying to enter or withdrew their applications for admission. But, due to problems in the administration of the program, no country has ever been removed from the program, and countries' continuing eligibilities have not even been assessed. What can we do to improve this situation? First, we simply must improve the current abysmal record of tracking--and even counting--visa overstayers. Estimates released earlier this year by the INS put the number of illegal aliens in the United States at 5 million; 41 percent of these illegal aliens entered the United States legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Moreover, we recently learned that the INS cannot even accurately assess overall numbers of those who enter legally and overstay, despite the current use of an entry-exit matching system through the I-94 cards. The current paper-based entry-exit control system relies on a card, the I-94 form, half of which is collected upon entry and the other half of which is collected by the airline or other carrier on exit. Ideally, the INS then would match up the two halves of the card. This system should permit the INS to identify individual overstayers. Yet the INS has used it only to collect aggregate numbers of overstayers. Even for that limited purpose the system has failed. We recently learned that INS data based on the I-94's has been virtually unusable since 1992. The inspector general of the Department of Justice recently issued an alarming report on the subject of nonimmigrant visa overstayers. In that report, which was issued on September 4, the inspector general found that INS's primary information system on nonimmigrants, is not producing reliable overstay data, either in the aggregate, or on individual nonimmigrants, and noted that INS is unable to perform its responsibilities for monitoring the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, including determining whether a country should be placed on probation or terminated from the program. We need to take immediate action to correct these failings and require INS to carry out its responsibilities. Mr. President, on July 17 I held a subcommittee hearing to examine this program. In addition to learning about weaknesses in the INS's monitoring of visa overstayers, we also learned that, in the view of many nations, the visa refusal rates countries must meet to gain admission to the program are set too low given the somewhat subjective nature of the visa awards process. Since the program's inception, efforts to modify numerical criteria have continually resurfaced. Some narrow efforts have been successful for a time, but none have resolved the issue on a more permanent basis. Rather than have any sort of special probationary status reappear from time to time or create any special status for particular countries, in my view it is better to set these criteria at a more fair level once and for all and to apply the requirements of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program rigorously to newly admitted countries and to countries already in the program. This legislation addresses the problem of numerical criteria by slightly broadening potential eligibility for the Visa Waiver Program. At the same time, this legislation contains three provisions tightening the program, along with a provision improving administration and one extending the program for 5 years. Allow me to be specific: First: The bill would modify the refusal rate countries must meet to be eligible for the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Under current law, 8 U.S.C. 1187(c), in order to be eligible for pilot program status, a country must have a low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate of 2 percent per year on average over the previous 2 fiscal years, and its refusal rate must not exceed 2.5 percent in either year. The refusal rate is the percentage of nonimmigrant visa applications that are rejected at U.S. Embassies and consulates overseas. Our legislation would change those numbers to 3 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively. Our goal here in changing the numbers should not be to guarantee that any particular countries will be admitted into the program or to increase participation generally for its own sake. Rather, we should seek to make the criteria more fair and as a whole more reflective of reasons for which a country should be entitled to visa waiver status. A number of witnesses testified at our hearing that the Republic of Korea--commonly referred to as South Korea, should be admitted to the program. While I am confident that South Korea will eventually be admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, I should note that, since South Korea's refusal rate numbers may exceed 3 percent for the current fiscal year, South Korea may not be eligible for admission to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program immediately. Mr. President, increasing the refusal rate numerical cutoffs from 2 percent/2.5 percent to 3 percent/3.5 percent will not have a dramatic effect on the number of countries eligible for the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Fourteen countries meet the current refusal rate criteria but have not been admitted to the program for other reasons. Four others-- Botswana, Chile, Greece, and South Korea, do not meet the current criteria, but may meet a modified cutoff of 3 percent/3.5 percent, depending on what happens with their FY97 numbers. Changing the numerical cutoff by 1 percent would thus mean that 18 rather than 14 countries not admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program might now meet the refusal rate criteria. Of those four additional countries, only South Korea is likely to meet other program requirements in the near future. The second reform in this legislation will improve reporting of visa overstayer numbers and disqualification rates. Current law provides that countries can be removed from the Visa Waiver Pilot Program if their visa overstay and disqualification rates--i.e., the rate of those turned away at ports of entry as