Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to give special thanks and appreciation for Constable Sarah Lee, who has visited us from Great Britain. Constable Lee serves as a Divisional Officer with the British Special Constables in Metro Police Area 5. As a member of the British Special Constables, I would like to honor her for the sacrifice which she, along with fellow British reserve police officers, makes for her country. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I offer my highest appreciation for the the time and talent so generously given by both British and American police reserve officers.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, despite their many disagreements, supporters of both the pro-life and pro-choice positions on abortion have been able to agree on one fundamental point: American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortions. This is a consensus view of long standing. Back in 1976, Congress first passed what has come to be called the Hyde amendment. First introduced by Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, this amendment prevents the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions. Specifically, the Hyde amendment prevents Federal Medicaid reimbursement for abortion procedures, with certain exceptions. This provision has proven effective without being excessively onerous. Now, however, the nature of health care services is changing. Traditional fee-for-service Medicaid programs in many cases are giving way to managed care. Indeed, according to the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA], 40 percent of Medicaid recipients were served by managed care plans in 1996. This surge in managed care requires that we alter the Hyde amendment language to ensure that taxpayer dollars will continue to be protected from use in abortion procedures. This is necessary, Mr. President, because, under managed care delivery, Federal funds are used to help pay premiums for complete benefits packages instead of reimbursing for specific procedures. I would like to thank Senator Ashcroft for offering an amendment that would close this loophole. This updated language specifies that States may not use Federal funds to purchase, in whole or in part, health care packages that include abortion coverage. States should be able to use their own separate funds to purchase additional abortion coverage. Mr. President, this language represents no departure from our existing policies. Rather, it is a measured attempt to maintain current policies, regarding the use of Federal funds for abortion, in the face of changing circumstance. Similar language to that being proposed has been used already, in the Assisted Suicide Funding Restrictions Act, and in the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Reconciliation Act. This language is the product of a compromise reached by Congressman Hyde and pro-choice Congresswoman Nita Lowey. It should, in my view, be noncontroversial.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to honor volunteer law enforcement officers and to give a special note of thanks to those members of the British Special Constables who are now visiting the United States. These constables are volunteer officers who give to their country freely of their time, and sometimes, their lives. In Michigan, we have over 2,000 such volunteer reserve officers who have made an immeasurably positive impact on the communities they serve. As an American, I am deeply honored by their sacrifice. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I would like to offer my highest appreciation for the time and talent so generously given by both British and American police reserve officers. I would also like to recognize the Oakland County Sheriff Reserves for hosting their visit. Thanks is due to the Police Reserve Officer Association of Michigan and the British Special Constables for their efforts in sponsoring the International Reserve Law Officers Conference. This event is a unique opportunity for British and American reservists to exchange ideas and to learn from fellow officers. I would like to take this opportunity to mention those Constables from Great Britain who are visiting: Tom Pine, Chief Inspector/Unit Commander, Thames Division-- Metropolitan Police. Brian Lewis, Sergeant, South Wales Police. Adrian Bates, Inspector, Thames Division--Metropolitan Police. Mark Balmforth, Police Constable, Metropolitan Police--Area 3. Harry Waddingham, Special Constable, Thames Division--Metropolitan Police. Pat Hallisey, Divisional Officer, Metropolitan Police Area 3. Stuart Winks, Chief Commandant, South Wales Police. Mark Smith, Special Constable, Thames Division--Metropolitan Police. John Curley, Special Constable, City of London Police. Philip Nastri, Divisional Officer, Metropolitan Police Area 3. Tim Lee, Sub Divisional Officer, Metropolitan Police Area 5. Windsor Davis, Assistant Chief Commandant, South Wales Police. Warren Bell, Special Constable, Metropolitan Police Area 3.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, It is with great sadness that I rise today to mark the passing of Dr. Norman B. Ture, President of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation and one of the principal architects of supply side economics. Dr. Ture was a man of principle. He was convinced, and he convinced many others, that public policy must be guided by respect for individual freedom and property rights, reliance on personal responsibility and integrity, and faith in the free market as the means for ordering economic activity. His brilliant economic analysis helped show that increasing marginal income tax rates lower productivity by skewing people's choices away from work and toward leisure activities. He was a major architect of the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980's, serving as Undersecretary for Tax and Economic Affairs in the Reagan Treasury Department from 1981 to 1982. Less noticed, however, was his significant role in putting together the Kennedy tax cuts of 1963. Whether on a committee staff, in the executive branch or as an independent researcher, Dr. Ture devoted his career to increasing Americans' standards of living by making taxes less onerous. Dr. Ture also fought to convince public policy makers of the need to make taxes more visible. Hidden taxes on investments and estates, overly broad definitions of income, and onerous regulations that allow government to control economic activities in his view act as drags on the economy and obscure the real costs of government. These policies, Dr. Ture showed, unfairly make government interference in our economic life appear cheap or even cost free. They thereby encourage people to accept more regulation than is in their financial interest, and to give up more of their freedom than they should. Dr. Ture passed away on August 10. He had fought off lung cancer but finally was felled by cancer of the pancreas. He is survived by his wife, six children, and two grandchildren. I know our thoughts and prayers go out to all Dr. Ture's family in this time of great sorrow. It is some consolation, however, that we will soon see Dr. Ture's last report. Soon before he died, Dr. Ture finished work on a paper laying out a clean, unbiased, highly visible tax system that would let the people see the price of government and make an informed decision as to how much of it they are willing to pay for. I look forward to the fruitful debate Dr. Ture's final work will no doubt produce.