Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I rise to express my support for the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1997. This legislation enjoyed unanimous support from members of the Judiciary Committee and I am hopeful the full Senate will share our views. In the area of copyrights, patents, and other sources of intellectual property, our Nation is now at a tremendous competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. Despite the fact the United States is the worldwide leader in intellectual property production, American authors, musicians, filmmakers, and other creative artists will not get their fair share of royalties due to them. Simply stated, U.S. copyright law protects the life of the author plus 50 years. In the European Union [EU], however, copyright terms cover life plus 70 years. Here lies the problem. Four years ago the European Union issued a directive mandating member countries to implement a copyright term of protection equal to the life of the author plus 70 years by July 1, 1995. Currently eight countries in the EU have complied with this policy and many others are following suit. With the advent of the Internet, digital communications, increased satellite technology, and other communications devices, the longevity of creative works has dramatically increased. Now anyone in the world can access and use an American work with merely a click of a finger. Because of these high-technology machines, the United States continues to see dramatic rises in illegal duplication cases and millions of dollars lost. The Copyright Term Extension Act will reverse this disturbing trend by putting Americans at an equal footing with the rest of the world. This important legislation gives U.S. copyright owners parity with the European Union by adopting a life plus 70 year term. I strongly feel this act will help balance the inadequacies that currently exist between the United States and the European Union.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak about an issue I feel strongly about and have consistently supported during my tenure in the U.S. Senate. Today I rise in defense of Senate bill 400, the Frivolous Lawsuit Prevention Act, of which I am a cosponsor. The Senate has debated tort reform legislation in the past and this year several bills have been introduced that attempt to remediate our legal system. S. 400 takes a narrow approach and focuses on the particular problem of persons who deliberately abuse America's courts. I appreciate the efforts of Senator Grassley in introducing this important bill, which is a vital component of legal reform. It aims to rescue our courts from engaging in suits that more resemble talk show fodder than legitimate claims of wrongdoing. Specifically, the bill amends rule 11 of the Federal rules of civil procedure by making sanctions mandatory rather than discretionary whenever federal courts find a violation of that rule has occurred and an attorney has engaged in frivolous conduct. For example, if a party files a lawsuit purely to badger another party, and the judge finds this to be true, the court can impose a punishment commensurate with the degree of the violation. Prior to 1993, this type of sanctioning had been standard procedure. Unfortunately, however, this rule was severely modified 4 years ago. Congress must now enact S. 400 to once again protect the courts from frivolous lawsuits that clog this Nation's legal system and impede the ability of legitimate claims to be heard. Our courts must never become playgrounds for egregious claims and wild accusations that seek only to harass an individual. Those who engage in such conduct must face sanctions for their action. In my view, this bill will relieve our courts and restore the dignity and integrity that America's system of justice demands.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 608, a bill offering potential relief to neighborhood residents victimized by the illegal use of a citizen band [CB] radio. In Grand Rapids, MI, and in other towns in Michigan and across the country, CB operators have boosted the power of their signal using equipment prohibited under FCC regulations. As a result, nearby residents have been unable to watch television, listen to their radios, or have a telephone conversation without experiencing interference from a neighbor's illegal use of a CB radio. Currently, there exists a series of rules governing the appropriate use of CB radio, including restrictions on equipment and frequencies, duration of broadcast, and appropriate content. Due to a change in priority, the FCC no longer investigates related interference complaints. The Commission merely sends individuals a packet of information outlining steps which can be taken to reduce the interference. Unfortunately, these solutions have been met with only limited success. In many cases, after having exhausted all available options, residents are left with no legal recourse. In addition, when residents turn to local authorities, they are denied assistance. Because of the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Government has exclusive authority to regulate radio frequency usage and to enforce related rules. Therefore, State and local authorities are prevented from enforcing FCC rules already in existence. This is where S. 608 would provide a remedy. This bill, which I have cosponsored, would give limited authority to State and local governments to enforce FCC rules governing CB radio equipment. I would like to emphasize this legislation will not jeopardize the exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of the FCC, neither will it impose added requirements on State and local governments. This bill merely allows localities to enforce rules already in effect, thereby giving citizens a legal recourse in solving radio interference disputes. Mr. President, I view this legislation as a small, yet simple approach to solving CB radio interference problems. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I look forward to working with Senator Feingold to secure its passage. I ask that the text of a Grand Rapids City Commission resolution in support of S. 608 be printed in the Record. The material follows: Grand Rapids, MI, May 7, 1997. Senator Spencer Abraham, Southfield, MI. Dear Senator Abraham: Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution 63295 approved by the Grand Rapids City Commission on April 29, 1997, which encourages you and all the members of the Michigan Congressional Delegation to support Senate Bill S. 608 which changes Federal Communications Commission rules to allow states and local units of government to enforce certain regulations regarding the operation of citizen band radio equipment. Sincerely, Mary Therese Hegarty, City Clerk. Enclosure. Your committee of the whole recommends adoption of the following resolution encouraging Senator Abraham and the Michigan Congressional Delegation to support Senate Bill S. 608 which would amend the Federal Communications Act of 1934 to allow state and local governments to prohibit citizens band radio equipment and operations which are not authorized by the Federal Communications Commission and to enforce those regulations. J. H. Logie, James C. Kozak, Erin J. Williams, Sharon West, Linda Samuelson, Roy L. Schmidt. Committee of the Whole. Com. Kozak, supported by Com. Schmidt, moved adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, that the City Commission encourages Senator Spencer Abraham and all the members of the Michigan Congressional Delegation to support Senate Bill S. 608 which changes Federal Communications Commission rules to allow states and local units of government to enforce certain regulations regarding the operation of citizen band radio equipment.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again of one of the greatest impediments to a free market system for U.S. dairy: the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The compact as approved by Secretary Glickman permits six States in the New England area to set the minimum price paid to dairy producers above the minimum price guaranteed by the federal milk marketing order system. I believe this type of artificial price increase will inevitably lead to an overproduction of milk in the New England area. Unfortunately, this may serve to further reduce milk prices paid to dairy farmers in Michigan and in other regions of the country. Subsidizing an already subsidized industry is totally unnecessary and, in my opinion, creates a dangerous precedent in allowing regions or States to set up artificial trade barriers. This seems to contradict the intention of last year's freedom to farm bill: removing price controls and taking Government out of farming. I supported the freedom to farm bill because it eliminates agriculture subsidies and gives American farmers the ability to choose which crops to grow. This bill was of paramount importance to the promotion of free markets in the global economy for this Nation's agriculture producers. I was disheartened when the Northeast interstate dairy compact slipped into the farm bill conference report at the last moment. It is my hope that Congress will correct this flaw and move U.S. agriculture one step closer to establishing a true market economy.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on Wednesday, April 10, the Senate once again turned to consideration of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This legislation, Senate bill 104, is the latest attempt to force action on the long overdue construction of a Federal, spent nuclear waste depository. A centralized waste storage facility must be located soon if the Department of Energy [DOE] is to have any hope of fulfilling its contractual obligation to collect the spent fuel stored at over 100 facilities around the country in the next decade. Michigan needs the DOE to fulfill this obligation. My State has four nuclear plants: Big Rock in Charlevoix, Fermi in Monroe, Palisades in Southhaven, with 2 reactors, and DC Cook in Southhaven. All four of these plants were designed with some small storage capacity, but a couple of years ago, Palisades ran out of spent fuel pool storage space. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act will mandate the removal and storage of this spent fuel at a safe, central facility. The first amendment to S. 104 was a Reid amendment stipulating that no waste may be transported through a State without the prior written consent of that State's Governor. In effect, this amendment would have permitted any Governor to block the implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and impede the safe storage of nuclear waste. I supported, therefore, the tabling motion which passed by a 72 to 24 margin. The Thompson amendment which was considered next sought to exempt Oak Ridge, TN, from being considered as an interim waste site should the President search for a location other than Yucca Mountain. In general, I do not like the idea of deleting from consideration particular sites without a debate on the matter. This site, however, lies in a geological zone comprised primarily of limestone bedrock that is frequently riven by shallow underground rivers. As such, the risk of contaminated waste leaking into the area's water table is too great for this site to be a reasonable replacement for the Yucca Mountain site. For that reason, I supported the Thompson amendment and it passed on a 60 to 33 vote. The Bumpers amendment that followed was a sense of the Senate resolution stating that the Department of Energy had an unavoidable delay in its contractual obligations to begin taking possession of spent fuel in 1998. If passed, this resolution could have undermined the current lawsuit which has been filed by Michigan and 34 other States against the DOE for not taking this waste in the agreed to time. For that reason, I opposed this resolution. The great majority of my colleagues agreed with me, and the resolution failed on a 24 to 69 vote. The next amendment, a Bingaman effort to eliminate the language to exempt Oak Ridge, TN, from consideration as an interim site, failed by a 36 to 56 margin. As I have noted, this site is not a suitable interim storage site, and I voted against the Bingaman measure. The second Bingaman amendment which was considered