inadmissible, exceed 2 percent of those seeking admission as nonimmigrants under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Yet the INS has produced no data on overstay numbers since 1992 and has accordingly been unable to fulfill its statutory duties. To address this serious shortcoming in administration of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, the bill would require that the Attorney General: First, make precise numerical estimates for each pilot program country of that country's visa overstay and disqualification rates, and second, report those estimates to Congress within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year. In addition, for any new country to be admitted under the slightly revised refusal rate criteria, the Attorney General would have to certify that the country's visa overstay and disqualification rates had been within the statutory limits. Third, this legislation provides for enhanced passport security requirements. Under current program requirements, a country may not be admitted to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program unless it certifies that it has or is in the process of developing a program to issue machine- readable passports to its citizens. At the subcommittee hearing we held on this issue in July, the INS suggested that participant countries also be required to issue fraud resistant passports. This legislation actually builds on the INS's proposed requirement. It would require that countries seeking admission to the program issue machine-readable and highly fraud-resistant passports. It would no longer be enough for countries to certify that they were moving toward issuing these passports. The proposed bill would also extend this requirement to countries already in the program. Despite the requirement in current law that countries at least be developing machine-readable passport programs, there is no requirement that they follow through. Likewise, there has been no follow-up by the State Department to ensure that they eventually meet the requirement. For countries in the program as of September 30, 1997, the bill provides that the Attorney General may not redesignate a country as a pilot program country unless the country certifies that it has issued or will issue as of a date certain machine-readable and highly fraud-resistant passports and unless the country subsequently complies with any such certification commitments. Fourth, this legislation links expansion of Visa Waiver Pilot Program with INS development of an automated entry-exit control system. The illegal immigration reform bill requires the Attorney General to develop, by September 30, 1998, an automated entry-exit control system that will match arrival and departure records and make possible identification of individual aliens who overstay their visas. INS indicates that they will have this system up and running on time for ports of entry other than our land borders. To ensure that the Visa Waiver Pilot Program will not be expanded before INS complies with those requirements--and to add some incentive for them to do so--the Abraham-Kennedy bill would require that no new country be admitted to the program until 30 days after the Attorney General certifies to Congress that the automated entry-exit control system mandated by the illegal immigration reform law is operational at all ports of entry excluding the land borders. I note that there may be some question as to whether last year's law intended to have the automated entry-exit control system apply to the land borders, and I will be working separately to clarify that Congress intended the provision to apply only to entry and exit at ports of entry excluding the land borders. Fifth, this legislation provides modified roles for the Secretary of State and Attorney General to reflect their respective Agency's expertise. Last year's immigration reform law also altered the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Attorney General with respect to decisions under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. That program previously provided that relevant determinations would be made jointly by the Secretary and the Attorney General. The illegal immigration bill provided that such determinations are to be made by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary. Under the Abraham-Kennedy bill, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, would have the lead role only in terms of initially allowing a country into the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. The Secretary is given this role because she compiles the refusal rates and is in a better position to assess a country's passport program than the Attorney General. Once countries are admitted to the program, however, the Attorney General would play the lead agency role in determining whether a country will remain in the program or be placed on probation for having excessive overstay and disqualification rates. This is in keeping with the Attorney General's responsibility for determining these figures and over aliens once they arrive at a port of entry to the United States. Finally, the proposed bill includes a 5-year extension of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, setting an expiration date of September 30, 2002. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the extension of this important program in conjunction with the changes that Senator Kennedy and I have developed. This legislation will rationalize an important program that has brought significant benefits to our Nation, while instituting important safeguards to protect that program's integrity. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Madam President. National Endowment for the Arts