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Radio Control Club of Detroit in paying tribute to Pvt. Walter C. Wetzel of the U.S. Army 13th Infantry Brigade, 8th Infantry Division. On April 3, 1945, Private Wetzel, a young squad leader with the antitank company of the 13th Infantry, was keeping watch at his platoon's command post in Birken, Germany. Early in the morning, Private Wetzel detected enemy forces moving in to attack the post. Immediately, he alerted the command post occupants and began fighting against heavy automatic weapons fire. Under cover of darkness, Germans forces moved close to the building and began throwing grenades. During the fighting, two grenades landed in the room from which Private Wetzel and the others were defending the post. With a warning to his fellow soldiers, Private Wetzel threw himself on the grenades just before they exploded. Sadly, the heroic deed of Private Wetzel cost him his life, but in so doing he saved the lives of others in his division. His comrades were able to continue the defense of the command post while breaking the power of a dangerous German war front. Certainly, his sacrifice was in keeping with the U.S. Army's highest traditions of bravery and heroism. Private Wetzel was laid to rest at the American Battlefield Monuments Commission cemetery in the Netherlands. Shortly after his death, Private Wetzel was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In further recognition, the Radio Control Club of Detroit has constructed a monument to Private Wetzel on the grounds of Wetzel State Park in Lenox Township of Northern Macomb County. The monument consists of a concrete monolith flagpole base with a bronze plaque inlaid and inscripted. Upon dedication, the field at which the monument will be placed will be named ``Wetzel Memorial Flying Field.'' I ask the Senate to join this organization in remembering one of the many true American patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I just wanted to take a minute here at the finish of this debate, to compliment a number of people whose commitments have been so vital to the success of this bill. From the very beginning of the 104th Congress until today, the Presiding Officer himself has been in the lead as the chairman of our Budget Committee. Without his leadership, we never would have reached this point. Without the leadership of the chairman of the Finance Committee we would not have reached this point. Without the able work of the ranking member of the Finance Committee we would not have reached this point. Certainly, without the assistance and the leadership of our majority leader, we would not have reached this point. Today we do something that has not occurred in 16 years, we give the taxpayers of our country a chance to keep more of what they earn. In my State of Michigan this means a great deal. We are not a rich State, in the sense that everybody makes a lot of money. We are a rich State in terms of values and natural resources, but the hard-working people in Michigan have waited an awful long time for the tax cut which we will be delivering. Whether it is the working family who will receive a $500 per child tax credit or the family trying to finance the education of children--who do not want to go bankrupt, but want their kids to go to college--or the small family farmers and small business people who have feared the prospect of having to sell the family business or farm in order to pay death taxes, or the people in our inner cities who are going to benefit from the brownfields provisions that will allow us to clean up environmentally contaminated brownfields and create job opportunities in deserted factory sites, or the people who are hopeful that we can have more dollars for road repair and, because of having shifted the 4.3 cent gas tax to the highway trust fund in this bill we will now have the opportunity to restore more dollars for roads and transportation--all of those people in Michigan will benefit when this action is taken today and the President signs this tax cut into law. The fact is, today taxes as a percentage of our national income are as high as they have ever been, higher than during the Depression, higher than World War II, higher than during the Vietnam war and other crises. The time has come to restore some balance to the equation, to give the American hard-working families the break they deserve. So I compliment everybody who has played this role. I think we are moving in the right direction. Many of us would like to do more, and I hope we will have the chance next year, in a later Congress, to do more. But for what we are achieving today, I think great credit is owed to the leadership we have had. So I rise to compliment that leadership and say, as a new Member of this body, I am delighted to be part of a day today in which we celebrate both the passage of a bill that will bring us to a balanced budget for the first time in a quarter of a century and the passage of a bill that will mean tax relief for hard-working people in Michigan. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my thanks to a number of organizations and individuals who gave of themselves at a crucial time for the people of Michigan. These people and organizations extended aid to legendary Michigan civil rights leader Rosa Parks and to her organization, the Detroit-based Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development. Mrs. Parks and her organization are both Michigan and national treasures. They suffered a great tragedy over the past few days, and I am greatly heartened that so many came forward to help in the aftermath. Mr. President, each year the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute sponsors a historical tour tracing the route of the Underground Railroad. On Wednesday, July 30, approximately 30 young men and women on this tour, along with their chaperons, were traveling on Interstate 95, south of Petersburg, VA, when their bus ran off the highway, slid down an embankment and came to a rest on its side in the Nottoway River. Many of those on board sustained serious injuries, and one chaperon, Adisa Foluke, whom Mrs. Parks has said she considers her grandson, was killed. One of the young women, Tiandra Gunn, remains in a coma. A trip that had begun with so much promise, had in an instant become a nightmare. Mrs. Parks and her associates from the Institute immediately flew to Virginia to be with the youths and their families during this difficult time. Rarely in such dire circumstances could one find reason to be heartened. However, the immediate and overwhelming response from the Detroit-area business community was to ask how they could help. Chrysler Corp. offered the use of a private jet to return Mrs. Parks and her associates from Richmond, VA, to Detroit. Northwest Airlines provided free air travel to the students stranded so far away from home, and also arranged to transport the body of the deceased home to Michigan. Examples of compassionate generosity weren't limited solely to Michigan businesses. The American Red Cross paid for the group's lodging for 2 nights and secured ground transportation. The local Shoney's restaurant in Petersburg, VA donated free meals. Individual volunteers, both in Michigan and Virginia, offered their help to the young men and women and their families. The city of Detroit, and one of its most cherished citizens, experienced great loss this week. However, I believe we have also experienced hope. At a time when little was expected, a great deal was delivered. No one has ever given more of themselves to their community than Rosa Parks. I was proud to see so many who have benefited from her example of selfless leadership respond in kind. Mr. President, this has been a story of severe tragedy. But it has also been a story of caring, of friends and neighbors galvanized by a desire to help those in need. I extend my condolences to Mrs. Parks and to the rest of Adisa Foluke's family. I'm sure all of our prayers go out to Tiandra Gunn, the rest of the injured, and their families. I also extend my thanks, on behalf of the state of Michigan, to all those who gave so generously in this time of need. I would include in this category, not only Chrysler Corp., Northwest Airlines, the American Red Cross, and Shoney's, but also Eunice Miles of my Southfield office, and Steve Hessler, my deputy press secretary. Both provided quick response and extra time and effort during a critical time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak today with respect to a development which has occurred by an act of omission rather than commission on the part of the Secretary of State. As the President I am sure is aware, for approximately 10 years American citizens have had passport restrictions which have prevented them from being able to travel to the country of Lebanon. The way the process works is, at various intervals--most recently at 6-month intervals--this ``travel ban,'' as it is referred to, was back before the Secretary of State for renewal, and it has continued to be renewed for additional 6-month periods for quite some time. The 6-month period expired as of the 1st of August. This Secretary of State decided, after much consideration of the merits of these issues, not to extend the travel ban further. I want to rise today--I have had a chance to be on the floor in morning business prior to this--to both commend the Secretary of State for her difficult situation and to applaud her courage in making this decision. This was a very controversial issue. It is one that both this Secretary of State and her