sought to eliminate the default provision for designating an interim storage site. The legislation as passed gives the President the authority to declare whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable interim storage site. If the President says it is not, he has 18 months to identify a new interim site. If, however, the President does not designate another facility within that time, then Yucca Mountain becomes the interim site by default. The Bingaman amendment would have changed this. Had it passed, the President could have rejected Yucca Mountain and then simply refused to identify another interim site. The end result would be years of lost time, millions of wasted taxpayer dollars, and a return to the present, untenable situation. I opposed the Bingaman amendment for this reason and supported the motion to table which passed 59 to 39. The final amendments to be considered were a Domenici amendment and a Murkowski second degree amendment. The bill as written could have been considered to allow a waiver on a budget point of order. The Domenici amendment clarified and reinstated existing law, which does not permit waiving a point of order prospectively. The Murkowski second degree to the Domenici amendment was a technical fix that capped the annual fee for each civilian nuclear powerplant at 1.0 mill per kilowatt-hour. The original provisions limiting user fees to 1.0 mill per kilowatt-hour were poorly worded. With the budgetary fix provided by the Domenici amendment, this provision was restored. I supported the Murkowski amendment and it was adopted by a 66 to 32 vote. Shortly after, the Senate passed the Domenici amendment as modified by a voice vote. Upon the disposition of these amendments, the Senate turned to final passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Once again, I voted in favor of this important act and was pleased to see it pass by a 65 to 34 margin.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Nickles for introducing the Victims' Rights Clarification Act of 1997. I believe this important legislation will help victims of crime exercise their deserved rights. The 104th Congress did much to ensure that victims are no longer casualties of a skewed justice system where their voices are often ignored. This year, we are picking up where we left off in standing up for the innocent. I am proud to join several of my colleagues in cosponsoring this legislation. The purpose of the Victims' Rights Clarification Act of 1997 is really quite simple. This act will guarantee that victims of crime may be present at public court proceedings, barring their presence will not be a detriment to his or her testimony. Frankly, I am disheartened it takes an act of Congress to reaffirm this right. But, I am pleased we are making progress in correcting these deficiencies in America's legal system. The devastation of lives in the Oklahoma City bombing and the senseless acts of violence occurring in our neighborhoods every day gives this Chamber cause to enact policies empowering victims. In my estimation, the accused should see their victim's face in a court of law and know they scarred a life forever. I believe this legislation drafted on a bipartisan basis will entitle victims of crime their overdue rights and merits widespread support.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Helms for accepting my Sense of the Senate amendment. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should impose certain, targeted sanctions against officials and companies working for the Government of the People's Republic of China. The purpose is to express the indignation of our country at the abuses of human rights going on now in that country, as well as recent attempts by entities controlled in whole or in part by the Chinese Government to violate American laws and influence American policy. Mr. President, everyone knows that the Chinese Government is violating basic human rights and international norms of behavior. The question is, what should the United States do about it? Until now the debate has focused almost exclusively on whether we should extend or revoke China's Most Favored Nation trading status [MFN]. It is time, in my view, to move the discussion out of the MFN ``box'' and find common means to achieve common American goals. Revoking MFN would punish Americans with higher prices without significantly affecting the Chinese Government. And it would punish innocent Chinese citizens by withdrawing economic opportunities provided by U.S. trade and investment. Even in the short term, in my view, we should not underestimate trade and investment's positive impact. Already, writes China expert Stephen J. Yates of the Heritage Foundation, Chinese ``employees at U.S. firms earn higher wages and are free to choose where to live, what to eat, and how to educate and care for their children.'' Regardless of their views on MFN, Americans should be able to agree on measures pressuring the Chinese Government to stop its current policies while encouraging greater openness in that country. The list of objectionable Chinese Government practices is long. It includes religious persecution, abuses against minorities, forced abortion, military threats and weapons proliferation, and attempts to improperly influence American elections. Mr. President, to pressure China's Government to stop these policies without punishing average citizens, I have introduced S. 810, ``The China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement Act.'' This bill would implement the findings of the current Sense of the Senate Resolution. Let me discuss the provisions of this bill. Under S. 810, the United States Government would refuse visas to human rights violators, including high ranking Chinese officials implementing and enforcing directives on religious practices. The same would go for those involved in the massacre of students in Tianenman Square. To allow a proscribed individual into the United States, the President would have to send Congress written notification explaining why this would be in America's national interest and override United States concerns about China's human rights practices. The