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a topic which has been ostensibly discussed this afternoon, namely, the portion of the Interior appropriations bill devoted to the National Endowment for the Arts. It is my plan--and still in the process of being drafted--to offer a slightly different type of an amendment from the ones which have been discussed already. I do not have that amendment here, so I will not be introducing it at this time. I am going to be trying to work with some of the others who have concern about this issue to determine exactly how we might finally present the proposal I am going to discuss here today. I rise as a Senator who finds himself, and has since he arrived in the Senate, somewhat perplexed as to how we should proceed with regard to funding for the arts. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the arts. I think that it is in the Nation's interest, certainly, to do the most we can with scarce resources to try to encourage young artists, regardless of their specialties, to pursue their interests and their creative skills. And at the same time it is quite clear that the method that has been used recently, at least, has prompted a great deal of controversy and, in my judgment, to a large extent set back the progress with regard to our Nation's artistic activities. Because what we have had for too long, it seems, is this ongoing debate between whether or not the National Endowment for the Arts is properly funded by the Federal Government or whether it should be eliminated. What we have is a debate that essentially, on the one hand, argues that taxpayer dollars should not be used to support what many consider to be obscene activities or inappropriate activities, and, on the other hand, we hear from the arts community--and I have certainly heard from a number of individuals representing that community since I have gotten to the Senate--that the efforts on the part of Congress to either limit the funding or to put strings on the funding constitute, if not an explicit form of censorship, certainly an implicit form of censorship. In addition, I hear in my State a lot of concerns because, as the charts which were here earlier indicate, our State is not getting the sort of revenues and resources to work with as many other states of equivalent size. So there is a frustration both with the inadequacy of the resources which come back to my State of Michigan as well as some concern about whether or not Washington expertise is in the best position to determine which projects in our State should be supported. In my judgment, the logical solution to all of this is to maintain a national entity which oversees various arts activities and supports those which are worthy of such support but to not have it funded by the taxpayers' dollars. In other words, what we ought to do, in my judgment, is to privatize a national program, an American endowment, if you will, for the arts, one which receives no direct taxpayer support but one which nonetheless can perform some of the national responsibilities that have been outlined by advocates of the existing NEA. If it were done in that fashion, Madam President, we would be in a position where at a national level determinations could be made as to priority arts programs. Those priorities could be given support, and the support would not necessarily therefore have to come with a lot of strings attached. If performing artists became a priority, individual artists became a priority, a national endowment not supported by taxpayers' dollars would be able to support such efforts. Today, because of the handcuffs which have been attached in recent appropriations bills, that cannot happen. In short, we can get away from this debate between obscenity on the one hand and censorship on the other and support the arts in a private fashion. Some have argued this is not feasible, that there is no way to come up with the resources required. But in my judgment that is wrong. Just as a starting point, it is currently the case that over $9 billion a year is expended in support of arts activities across this country. Indeed, a number of the individual arts organizations have larger, substantially larger, annual budgets than the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the amount of money that we currently spend in the NEA on an annual basis--$100 million--is just a fraction of the $9 billion which is annually expended on these types of programs. It is smaller than that expended by the Lincoln Center, by a variety of other very large and well-known arts organizations. Indeed, I believe, as we have seen by the remarkable outpouring of support from the arts community itself, whether they are famous artists individually or national organizations, corporations who deal in arts and entertainment, it would seem to me that the ability to raise funds for such an independent entity would be rather within our reach. My plan basically is to privatize the NEA over the next 3 years. In this year's appropriations bill we would, consequently, reduce funding by approximately one-third, although we would make it feasible for the NEA to expend a percentage of its dollars it has to begin a fundraising program to find ways to privatize the entity at the end of the 3-year period. In other words, we would begin the process. It would not be done overnight. It would allow for existing institutions, who are beneficiaries of NEA support, to not find themselves overnight without any support but on notice that in 3 years the support would be coming from a private entity. In exchange, what I would envision is to spend these dollars, which would be reduced on an annual basis, on other very important national treasures. It is currently the case, for instance, Madam President, that the Star-Spangled Banner, the actual flag that prompted Francis Scott Key to write our Nation's national anthem, is in desperate need of financial support for purposes of preserving that flag. Ellis Island, the site of the arrival of millions of immigrants to this country--one of the true historical treasures--is in decay and in desperate need of support. The Presidential Papers of many of our Nation's Chief Executives are in a position where the preservation of those documents is at risk. My amendment will allocate the funds that are being reduced from the NEA to the support of these national treasures, treasures which I think virtually every Member of Congress could