predecessors have had to look at hard and long because, obviously, there is a need to balance, on the one hand, the security interests of United States citizens who might travel to Lebanon and, on the other hand, both humanitarian as well as economic considerations of those who had a desire to make such trips. I believe the Secretary of State made the right decision. For a variety of reasons, Americans need to be able to travel to Lebanon. They need to be able to travel there freely. First and foremost is the need for families to be able to reunify. Many American citizens of Lebanese ancestry have close relatives who are in Lebanon and are not able to visit them because of this travel ban. For economic reasons it makes sense for the travel ban to have been lifted. The fact is that Lebanon is in a very successful rebuilding period, and that rebuilding process has included many foreign nations who have come to Lebanon's aid and many foreign companies who have taken advantage of the opportunities to rebuild the phone and utilities and other systems of the country. American companies have not been able to do that. Mr. President, they have missed an opportunity to create jobs and to create opportunities here at home as well as in Lebanon. By lifting the ban that opportunity is now available again. Another argument for lifting the ban which I found very compelling was the argument that it is important from the standpoint of the Middle East stability for the United States to be engaged in Lebanon. In recent years, Lebanon has found itself occupied by numerous foreign forces. During that timeframe, it has not been able to look to the West, and particularly to the United States, for help and assistance in the process of moving the direction of economic growth and democratic principles. Having a greater United States role in Lebanon, I think, will make it easier for Lebanon to be become once again a fully independent and fully sovereign nation and to see all foreign forces leave that country. So for all of these reasons, the lifting of this ban comes at the right time. It is the right choice. Arrayed against these, as I said, are units with security concerns. The fact is that there are many countries in the world today that are no safer to travel to than Lebanon but in which case there is no travel ban. There are travel advisories. The Secretary of State will be issuing that type of travel advisory to make sure that Americans understand the risks involved. Indeed, I would like to put on the record my own strong observation that there are risks to Americans to travel there. It is not yet the case that one can go to Lebanon without being aware of the mind flow, of the potential problems that might exist there, particularly in certain parts of the country, for American travelers. At the same time we have numerous countries in the world where such risks exist. I believe a travel advisory is the proper way in which to address it rather than an outright travel ban. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, as I say, I think the Secretary of State has done the right thing. I hope that Americans will once again get to know Lebanon and that the relationship that once existed between our countries, which was a very close and warm relationship, can be built once more. I would also like to conclude by congratulating the Lebanese people. This travel ban being lifted is in no small measure a result of the efforts on the part of the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese people to address the security concerns which we have had. A variety of actions have already taken place. A number of further commitments were made in the process of discussing the renewal of this ban. I believe that Prime Minister Hariri and the Government of Lebanon are prepared to live up to those commitments fully and completely. As they do, I believe they will ensure that the decision made by the Secretary of State was the right one. So for these reasons, I would like to commend once again the Secretary of State. I would like to commend the Lebanese Government and the people of Lebanon. I would like to urge our colleagues to keep their eye on Lebanon and to look for other ways by which we can build a strong relationship. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in March of this year, over 200 schoolchildren in my State contracted the hepatitis A virus from food served by the school lunch program. As news of the outbreak began to pour in, the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Centers for Disease Control went into action to determine the cause. They soon found the culprit: Frozen strawberries sold to the school lunch program by a San Diego company named Andrews and Williamson. Investigators also discovered that some of the strawberries sold to the school lunch program had been illegally certified as domestically grown when, in fact, they had been grown in Mexico. There does not currently exist a method for testing strawberries for the hepatitis A virus. Thus, we may never know whether the strawberries brought in from Mexico were the source of this pathogen. Given the growing conditions that USDA investigators found at the farm, however, the likelihood is strong. And one thing we do know, Mr. President, is that these strawberries should never have been served in the school lunch program in the first place. By law, products sold to the school lunch program must be certified as being domestically grown. Unfortunately, because the USDA lacks the resources to effectively enforce this requirement, companies have typically been trusted to do the right thing. Andrews and Williamson chose to do something else. They chose to break the law by misrepresenting their product's country-of-origin, and over 200 people were poisoned as a result. This dangerous incident, the poisoning of Michigan children by their own school lunch program, compelled and received my immediate involvement. Shortly after the outbreak, I called for, and was granted, a hearing on the matter. I arranged to have officials from the CDC come to my state to brief the families of those affected. During this process I learned of the similar efforts being made by a private organization called Safe Tables Our Priority [STOP]. Their assistance throughout this process has been invaluable. One of the first things I learned while studying this issue was that a specific statute exists which states that misrepresenting the country-of-origin of a perishable good is a crime. Unfortunately, the penalty for such fraud is a $2,000 fine and possible loss of license; a rather small price to pay for poisoning over 200 people. Of course, this does not mean that A&W will walk away from this incident without paying a price. After reviewing the case made by investigators from the USDA, the U.S. Attorneys Office filed 47 charges against A&W. The first charge is conspiracy to defraud the United States. Counts two, three and four are for making false statements, and counts five through forty-seven are for making false claims. For each of these counts, the maximum penalty is 5 years and/or $250,000 per count or $500,000 for a corporation. I state these charges because they do not include any mention of the specific crime which A&W is accused of violating, namely, misrepresenting the country-of-origin for a perishable food. Well, Mr. President, I intend to rectify this oversight. Today I am introducing legislation which modifies current law such that an intentional misrepresentation of the origin, kind or character of any perishable commodity, the reckless disregard of the effects on the public safety of such action, or violations which result in serious injury, illness or death will constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and/or a fine of $250,000 per count. This change in law will ensure that individuals who intentionally misrepresent their goods will now suffer the appropriate consequences of their actions. The recent outbreaks of hepatitis A, Cyclospora and E Coli demonstrate that a new commitment to food safety is sorely needed in this country. I will continue working to see that Congress takes the appropriate measures to assist the USDA, FDA and Centers for Disease Control in their efforts to keep America's food supply the safest in the world. Mr. President, I ask consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support as a cosponsor to Amendment 885 to S. 955, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. This amendment restores the $2.1 billion earmark for assistance to Egypt. Ever