bill also would require United States representatives to vote ``no'' on all loans to China at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund. An exception would be made for humanitarian relief in the event of natural disaster. In addition, for every dollar a multilateral development bank or international family planning organization gives to China, S. 810 would subtract out a dollar in American taxpayer funding to those bodies. Simply put, instead of raising taxes on Americans, we should stop taxpayer subsidies to the Chinese Government. If China continues its current behavior, it can fund development programs by reducing expenditures on its military and State enterprises. The legislation also targets Chinese companies engaged in improper conduct. The Clinton administration already has imposed sanctions on two companies found to have sold chemical weapons components to Iran. Top executives from two other Chinese companies--Polytechnologies Incorporated [POLY], and China North Industries Group [NORINCO]--have been indicted for attempting to sell automatic weapons to California street gangs. This bill would ban POLY and NORINCO from exporting to or being physically present in the United States for 1 year. Even as we implement these tough measures, we should maintain valuable interchange with China. That is why the legislation doubles funding for United States-China exchange programs, Radio Free Asia, and programs in China operated through the National Endowment for Democracy. Finally, the legislation requires the President to file an annual report on whether China has improved its human rights record, including its behavior during the transition to Chinese control in Hong Kong. The sanctions sunset after 1 year, allowing Congress to evaluate the situation and determine whether and in what form sanctions should continue. Mr. President, the United States must stay engaged with China, and trade and investment provide a valuable avenue for that engagement. But signaling our disapproval and refusing to subsidize oppressive policies need not interfere with expanding basic interaction between the American and Chinese people. America can stand with the Chinese people, and stand by the principles of political, religious, and economic liberty on which our Nation was founded. Let's not punish American and Chinese families by raising tariffs. Instead, let's punish specific abuses and encourage further development of the economic and political liberties we cherish. amendment no. 404 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate encouraging programs by the National Endowment For Democracy regarding the rule of law in China) At the appropriate place insert the following: (a) Findings.-- (1) The establishment of the rule of law is a necessary prerequisite for the success of democratic governance and the respect for human rights. (2) In recent years efforts by the United States and United States-based organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy, have been integral to legal training and the promotion of the rule of law in China drawing upon both western and Chinese experience and tradition. (3) The National Endowment for Democracy has already begun to work on these issues, including funding a project to enable independent scholars in China to conduct research on constitutional reform issues and the Hong Kong-China Law Database Network. (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate to encourage the National Endowment for Democracy to expand its activities in China and Hong Kong on projects which encourage the rule of law, including the study and dissemination of information on comparative constitutions, federalism, civil codes of law, civil and penal code reform, legal education, freedom of the press, and contracts.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, last week the Senate adopted the emergency supplemental bill by a vote of 78 to 21. As one of the Members who voted against it, I wanted to take this opportunity to explain my vote. I reluctantly voted for the last disaster relief bill--even though I believed it contained too many nonemergency spending times and that it exacerbated an already inequitible transportation funding situation for Michigan. The reason I did so was the inclusion of the continuing resolution language that would have protected Americans from another Government shutdown and the loss of necessary Government services. The legislation adopted on Thursday did not contain this protection, and so left the American taxpayer and the Congress at the mercy of a President who has consistently demanded ever-higher levels of Government spending, and who is willing to shutdown the Federal Government to get it. Moreover, the legislation contained extraneous, nonemergency spending items as well as more money than the Congress was willing to spend just a few short weeks ago. As a final insult, this legislation fails to fully offset the additional spending it provides, and therefore will result in another increase to the deficit. Mr. President, I sympathize with the plight of the people living in the flooded States and I fully support providing the disaster assistance they need to rebuild their communities and their lives. However, for the Congress to adopt legislation which adds to the deficit, includes nonemergency extraneous matters, and that does not protect the taxpayers against another Government shutdown, was in my view wholly irresponsible and not deserving of my support.