agree deserve support. If my amendment were to pass this year, my plan would be to follow up with a variety of very specific actions designed to be consistent with the support for a privatized NEA, including a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which I will be offering to specifically express the Senate support for a private ongoing NEA outside of taxpayer support, and other ideas such as a checkoff plan by which taxpayers could direct individual contributions to an independent entity. The bottom line is this, Madam President, we have to make decisions all the time about priorities. It seems to me in the area of the National Endowment for the Arts, the logical thing is to preserve it in a way that allows it to function in its fullest sense, and to function independently and privately. When I offer my amendment, I will discuss this in greater detail. In the meantime, I think we have an obligation, whether it is to preserve the Star-Spangled Banner itself, or to renovate Ellis Island so it can be preserved, or to make sure the papers of our Presidents are preserved, we have an obligation to preserve them. I believe the amendment I will be offering strikes the right balance. My amendment is quite consistent with that offered earlier by Senator Hutchison. I have indicated I would support that approach as well, because it does not immediately phase out the support which many of our State and local arts organizations receive. I think my amendment moves us in the right direction because it brings us to a point, in a short period of time, over 3 years, where the National Endowment for the Arts would not have to be here each year trying to justify itself on Capitol Hill, but could operate with unfettered discretion and make its own judgments and eliminate the debate between censorship and obscenity. The best way to do that is to take the taxpayers out of the picture so they can make independent decisions and not worry about the political debate it finds itself in. Then we can direct the resources which our taxpayers send to Washington to preserve items such as a President's papers, Ellis Island and a variety of other national parks and national institutions in desperate need of support. This would be the most sensible way to approach it. It is my plan currently to offer an amendment, once it is fully drafted, to that effect. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the China Policy Act of 1997. Cosponsors of this legislation include Senators Feingold, Hutchinson, Coverdell, DeWine, Ashcroft, Brownback, Mack, and Helms. Now is the time, Mr. President, to take a closer look at our relations with the People's Republic of China. Preparations are underway for the October 28 state visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin. The President will be feted, toasted, and praised. Meanwhile, Wei Jingsheng rots in a Beijing prison, serving out a 14-year sentence for the crime of peacefully advocating democracy and other political reforms. This contrast, in my view, points up the current crisis in United States-China relations. For too long now, this administration has put process over substance, holding repeated meetings and discussions with Chinese leaders, but failing to set and hold to a concrete agenda addressing critical issues of human rights and religious freedom, as well as nuclear and other weapons proliferation. There is much of substance to work out with Chinese leaders, Mr. President. To begin with, China's record of human rights abuses and repression of religious faith is long and disturbing. Women pregnant with their second or third child have been coerced into abortions. Peaceful advocates of democracy and political reforms have been sentenced to long terms in prisons where they have been beaten, tortured, and denied needed medical care. Religious meeting places have been forcibly closed. Tibetan monks refusing to condemn their religious leader, the Dalai Lama, have been forced from their monasteries; some of their leaders have disappeared. President Clinton knows full well about these abuses. His own State Department just released a report on human rights in China which states that in 1996 ``The Government continued to commit widespread and well- documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic freedoms.'' America cannot allow these abuses of fundamental human rights to continue unopposed. Our own national security also demands that we take a firmer, more substantive stance in our dealings with China. Although China signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agreed to abide by the terms of the missile technology control regime in 1992, violations of both agreements continue. Especially worrisome are Chinese sales of weapons technology to Pakistan, Iran, and other countries in the Middle East. Chinese weapons exports also have more directly threatened Americans here on United States soil. Companies associated with the People's Liberation Army [PLA] have been caught attempting to sell smuggled assault weapons to street gangs in Los Angeles. Mr. President, I am not advocating any rash response to these provocations. China is an important nation with the potential to take part in mutually beneficial commerce and diplomatic cooperation, or destabilize a number of important strategic areas. In my view our disagreements with China call for development of incentives and disincentives designed to steer that country toward internal liberalization and constructive participation in the international community. Up until now, debates over American policy toward China have focused almost exclusively on the annual extension of that country's most- favored-nation trading status [MFN]. Both sides in this debate have highlighted legitimate issues calling for reasoned argument. But, now that Congress has renewed MFN, it is imperative that we address broader United States-China relations, lest China policy be relegated to the back pages for another year. I firmly believe, Mr. President, that Congress and the President can put United States-Chinese relations on a course toward