since the signing of the Camp David Accords, Egypt has been a key ally of the United States in the Middle East. The first Arab country to make peace with Israel, Egypt has been a steadfast leader and supporter of peace in the Middle East. Indeed, I feel it is safe to say that it is because Egypt signed the peace agreement with Israel in 1979 that there has not been an Arab-Israeli War since. What is more, since 1979 both Israel and Egypt have experienced significant economic growth. Peace between these two nations has brought success and prosperity that has benefitted the entire region. The chairman of the Subcommittee has stated his reasons for not including the earmark to Egypt in the Foreign Operations bill in either the subcommittee nor committee. He believed the relationship between Egypt and the United States has suffered over the past year. Thus, the message he wished to send to Egypt was clear disappointment with Egypt's actions and policies in connection with the stalled peace process in the Middle East. I do not believe, however, that it is either productive or responsible to send such a message at this delicate time in the Middle East peace process. The peace process is at its most critical stage. Along with the United States, Egypt is a key player in convincing parties to that process to come back to the negotiating table. Moreover, Egypt has played a key role in securing agreements reached between Israel and Jordan and the Palestinians. It is in the best interest of the United States to keep our key allies in the Middle East engaged in a process needed to produce a just and lasting peace--a goal which will benefit America's strategic, economic and political interests. Equally important, Egypt is a strategic ally of the United States irrespective of the peace process. We all remember how Egypt provided the leadership needed to form the American/Arab coalition that liberated Kuwait. No other country in the Arab World could have done that. Moreover, more than 35,000 Egyptian soldiers fought alongside our troops. Without access to the Suez Canal and to Egyptian airspace and facilities, supporting our troops in the Gulf would have been significantly more difficult and much more costly. Egypt's strategic importance should not be underestimated. With the Suez Canal and its location on both the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt is the gateway to Africa, the Near East and Southwest Asia. Our strategic interests in all three regions are furthered significantly by Egypt's willing cooperation. Egypt's cooperation with our military has a global impact. As our strategic ally, Egypt routinely cooperates with our military in providing hundreds of overflight and transit rights for U.S. military logistics aircraft supporting American forces in the region. Our naval vessels travel through the Suez Canal--a practice critical to our ability to protect U.S. vital interests in the region. Without the ability to use the Suez routinely, an advantage we now enjoy, our Navy's operating costs and personnel operating requirements would soon rise to unsustainable levels. I agree with the Chairman of the Subcommittee that foreign aid is not an entitlement. It is my sincere hope that one day in the near future Egypt will find that U.S. aid is not necessary. Signs of this are already apparent within Egypt's booming economy and burgeoning private sector. We in the United States should encourage this path of independence, growing capitalism and economic reform. But until Egypt becomes economically self-sufficient, we should continue to live up to our promises as dictated in the Camp David Accords. Any future reduction of assistance should follow consultations and discussions with the government of Egypt. Unilateral actions will only harm relationships important to the American national interest. In summary, Egypt has played and continues to play a key role in ensuring the success of the Middle East Peace Process. Equally important, Egypt has proven to be a staunch ally, willing to face danger to protect our shared interest in the region and to support us as our armed forces contribute to global stability. As such, I am supportive of the Committee's amendment to reinstall the earmark for assistance to Egypt.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Mr. Thomas Moore, CEO of Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and its outstanding employees on behalf of the company's 150th anniversary. I am honored to join them in celebrating this significant milestone. For over a century now Cleveland-Cliffs has been a leader in North American mining operations and has served as a model for other companies to emulate. It comes as no surprise that this mining company has survived in a market where competition is fierce and the work extraordinarily difficult. Since 1847 when its founders first began mining iron ore in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the company has relied upon one basic ingredient for success--fostering good relationships with its employees and local communities. I am particularly proud of the relationship Cleveland-Cliffs has built with the State of Michigan. The Marquette Iron Range located in the Upper Peninsula has been a tremendous boost to the area's economy and Cleveland-Cliffs has continually demonstrated its community activism by infusing funds into the surrounding area. For example, the company generously provides ``Legacy Grants'' to local organizations and schools. These charitable acts offer just one example of the many ways in which Cleveland-Cliffs cares for the local community. I applaud their efforts and encourage other companies to follow their exemplary lead. Mr. President, this sesquicentennial celebration of Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc founding marks a remarkable achievement. I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Moore and the employees of Cleveland- Cliffs on celebrating this auspicious occasion and extend my best wishes for much continued success.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to honor Oldsmobile on the occasion of its centennial anniversary. On August 20, 1997, Oldsmobile and its employees will celebrate 100 years of outstanding achievements. Few things have become so entwined with American culture as the automobile. Since its creation, cars have fascinated us. While the ability to travel has changed drastically in the last 100 years, one tenent has remained: the desire to go further and faster. Helping fuel this desire is Oldsmobile. This company and its workers have been central to the development of the automobile. From Ransom E. Olds' Curved Dash to today's Intrigue, Oldsmobile continues to innovate and revolutionize the industry. Every individual involved with the organization strives to create a better product. In doing so, the company has given Americans the ability to do more, to see more, and to pursue new experiences. The vision of R.E. Olds has stretched far beyond Lansing. His legacy will be forever remembered. This celebration is especially personal for me, Mr. President. My father worked on the production line in Lansing for nearly 20 years. Oldsmobile gave my father the chance to provide for his family. During his tenure at Oldsmobile, he demonstrated to me the importance of hard work, dedication, and a pursuit of excellence; values I am proud to emulate. Again, I extend my most heartfelt congratulations on this momentous occasion.