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this week, the Senate Finance Committee will begin consideration of the tax portion of this year's budget agreement. I strongly support the pro-family and pro-growth portions of that package and I intend to discuss these provisions at a later time. Today, I wanted to address the Senate regarding a smaller tax issue of interest to the State of Michigan and communities nationwide--targeting tax benefits at brownfields. Mr. President, brownfields are abandoned commercial and industrial properties which are suspected of being environmentally contaminated. Earlier this year, I visited several locations in Michigan which fit this definition, and I want to relate to the Senate why this is an issue of national importance. It is an issue of community renewal, economic growth, job creation, and environmental remediation. Heatherwood Farms in Lansing, MI is a good example of how brownfields affect all these issues. Located in a middle-class residential neighborhood with several other commercial properties, it was the former site of an industrial warehouse for over 50 years. According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, assessment work is needed to verify whether the property is contaminated with PCB's, chemical solvents, asbestos, and other contaminants. Mr. President, who will conduct this work? The former owners are bankrupt. The State government doesn't have the resources to investigate every abandoned industrial site in Michigan. And potential purchasers are scared away by tax and environmental laws that combine few benefits with unlimited liability. The city of Flint faces the same dilemma, where the former site of Thrall Oil Co. now sits vacant. Economic development officials believe this property should attract future manufacturing development, but, because the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has labelled it ``contaminated,'' developers cannot be found. This problem is not limited to Michigan. Across the country, there are over 30,000 sites similar to Heatherwood Farms --abandoned former industrial sites which may or may not be contaminated. A survey of Toledo, OH businesses found that environmental concerns were affecting 62 percent of the area's commercial and industrial real estate transactions. The result is lost jobs and opportunities for the residents of these communities and lower economic growth in the country as a whole. Which brings me to my tax provision. For the past two Congresses, I have advocated changing the Tax Code to permit new owners of so-called brownfields to deduct the cost of cleaning up these sites from their income. This reform is a vast improvement over the current code, which requires companies to capitalize these costs over many years. It is a small provision which I believe will have far-reaching economic effects in attracting new owners to these abandoned properties. It will also have positive environmental effects that we can all support. First, it will accelerate the remediation of contaminated properties. As I said previously, the State, local, and Federal governments do not have the resources to identify and clean these properties. To make progress, we must enlist the assistance and resources of the private sector. This brownfields tax provision does just that. Second, it will protect so-called greenfields from development. When developers turn away from Heatherwood Farms and other brownfields, they turn instead to properties that have no history of industrial or commercial use. That is certainly not in the interest of communities like Lansing or Flint, and it is not conducive toward maintaining our undeveloped countryside. Mr. President, earlier this year I joined Senators Lieberman, Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Jeffords, and others in introducing legislation which would target this tax incentive at distressed communities across the country. This legislation has the support of the administration and the United State Conference of Mayors. I encourage Senator Roth to include this provision in his tax bill when he presents it to the Finance Committee this week, and I look forward to working with all Senators in promoting economic growth and job creation in our distressed communities nationwide.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on April 21 President Clinton issued an Executive order purporting to defend America's children from environmental health and safety risks. At the very end of this order was a simple, but cryptic statement. That statement was, ``Executive Order 12606 of September 2, 1987 is revoked.'' With that simple statement, Mr. President, without consulting this body or so much as naming the order revoked, President Clinton struck an unnecessary and uncalled for blow against American families and children. Executive Order 12606 of September 2, 1987, signed by President Reagan, was one of the most important policy statements of the last 25 years. As stated in its preamble, that Executive order was intended ``to ensure that the autonomy and rights of the family are considered in the formulation and implementation of policies by Executive departments and agencies.'' That Executive order, which President Clinton so blithely, almost mutely discarded, required our Federal bureaucracy for the first time to consider their actions' effects on the families of this nation. More than any Government program, America's children are protected, nurtured and given the means they need to lead good lives by their families. No national village can replace the constant care and attention of parents. By allowing Executive agencies to ignore the effects of their policies on families, President Clinton promises more harm to children than any Executive order he signs could possibly cure. Because of President Reagan's Executive order, it was the official policy of this country that our bureaucrats must think about families as they formulate and apply rules and regulations. Do we seriously believe, Mr. President, that the American family no longer needs protection? Do we seriously believe that Federal rules, regulations, and programs no longer have serious effects on our families? Do we seriously believe that bureaucrats here in Washington will just naturally craft everything they do so as to serve the interests of our families? I do not think so, Mr. President. In fact I am convinced that now more than ever our families need our protection. I am convinced that we must ensure that those who work for the Federal Government stop and think about how what they are doing effects our families. That is why, along with Senators Faircloth, Sessions, Tim Hutchinson, DeWine, Coats, and Ashcroft, I am introducing the Family Impact Statement Act of 1997. This legislation will reinstate our national policy requiring that Federal bureaucrats consider the effects of their actions on our families. Specifically, and mirroring the Executive order recently revoked by the President, the Abraham-Faircloth Family Impact Statement Act would require that executive departments assess measures that may have significant impact on family formation, maintenance and general well- being in light of the following questions: 1. Does this action by Government strengthen or erode the stability of the family and, particularly, the marital bond? 2. does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children? 