substantive progress by taking concrete action now. That is why I am introducing the China Policy Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to discourage the Chinese regime from oppressive internal policies and destabilizing actions contrary to United States national security, while advancing American values of freedom and human rights among the Chinese people. It represents a consensus view reached among proponents on both sides of the MFN question. It combines provisions of China- related bills and amendments authored by myself and Senators Feingold, Ashcroft, DeWine, Coverdell, and Brownback. I would like to extend special thanks to Senator Feingold for strengthening the human rights focus of the bill. This legislation includes a number of sanctions aimed at Chinese leaders intended to express our dismay at recent human rights abuses. First, the bill would deny American visas to high ranking Chinese Government officials involved in political and religious persecution. The bill also would require United States representatives at multilateral development banks to vote ``no'' on all loans to China, except those related to famine, national disaster relief, and environmental protection. This last provision also puts into practice the important principle that United States taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the Chinese Government. In addition, Mr. President, the bill would institute targeted sanctions against PLA companies found to have engaged in weapons proliferation, illegal importation of weapons to the United States or military or political espionage in the United States. The U.S. Government also would publish a list of other PLA-controlled companies. This would allow American companies and consumers to decide whether they wish to purchase products manufactured in whole or in part by the Communist Chinese army. The bill also takes direct aim at China's use of slave labor by instituting stricter enforcement of the ban against sale of Chinese products produced in prison labor camps. These sanctions, specifically aimed at government officials and the Chinese Governmental apparatus, will show our determination to stand up and defend human rights and religious freedom. This legislation also would tighten United States export licensing requirements for supercomputers sold to China. This will impede Chinese weapons development and proliferation. In addition to its sanctions, the bill includes provisions to encourage internal reforms and cultural exchanges between our two countries. It would increase funding for international broadcasting to China, including Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. I also would increase funding for National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Information Agency student, cultural, and legislative exchange programs. These concrete actions would make clear to the Chinese leadership that there is a price to be paid for human rights abuses and for irresponsible weapons proliferation. They also would encourage greater openness in that country, without penalizing the Chinese people for the actions of their Government. They would provide the basis for substantive negotiations and a productive relationship with China. It is my hope that my colleagues will adopt these measures, and that the President will seize the opportunity to set our policy on a new, more productive course. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary and the full text of the China Policy Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the China Policy Act of 1997. Cosponsors of this legislation include Senators Feingold, Hutchinson, Coverdell, DeWine, Ashcroft, Brownback, Mack, and Helms. Now is the time, Mr. President, to take a closer look at our relations with the People's Republic of China. Preparations are underway for the October 28 state visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin. The President will be feted, toasted, and praised. Meanwhile, Wei Jingsheng rots in a Beijing prison, serving out a 14-year sentence for the crime of peacefully advocating democracy and other political reforms. This contrast, in my view, points up the current crisis in United States-China relations. For too long now, this administration has put process over substance, holding repeated meetings and discussions with Chinese leaders, but failing to set and hold to a concrete agenda addressing critical issues of human rights and religious freedom, as well as nuclear and other weapons proliferation. There is much of substance to work out with Chinese leaders, Mr. President. To begin with, China's record of human rights abuses and repression of religious faith is long and disturbing. Women pregnant with their second or third child have been coerced into abortions. Peaceful advocates of democracy and political reforms have been sentenced to long terms in prisons where they have been beaten, tortured, and denied needed medical care. Religious meeting places have been forcibly closed. Tibetan monks refusing to condemn their religious leader, the Dalai Lama, have been forced from their monasteries; some of their leaders have disappeared. President Clinton knows full well about these abuses. His own State Department just released a report on human rights in China which states that in 1996 ``The Government continued to commit widespread and well- documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic freedoms.'' America cannot allow these abuses of fundamental human rights to continue unopposed. Our own national security also demands that we take a firmer, more substantive stance in our dealings with China. Although China signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and agreed to abide by the terms of the missile technology control regime in 1992, violations of both agreements continue. Especially worrisome are Chinese sales of weapons technology to Pakistan, Iran, and other countries in the Middle East. Chinese weapons exports also have more directly threatened Americans here on United States soil. Companies associated with the People's Liberation