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my votes on the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. This legislation, which is every bit as important as the Farm bill passed by Congress in 1996, was acted upon and quickly passed last week. The first amendment considered by the Senate was an effort by Senator Durbin to deny crop insurance to tobacco growers. This legislation also prohibited payments for tobacco under the Non-Insured Disaster Assistance Program. Mr. President, in fiscal year 1996, the federal government spent $69 million for net losses on tobacco crop insurance. The dangers of this commodity have become abundantly clear in recent years, and while I understand that crop insurance is an invaluable tool for today's farmers, I am troubled by the government support of a product which is responsible for thousands of deaths every year. For that reason, I voted against the motion to table the Durbin amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment was tabled on a 53-47 vote. After this vote, the Senate turned to consideration of a Helms amendment to increase the tax on ethanol by 3 cents per gallon. The funds raised from this tax were to be set aside to fund an anti-smoking trust fund. Regardless of the ultimate destination, this account was to be funded by a substantial tax increase on fuel. At a time when Americans are already fighting to keep every dollar they earn, I refuse to support another tax increase. Therefore, I supported the motion to table the Helms amendment and it was overwhelmingly defeated by a 76-24 margin. Shortly after disposing of the Helms amendment, a Harkin amendment to increase funding by $29 million for enforcement efforts to prevent kids from smoking was debated. The amendment would have fully funded a program which was established to punish establishments that sell tobacco to individuals under 18 years of age. While I support efforts to curb underage smoking, this amendment sought to impose a new, $34 million dollar tax on smokers. In light of the tobacco tax increase already adopted in the budget agreement, and considering the penalties expected in the tobacco settlement, I believe Senator Harkin's additional tax was excessive and I voted to support the 52-48 tabling vote. The next amendment considered was a Bryan amendment to reduce the amount of funds appropriated to the Market Access Program [MAP]. Identical to the one offered on the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill, the Bryan amendment would have eliminated funding of MAP if the aggregate amount of funds and value of commodities under the program exceeded $70,000,000. Formerly known as the Market Promotion Program, MAP has provided funding for large, lucrative corporations. I believe the Market Access Program is a clear example of corporate welfare, and I have consistently supported elimination or reduction of this unnecessary government subsidy. I supported Senator Bryan's amendment which was tabled by a vote of 59-40. A vote on a Grams amendment to complete a comprehensive economic evaluation of the Northeast Dairy Compact was scheduled to follow the Bryan amendment, but was instead adopted by unanimous consent. The compact allows dairy producers in the Northeast to artificially set minimum prices for dairy products within the region. I have consistently opposed the new bureaucracy established by the Compact and was pleased to be a cosponsor of the Grams amendment. Following disposition of these three amendments, the 1998 Agriculture appropriations bill was passed, with my support, by a vote of 99-0. I urge the conferees to act quickly to finalize this legislation and once again demonstrate America s commitment to its farmers.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Michigan's greatest athletes in America's greatest pastime. Baseball was Harold ``Prince Hal'' Newhouser's life, and it showed every minute during the 15 years he was on the field, proudly wearing the Detroit Tigers jersey number 16. Rising to prominence during a time when athletes played for the love of the sport, Harold's story represents a fine example of the American ethic of hard work and determination. At 14 years old, Harold listened intently to the announcer as Goose Goslin drove in the series winning run, giving the Detroit Tigers the 1935 pennant. Harold was so excited about the victory he decided his life's goal was to play for his hometown Tigers. Four months after his eighteenth birthday, as he stepped on the mound for the first time, Harold's dream came true. Harold Newhouser was born to play baseball. Just a few years after he began pitching for the Tigers, Harold reached the coveted twenty wins in one season. In 1942, Harold was named to the All-Star team. In 1944, he earned the American League's Most Valuable Player award, and won it again the very next year. This occasion marked the only time in history a major league picture won the MVP award in back-to-back seasons. By the time Harold Newhouser retired in 1955, he had played in six All-Star Games, won two MVP's, and earned recognition as a strikeout king with a blazing fastball. In 1992, his achievements were formally recognized through his induction into the Hall of Fame. As Harold is proud to point out, he is the first Detroit-born player to go into the Hall of Fame, and he's the first Detroit-born player to have his uniform number retired by the Tigers. And that occasion, Mr. President, is what I rise today to commemorate. Harold was born in Detroit, grew up in Detroit, and played baseball for Detroit. This Sunday the Tigers will bestow upon him their highest honor, and on behalf of Michigan, I would like to recognize his accomplishments in the Record, and to thank him for his outstanding representation of Michigan throughout his life, both on and off the field.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit for the Record a concurrent resolution passed by the Michigan Legislature earlier this year. Recognizing the impact of ozone transport on the west side of the State, and understanding the potentially devastating effects of ill-considered regulations, the Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan Senate adopted a resolution which urges the EPA to reaffirm the previous standards of ozone and particulate levels. Specifically, this resolution strongly urges the EPA to maintain the .12 parts per million standard for ozone and conduct all necessary research to reach conclusive findings on questions concerning particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns in diameter and larger. In addition, this resolution asks the EPA to identify any unfunded mandates or other administrative and economic burdens for State and local governments or agencies that would result from the proposed changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Unfortunately, this bipartisan request has been ignored. The EPA has gone forward with new regulations. After making only minor modifications to the EPA proposal, the administration announced the final standard 2 weeks ago. I am disappointed, because I was hopeful the President would recommend a policy that recognized the importance of clean air, and the importance of jobs and economic growth. However, since he did not, I will continue to work hard to highlight the importance of these very real, very serious issues. This resolution makes clear that the people of Michigan understand what is at stake in this debate. I wish the same could be said of the administration. The resolution follows: House Concurrent Resolution No. 11 Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a responsibility to review periodically the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM); and Whereas, The EPA is considering establishing a more stringent ozone standard and a new, more stringent standard for particulate matter at or below 2.5 microns (PM2.5); and Whereas, Michigan, through its local jurisdictions, businesses, and citizens, has supported health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that are premised on sound science; and Whereas, Michigan has made significant progress in meeting current NAAQS for both ozone and particulate matter (PM) under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, although there are some areas that have not yet come into compliance with the current standard(s); and Whereas, Michigan, through its local jusidictions, businesses, consumers, and taxpayers, has become considerable cost to come into compliance with the current NAAQS for ozone and participate matter; and Whereas, The proposed new standards will significantly expand the number of nonattainment areas for both ozone particulate matter. This may result in additional emission controls in all areas, thus imposing significant economic administrative, and regulatory burdens on Michigan, its citizens, businesses, and local governments; and Whereas, EPA's own Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) was unable to find any ``brighline'' that would distinguish any public health benefit among any of the proposed new standards for ozone, including the current standard; and Whereas, There is very little existing PM2.5 monitoring data; and Whereas, There are many unanswered questions and scientific uncertainties regarding the health effects of particulate matter, in particular PM2.5, including: Divergent opinions among scientists who have investigated the issue; Exposure misclassification; Measurement errors; Lack of supporting toxicological data; Lack of a plausible toxicological mechanism; Lack of correlation between recorded PM levels and public health effects; Influence