3. does this action help the family perform its functions, or does it substitute governmental activity for that function? 4. does this action by Government increase or decrease family earnings? Do the proposed benefits of this action justify the impact on the family budget? 5. can this activity be carried out by a lower level of Government or by the family itself? 6. what message, intended or otherwise, does this program send to the public concerning the status of the family? 7. what message does it send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of our society? Again, mirroring the Executive order President Clinton recently revoked, Abraham-Faircloth would require that the head of the department or agency involved in any policy significantly effecting family well-being certify in writing that such measures has been assessed in light of these criteria. The department or agency head also must provide an explanation of how such measures will enhance family well-being. The Office of Management and Budget will then, to the extent permitted by law, ensure that the policies of the executive departments and agencies are applied in light of these criteria. In addition, Mr. President, this legislation will require that the White House Office of Policy Development assess existing and proposed policies and regulations that impact family well-being in light of the same criteria. That office will then provide evaluations on those measures to the Office of Management and Budget, and advise the President on policy and regulatory actions that may be taken to strengthen the institutions of marriage and the family in America. Mr. President, this legislation will restore a crucial protection for the fundamental institution on which our society is based. By requiring that our departments and agencies consider the impact of their actions on our families it will protect those families from intrusive policies that undermine them, their children's lives, and our social fabric. I urge my colleagues to join with me to make bureaucrats consider our families' well-being before they act. I urge them to support Abraham- Faircloth. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Byrd, Hagel, and Craig to speak about the threat posed by the administration's support of an international global climate treaty. This is a very serious issue, and for too long it has not received the attention it deserves. I applaud Senator Byrd for focusing attention on this matter through his sense of the Senate resolution and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. In December of this year, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change will conclude negotiations on a binding treaty to control the emissions of greenhouse gases by the developed nations. The Clinton administration has been pushing hard for such an agreement and intends to implement this treaty in the United States. I would note, however, that this treaty applies only to developed nations. Emerging nations are not included. Countries such as China, India, and South Korea will not pay the costs of the energy taxes or be constrained by the caps on manmade emissions as will the United States. It will be business as usual for these nations despite the fact that emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, from developing nations will shortly surpass those of the developed nations. Despite this obvious flaw, such a treaty might yet be logical if we knew that clear benefits would be derived as a result, but we do not. Scientists are sharply divided as to whether the Earth is warming because of human activity. How then can we justify supporting a treaty which even the U.S. Department of Energy has concluded will be devastating to the economy? How can we seriously consider any proposal which will cost American jobs, slow economic growth, and encourage domestic industries to move offshore when the next century's greatest contributors of greenhouse gases will not share even the smallest portion of this burden. Mr. President, the answer is simple: We cannot and should not. The United States has made dramatic improvements in pollution control in the last two decades. A clean environment is of paramount importance to Americans, and we will continue to work responsibly toward protecting this Nation's air, water, and land. We must not, however, saddle our economy with new taxes and regulations the sole purpose of which is to limit American productivity. We cannot enter into an agreement which will do significant harm to our economy and put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to emerging nations when the jury is still out on the effects that mankind may have on climate change. If future research provides irrefutable evidence that manmade emissions are contributing to global warming, then all Nation's should work together in concert to identify and reduce the greenhouse gases responsible for such a phenomenon. Today, we are far from having such evidence, and to act without it is simply not sound policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on April 21 President Clinton issued an Executive order purporting to defend America's children from environmental health and safety risks. At the very end of this order was a simple, but cryptic statement. That statement was, ``Executive Order 12606 of September 2, 1987 is revoked.'' With that simple statement, Mr. President, without consulting this body or so much as naming the order revoked, President Clinton struck an unnecessary and uncalled for blow against American families and children. Executive