Army [PLA] have been caught attempting to sell smuggled assault weapons to street gangs in Los Angeles. Mr. President, I am not advocating any rash response to these provocations. China is an important nation with the potential to take part in mutually beneficial commerce and diplomatic cooperation, or destabilize a number of important strategic areas. In my view our disagreements with China call for development of incentives and disincentives designed to steer that country toward internal liberalization and constructive participation in the international community. Up until now, debates over American policy toward China have focused almost exclusively on the annual extension of that country's most- favored-nation trading status [MFN]. Both sides in this debate have highlighted legitimate issues calling for reasoned argument. But, now that Congress has renewed MFN, it is imperative that we address broader United States-China relations, lest China policy be relegated to the back pages for another year. I firmly believe, Mr. President, that Congress and the President can put United States-Chinese relations on a course toward substantive progress by taking concrete action now. That is why I am introducing the China Policy Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to discourage the Chinese regime from oppressive internal policies and destabilizing actions contrary to United States national security, while advancing American values of freedom and human rights among the Chinese people. It represents a consensus view reached among proponents on both sides of the MFN question. It combines provisions of China- related bills and amendments authored by myself and Senators Feingold, Ashcroft, DeWine, Coverdell, and Brownback. I would like to extend special thanks to Senator Feingold for strengthening the human rights focus of the bill. This legislation includes a number of sanctions aimed at Chinese leaders intended to express our dismay at recent human rights abuses. First, the bill would deny American visas to high ranking Chinese Government officials involved in political and religious persecution. The bill also would require United States representatives at multilateral development banks to vote ``no'' on all loans to China, except those related to famine, national disaster relief, and environmental protection. This last provision also puts into practice the important principle that United States taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the Chinese Government. In addition, Mr. President, the bill would institute targeted sanctions against PLA companies found to have engaged in weapons proliferation, illegal importation of weapons to the United States or military or political espionage in the United States. The U.S. Government also would publish a list of other PLA-controlled companies. This would allow American companies and consumers to decide whether they wish to purchase products manufactured in whole or in part by the Communist Chinese army. The bill also takes direct aim at China's use of slave labor by instituting stricter enforcement of the ban against sale of Chinese products produced in prison labor camps. These sanctions, specifically aimed at government officials and the Chinese Governmental apparatus, will show our determination to stand up and defend human rights and religious freedom. This legislation also would tighten United States export licensing requirements for supercomputers sold to China. This will impede Chinese weapons development and proliferation. In addition to its sanctions, the bill includes provisions to encourage internal reforms and cultural exchanges between our two countries. It would increase funding for international broadcasting to China, including Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America. I also would increase funding for National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Information Agency student, cultural, and legislative exchange programs. These concrete actions would make clear to the Chinese leadership that there is a price to be paid for human rights abuses and for irresponsible weapons proliferation. They also would encourage greater openness in that country, without penalizing the Chinese people for the actions of their Government. They would provide the basis for substantive negotiations and a productive relationship with China. It is my hope that my colleagues will adopt these measures, and that the President will seize the opportunity to set our policy on a new, more productive course. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary and the full text of the China Policy Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on September 24, 1997, the March of Dimes will honor Michigan Secretary of State Candice Miller as its 1997 Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year. Established in 1984, this award is presented annually to ``deserving individuals who have demonstrated outstanding contributions and commitment to improving the quality of life in his/her community, the county, and the State of Michigan.'' Since first elected as a Harrison Township Trustee over 15 years ago, Candice Miller has consistently won the praise and admiration of her colleagues, staff, and fellow Michiganians. As Secretary of State, she has been responsible for countless initiatives that have proven to be enormously successful and widely duplicated. But, Secretary Miller's positive contributions to Michigan have not been limited to her role in State government. In so many ways, she has acted as both a philanthropist and friend on behalf of numerous causes ranging from the environment to the Girl Scouts. These achievements have not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. I am pleased to join the Southeast Michigan Chapter of the March of Dimes in recognizing Candice Miller for her selfless commitment to improving the lives of others. On this occasion, I commend the March of Dimes for selecting a most deserving recipient of this fine award.