of other variables; and The existence of possible alternative explanations; and Whereas, No scientific proof exists that establishing a more stringent ozone standard or a new, more stringent PM2.5 standard would avoid alleged adverse health, but it would assuredly impose significantly higher costs; and Whereas, The issue of transported volatile organic compounds is not adequately addressed; now therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring). That we advise and strongly urge the EPA to reaffirm the existing NAAQS for ozone; and be it further Resolved, That we advise and strongly urge the EPA to reaffirm the existing NAAQS for PM10; and be it further Resolved, That we advise and strongly urge the EPA to refrain from establishing a new NAAQS for PM2.5 at this time and to gather the necessary PM2.5 monitoring data and conduct all necessary research needed to address the issue of causality and other critical and important unanswered scientific questions concerning PM2.5; and be it further Resolved, That we advise and strongly urge the EPA to identify any unfunded mandates or other administrative and economic burdens for state or local governments or agencies that would result from the proposed changes to the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter, and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the Untied States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the members of the Michigan congressional delegation, the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and other appropriate administration officials. Adopted by the House of Representatives, March 11, 1997. Adopted by the Senate, March 12, 1997.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of S. 1054. This legislation, introduced by Senator Cochran, gives greater opportunity to disabled workers. In a nation professing to honor and reward hard work, I find it distressing that individuals able and, more importantly, willing to work do not receive all the benefits they are entitled to. Presently, disabled individuals can maintain Social Security benefits only if they do not earn a substantial amount. For the disabled, this amount is $500 per month, or $6000 per year. Blind individuals, however, are able to earn nearly twice as much without diminished benefits; nearly $12,000 per year. This discrepancy is wrong. During the 104th Congress, the Senate acted on legislation expanding senior citizens ability to work. The Senate passed the ``Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996'' by unanimous consent. This legislation, which I was proud to support, allows seniors to retain more of their Social Security benefits even if they continue to work. By the year 2002, seniors will be able to earn up to $30,000 in outside income without penalty. I see no reason why the Senate can extend the earnings limit to seniors and the blind, but does not extend the ability for greater income to the disabled. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and correct this outstanding deficiency.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the chairman in advance for his careful consideration of this issue in conference, and for the modifications to the provision that he has already made. I look forward to continuing to work with him in addressing the very serious problems in the INS's processing of citizenship applications. U.S./Israel Science and Technology Commission

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his remarks. I would simply like to confirm with Senator Gregg my understanding that the effective date will be looked at in conference so that the effect of this provision can be delayed--I would hope in the range of 9 to 12 months--to an appropriate point.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to raise with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, an important issue related to restrictions included in the CJS bill that reform the taking and processing of fingerprints by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for criminal background checks. At the outset, I would also like to thank Senator Gregg for his work on this issue, which has been of significant concern to me as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. I know it is also of great concern to the ranking member on our Subcommittee, Senator Kennedy. In fact, I chaired a hearing on this issue earlier this Congress and am considering legislation to address some of the very serious faults in the INS's conduct of criminal background checks. I have also raised this issue with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who expressed serious concerns--in terms of both quality and integrity--with the INS's use of outside entities to take fingerprints. Accordingly, I am pleased that the CJS bill will take us away from the current system, although I know that much remains to be done in this area. The language in the manager's package will permit fingerprints for INS purposes to be taken only by offices of the INS or by law enforcement agencies, which may collect a fee for the service of taking and processing the fingerprints. The INS has indicated that it is moving to a new fingerprint processing system under which it would take all of the fingerprints at INS offices, and has indicated that it can do so without unduly delaying the naturalization process. However, the INS will not be able to bring its new system up and running by the start of the next fiscal year. Even with the ability to also utilize the services of law enforcement agencies, I believe that a delayed effective date of 9 to 12 months will be required so there can be an orderly transition to the new system and so that the processing of naturalization applications can continue without complete disruption to the system.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my friend from Arizona. As a preliminary matter, I should say that I would have hoped that this amendment would not be necessary. I do not believe there is any real difficulty in reconciling the provision from last year's omnibus appropriations bill prohibiting the use of judiciary's funds to pay for special masters appointed pre-PLRA with the PLRA's requirement that masters be paid only with such funds. I believe this can easily be done without violating the intent of the PLRA's authors, including my friend from Arizona and myself, that the PLRA's compensation and other requirements be applied to pre-PLRA masters. The way to reconcile them is clear: the court can either proceed without a special master, or it can appoint a new one--or reappoint an old one--in the manner specified by the PLRA, thereby making the master eligible for payment under the terms of last year's rider. Indeed, in a discussion at the end of the last Congress, the distinguished chairman of the CSJ Appropriations Subcommittee and I agreed that this was the intended interpretation of the appropriations provision. Nevertheless, some courts have instead used this provision as one basis for concluding that the compensation requirements, and even special masters provisions other than the compensation requirements, do not apply to masters appointed pre-PLRA, or even in some instances to masters appointed post-PLRA in pre-PLRA cases. Let's look at the continuing saga of the Rikers Island jail in the Benjamin versus Jacobson case. The basic issue there is whether, as a result of the PLRA, the court will allow Rikers to store its mops right side up or upside down, and whether the jail has to use Borax in a particular concentration to clean certain public areas or whether it should be allowed to use a different concentration, or even a different detergent. Or to put the question a little more seriously, the issue there is whether within the constraints of the Constitution, New York City will be allowed to run its jail according to what it, rather than an unelected special master, believes is sound prison policy. This year, Judge Baer--whose earlier handling of the central aspects of this case was frankly a model of judicial restraint--issued an order requiring New York City to continue to fund the special master's office at approximately $275,000 a year, pay for office space, and provide a car and a parking space. The order even specified that the car had to be of a certain type and quality. Judge Baer had earlier held that the PLRA required dissolution of the consent decree that had been governing Riker's for years, but the court of appeals stayed that order pending appeal. Thus, the order retaining the special master on