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Refugee Assistance Act. The act authorizes assistance to refugees through grants to private non-profit associations, as well as public associations, to be used to provide services such as job training, educational programs, and English language classes to newly arrived refugees. These programs play an important role in the American tradition of opening new doors to those from around the world who have been subjected to persecutions of all kinds. I would note that under the act, the Department of Health and Human Services is free to experiment with innovative ways to help refugees become self-sufficient in America. For example, the program currently makes some use of private nonprofit groups in rendering assistance to refugees, and I would encourage the Department of Health and Human Services to expand those uses more broadly. Such experimentation has great potential to help the program accomplish its purpose to help refugees make a new life for themselves, rather than becoming dependent on the Government. My understanding is that the Department of Health and Human Services is also committed to experiments along these lines, and I look forward to working with the administration and the nonprofit community involved with refugees to make this program even more effective in the next few years.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on September 24, 1997, the March of Dimes will honor Mr. Charles G. Dharte, Jr. as its 1997 Alexander Macomb Citizen of the Year. Established in 1984, this award is presented annually to ``deserving individuals who have demonstrated outstanding contributions and commitment to improving the quality of life in his/her community, the county, and the State of Michigan.'' Mining through the long list of community affairs Mr. Dharte has been actively involved in is an inspiring endeavor. I can think of no one more deserving of the March of Dimes' Citizen of the Year Award than Mr. Dharte. Through his work as president and director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Southeastern Michigan, as director of St. Joseph Mercy Hospital-Macomb, and his many other civic duties, particularly in the Clinton township area, his generosity and kindness has been felt deeply by the many Michiganians whose lives he has touched. Mr. Dharte's dedication to public service has been recognized by numerous local institutions. In previous years he has been named Business Person of the Year by the city of Mount Clemens and Benefactor of the Year by the Macomb Arts Council and Macomb Community College. This recent accolade by the March of Dimes testifies to Mr. Dharte's continued important good work in Michigan. I salute him for his public service, and applaud the March of Dimes for choosing such a deserving figure on whom to bestow this honor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on September 24, 1997, the March of Dimes will honor the Vicari family as the recipients of the 1997 Family of the Year. Established in 1993, this award is presented annually to a family whose outstanding commitment and support of the March of Dimes deserves recognition. And without question, these three members of the Vicari family are duly deserving of this honor. Too infrequently are we introduced to a family so committed to helping people in need. On these rare occasions, we are given an inspiring example of the profound impact each of us can have on the lives of our neighbors. The Vicari family provides the State of Michigan with an excellent example of how philanthropic work can be an amazingly rewarding experience. All three members of this special family have remained dedicated over the years to the generous support of the efforts of the March of Dimes. The Vicari family has committed itself to the cause of preventing birth defects, and with the extraordinary contributions of John, Rosalie, and Joe Vicari, our country has moved that much closer to the realization of this noble and important goal. On this special occasion, I offer my congratulations to each of these civic leaders and to the March of Dimes. I also offer my thanks, on behalf of the entire State of Michigan, for the countless number of children's lives they have touched.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to former Michigan Congressman George Crockett, Jr. Congressman Crockett represented the people of Detroit in the House of Representatives from 1980-1991 and before that as a Recorder's court judge from 1966-78. Undoubtedly, Congressman Crockett's legacy will be his tireless work on behalf of civil and human rights. As a private attorney, as a judge, and as an elected official Congressman Crockett sought to provide legal protection to all Americans, especially African-Americans and other minorities. As is always the case with dynamic leaders, there are many who disagreed with Congressman Crockett and his actions. Never questioned, however, was his integrity and honesty. Congressman Crockett exemplified a lifetime of commitment to public service. In the words of Congressman Crockett's friend and colleague, Michigan State Representative Ted Wallace, ``Men like George Crockett never die. His spirit and name will live on forever.''

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my best wishes to those who will participate in the 61st annual convention of the Michigan State Conference of the NAACP. This event will be held in Saginaw, MI, on September 12, 1997. As race relations continue to be at the forefront of American life, this convention provides an opportunity for delegates to openly discuss issues which confront not only their communities, but everyday lives. The NAACP convention will focus on finding programmatic solutions to such issues as, education, violence, crime, homelessness, and drug abuse. It is through open dialog and the exchange of information that concrete solutions to these issues will be found. I commend the delegates and organizers of this convention for their steadfast desire to address the racial and social problems facing the United States today. Again, I extend my heartfelt best wishes on this special occasion.