the old terms was issued in a case that predated the PLRA, but where it was clear by its own terms that the order appointing the master had expired. Moreover Judge Baer had previously upheld the constitutionality and retroactivity of the other provisions of the act. For all these reasons one would have thought it clear that even if last year's prohibition were construed to allow the court to impose the costs of pre-PLRA-appointed masters on the States, the act's limitations on special masters should be applied to the reappointment of this one. Nevertheless, without holding the special masters limitations unconstitutional, Judge Baer simply declined to follow them on the theory that the court of appeals stay of his original order upholding the other provisions of the PLRA was a mandate for him to preserve the status quo in all respects. I think the real lesson of this and many other decisions regarding the PLRA's limitations on prospective relief, as well as many of the decisions concerning the new habeas provisions, is that judges, like other human beings, tend to resist change. What, after all, is the old maxim that statutes in derogation of the common law shall be strictly construed, if not a fairly blunt statement that courts will construe any ambiguity in favor of their own ways of doing things? By clearing up what may seem to some an ambiguity, the amendment of my friend from Arizona removes one possible source of authority to which a court can turn in an effort to exercise broad powers through a special master while making the State or locality whose powers are being usurped foot the bill. Accordingly, I am pleased to support his amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I may not use all of that time. I thank the Senator from Georgia. This is not the first time in which he has come to the floor and led a special order to discuss these issues that are now before us, which we hope will be resolved this week. I think it should be noted that, for the better part of the last 3 years, it has been with the leadership of the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Texas who just spoke. Others have spoken today from the leadership on the Republican side, which has been advancing the cause of tax relief for the working families of our country. As we come into the final stages of these negotiations, we are very optimistic that we will be able to realize the objective that many of us came here to achieve: to finally bring an end to higher taxes in Washington and begin, finally, to roll back some of those taxes on the American people. In recent years, the percentage of the Nation's income, our gross domestic product, consumed by Washington in the form of taxes has gone up and up and up. Indeed, today the percentage is virtually as high as it has ever been in the history of this country--as high as it was during World War II, as high as during Vietnam, as high as during the Depression, and as high as it has been during any of the sort of crises that you might expect to produce record levels of taxation. Today, in the absence of such crises, we nonetheless have had a tax rate reach 21 percent above the Nation's income. So, Mr. President, the Republican efforts to reduce the tax burden are timely, they are needed, and they are on target. As the Senator from Texas just indicated, whether it is the spousal IRA or the family tax credit of $500 per child or the growth incentives to create jobs and opportunities, such as reducing the capital gains tax rate, the Republican tax plan that was passed in this Chamber by a 80-18 vote addresses the concerns of America's taxpayers in a targeted way that will produce both a chance for working families to keep more of what they earn and be able to do more for themselves, on the one hand, and an opportunity for those who create jobs and opportunities to create more such jobs, higher paying jobs, and more opportunities as we move into the next century. So for all of those reasons, we are optimistic that our 3-year-long effort is about to pay dividends and that, by the end of this week, with a little bit more effort, we can bring this tax cut to the American people. To all of those who have been in the leadership of this effort, I offer my thanks because, a few years ago, I don't think anybody in my constituency in Michigan would have expected they would see their taxes go down. This week, we have the best chance in decades--literally, 15 years--to see that occur. So I want to thank and congratulate the leaders on our side who have kept the pressure on. I hope that, by the end of the week, we will achieve our goals, and I hope we will go one step further and prevent any extraneous revenues generated by these tax cuts from being used for anything but more tax cuts or to reduce the national deficit. We just saw, as the budget negotiations began, that the revenues to the Federal Government were exceeding that which had been projected by the budgeteers in recent years. We were bringing in over $225 billion beyond what had been projected just a few months ago. Well, I think the same is going to happen as a result of the tax cuts included in this budget resolution and in the tax bill we pass. Mr. President, I think it is imperative that any additional revenues raised beyond that which we expect here in Washington ought to go back to the American people, either in the form of reducing the deficit or more tax cuts for the working families. If we do that, then we can make this tax bill extra special, Mr. President, by truly making it a long- term tax reduction plan for the American people. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I would like to begin today by thanking the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue as well as the Senator from Nebraska. Citizens in my State are extraordinarily concerned about the potential treaty that has been in the media very much lately. The people of Michigan care greatly about their environment and the ramifications of various emissions that are released into it. At the same time, I believe people of Michigan want agreements negotiated overseas and adopted in Washington to be based upon sound science and hard facts. They also want those agreements to be ones that require all nations to work toward a common objective rather than singling out developed nations for all the pain while allowing developing nations to gain competitive advantages by continuing practices that might contribute to an international problem. Mr. President, the people of Michigan are proud of their State, its natural resources, and the industry with which they have made Michigan's economy among the best in the Nation. They want to keep their jobs, to raise their families, and see their children grow and enjoy the opportunities our State provides. By all accounts, Mr. President, Michigan would suffer disproportionately should a treaty go into effect that does not fairly bind all countries. Whether it is the business community, the agriculture community or organized labor, I have heard concerns from them all, Mr. President. Therefore, I commend the Senators who have introduced this resolution. I am happy to be a cosponsor. I look forward to supporting it and seeing it passed today so that we might, as a country, work in a constructive way toward resolving these issues while avoiding a path that is detrimental to America and the interests of the hard-working men and women of my State. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, recently, the Senate considered historic changes to preserve Medicare for future generations. I think it is important to outline my views in detail on a few of the key votes cast regarding these issues. I voted to table an amendment by Senator Mikulski to reinstate the Boren amendment. In negotiating with the White House on this balanced budget agreement, we all agreed that the best way to reform Medicaid is to allow Governors the maximum flexibility to design programs that meet the unique needs of their States. The biggest barrier to this flexibility, according to the bipartisan National Governors Association, is the Boren amendment. The Boren amendment has allowed the court system to set reimbursement rates, and these rates have been inflated much higher than what the market would determine. These higher rates have cost the States millions of dollars a year and have inhibited the ability of States to implement real program reforms. For this reason, I supported the bipartisan budget agreement and the decision to revoke the Boren amendment. I voted to table an amendment by Senator Kennedy which would require specific health benefits for children with special needs. I believe that our package went a long way in meeting the important goal of providing health benefits to children in need. Mr. Kennedy's amendment, however, would take away the flexibility that Governors need to develop the best possible plan for their States. Instead, Mr. Kennedy's amendment would allow the Federal Government to mandate both what the benefits should look like and who should receive them. I believe this amendment represents movement in the wrong direction. I voted against an amendment offered by Senator Durbin and Senator Wellstone which would reinstate food stamp benefits to the children of legal immigrants. We have already negotiated certain changes in regard to services for legal immigrants in the bipartisan budget agreement. I am committed to upholding that agreement and believe that this amendment went outside the scope of the agreed to changes. Senator D'Amato offered an amendment to take the money saved by changing the Medicare and Medicaid Program and direct it to National Institutes of Health to provide medical research. While I wholeheartedly support increased funding for NIH, I do not believe this is an appropriate funding avenue and therefore opposed it. In fact, I believe that money saved through changes to Medicare should go toward maintaining the long-term solvency of the Medicare Program. I voted against an amendment offered by Senator Dodd which would add $100 million to provide health care to children who are severely disabled. While I believe this is an important goal, I maintain, and received assurances to that end, that the health needs of severely disabled children would be met through the additional $24 billion we will be spending on our children's health package already incorporated in this bill. I supported Senator Levin's amendment which would allow vocational education training to count toward meeting the work requirement under the welfare reform law. The current welfare law limits the amount of time an individual can be on vocational education to 12 months. This amendment will increase that limit to 24 months. I believe this change will allow individuals the time necessary to engage in training programs to provide real work opportunities once they leave the welfare system. I opposed an amendment offered by Senator Specter which would have provided $1.5 billion over 5 years to pay the Medicare premium for low- income seniors. I voted against this amendment because the budget reconciliation package provides $1.5 billion in new funds to assist Medicare beneficiaries between 120 and 150 percent of the poverty line with their Medicare premium. I believe the legislation already addresses this important need. Finally, I voted in favor of waiving the Budget Act to include the Medicare Choice program as part of the budget reconciliation bill. I believe that this is one of the most important provisions of the Medicare bill. Our legislation will allow seniors a wide array of choices in care. Seniors will be able to choose from a variety of insurance plans including medical savings accounts [MSA] and private fee-for-service plans. It is critical to keep these provisions in the legislation to allow seniors a real choice in care and to protect seniors from rationing services in the future.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the sense of the Senate resolution opposing most favored nation [MFN] status to the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, I hope everyone in this Chamber recognizes that terrible things continue to go on inside China. Religious persecution, political repression, and coercive family planning are only the most visible Chinese Government policies that violate universal standards of human decency. In response to these serious problems, some of my colleagues have called for an end to China's most-favored-nation trading status with the United States. But I believe that that is the wrong approach. I support a 1-year extension of MFN for China. Why? First, because it is the best policy for American consumers. Those consumers will have a wider choice of affordable goods with MFN than without it. To revoke MFN would be to increase tariffs on goods purchased by the American people. It would amount to a tax hike, and I am not in favor of tax hikes, particularly those imposed on the basis of another government's behavior. Second, I am convinced that revoking MFN would target the wrong parties for punishment. We should keep in mind that it is not the people of China with whom we have a quarrel; it is their Government. Trade and United States investment in China have a positive effect in providing more opportunities for average Chinese citizens. According to Heritage Foundation China expert Stephen J. Yates, in China, ``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. This real and measurable expansion of freedom does not require waiting for middle-class civil society to emerge in China; it is taking place now and should be encouraged.'' Third, I am convinced that terminating MFN would be damaging to the people of Hong Kong, recently returned to Chinese rule. All of us in Congress are concerned that China may violate the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and squash freedom, both economic and political. However, in formulating United States policy with regard to Hong Kong, we must remember that repealing MFN for China will hit Hong Kong hard. Former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten has said that rescinding MFN would devastate Hong Kong's economy. Mr. President, I have another important reason for supporting a 1- year extension of MFN: American jobs. Using the Commerce Department's rules of thumb, United States exports to China account for roughly 200,000 American jobs. Should we stop doing business with China, I have no doubt but that other nations will step in to take our place, and to take jobs now occupied by Americans both here and in China. Thus, by revoking MFN, we would not significantly punish the Chinese Government, but we would visit hardship on our own workers. This is not to say that I believe we must stand idly by while human rights abuses continue in the People's Republic of China. But, rather than eliminate jobs and stifle growth through increased tariffs, in my view it would be better to take actions showing our displeasure directly with the Chinese Government. That is why I have introduced S. 810, the China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement Act.'' This legislation would show our disapproval of Chinese Government actions, while at the same time encouraging worthwhile economic and cultural exchanges; exchanges that can lead to positive change in China. It would: Prohibit issuance of United States visas to Chinese Government officials who implement and enforce Chinese laws and directives that persecute religious groups. Prohibit direct and indirect United States-taxpayer financed foreign aid for China. Require the United States Government to publish a list of Chinese companies backed by the People's Liberation Army and operating in the United States. This would allow informed consumers and other purchasers to choose whether they wish to do business with such companies. Prohibit Polytechnologies Inc., known as POLY, and NORINCO, the China North Industries Group--two Chinese companies whose officials have been indicted for attempting to smuggle arms into the United States--from exporting to the United States, or maintaining a physical presence here for 1 year. In my judgment, the combination of these sanctions and a 1-year extension of MFN offers the best approach to change the behavior of the Chinese Government. These measures will direct punishment where it belongs, with the Chinese Government, not the Chinese people. I understand my colleague from Arkansas' frustration with current Chinese Government policies. I commend his desire to effect those policies in a positive way. But it is my firm belief that we serve the cause of liberty best when we serve it most consistently. By maintaining free trade, while showing our disapproval of tyrannical practices, we stay true to our principles. We make it possible for liberty to spread while maintaining our own economic freedom intact. I urge my colleagues to vote against the sense of the Senate resolution, to support a 1-year extension of MFN, and also to join me in pursuing more positive ways by which to influence Chinese Government policy.