Order 12606 of September 2, 1987, signed by President Reagan, was one of the most important policy statements of the last 25 years. As stated in its preamble, that Executive order was intended ``to ensure that the autonomy and rights of the family are considered in the formulation and implementation of policies by Executive departments and agencies.'' That Executive order, which President Clinton so blithely, almost mutely discarded, required our Federal bureaucracy for the first time to consider their actions' effects on the families of this nation. More than any Government program, America's children are protected, nurtured and given the means they need to lead good lives by their families. No national village can replace the constant care and attention of parents. By allowing Executive agencies to ignore the effects of their policies on families, President Clinton promises more harm to children than any Executive order he signs could possibly cure. Because of President Reagan's Executive order, it was the official policy of this country that our bureaucrats must think about families as they formulate and apply rules and regulations. Do we seriously believe, Mr. President, that the American family no longer needs protection? Do we seriously believe that Federal rules, regulations, and programs no longer have serious effects on our families? Do we seriously believe that bureaucrats here in Washington will just naturally craft everything they do so as to serve the interests of our families? I do not think so, Mr. President. In fact I am convinced that now more than ever our families need our protection. I am convinced that we must ensure that those who work for the Federal Government stop and think about how what they are doing effects our families. That is why, along with Senators Faircloth, Sessions, Tim Hutchinson, DeWine, Coats, and Ashcroft, I am introducing the Family Impact Statement Act of 1997. This legislation will reinstate our national policy requiring that Federal bureaucrats consider the effects of their actions on our families. Specifically, and mirroring the Executive order recently revoked by the President, the Abraham-Faircloth Family Impact Statement Act would require that executive departments assess measures that may have significant impact on family formation, maintenance and general well- being in light of the following questions: 1. Does this action by Government strengthen or erode the stability of the family and, particularly, the marital bond? 2. does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children? 3. does this action help the family perform its functions, or does it substitute governmental activity for that function? 4. does this action by Government increase or decrease family earnings? Do the proposed benefits of this action justify the impact on the family budget? 5. can this activity be carried out by a lower level of Government or by the family itself? 6. what message, intended or otherwise, does this program send to the public concerning the status of the family? 7. what message does it send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of our society? Again, mirroring the Executive order President Clinton recently revoked, Abraham-Faircloth would require that the head of the department or agency involved in any policy significantly effecting family well-being certify in writing that such measures has been assessed in light of these criteria. The department or agency head also must provide an explanation of how such measures will enhance family well-being. The Office of Management and Budget will then, to the extent permitted by law, ensure that the policies of the executive departments and agencies are applied in light of these criteria. In addition, Mr. President, this legislation will require that the White House Office of Policy Development assess existing and proposed policies and regulations that impact family well-being in light of the same criteria. That office will then provide evaluations on those measures to the Office of Management and Budget, and advise the President on policy and regulatory actions that may be taken to strengthen the institutions of marriage and the family in America. Mr. President, this legislation will restore a crucial protection for the fundamental institution on which our society is based. By requiring that our departments and agencies consider the impact of their actions on our families it will protect those families from intrusive policies that undermine them, their children's lives, and our social fabric. I urge my colleagues to join with me to make bureaucrats consider our families' well-being before they act. I urge them to support Abraham- Faircloth. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute of seven truly exceptional educational institutions in my State of Michigan. On Friday, May 23, the U.S. Department of Education announced the recipients of the 1997 Blue Ribbon School Awards. It gives me great pleasure to recognize today before my colleagues each of these schools and commend them on this prestigious award. To be named a blue ribbon school is no small achievement; it requires the successful passage of a rigorous nomination and screen process. The Department of Education review panel evaluates as conditions of effective schooling the following: leadership; teaching environment; curriculum and instruction; student environment; parent and community support; and organizational vitality. The review panel also considers objective indicators of success, such as: Student performance on measures of achievement; daily student and teacher attendance rates; students' postgraduation pursuits; school, staff, and student awards; and high student retention-graduation rates. Obviously, those select few schools afforded the status of Blue Ribbon Awards are more than deserving of the national attention that accompanies such an honor. I would like to take a moment to individually recognize each of the Michigan elementary and middle schools, and the dedicated principals under whose leadership these schools have thrived, for entry into the Congressional Record. Anna M. Joyce Elementary School, Detroit, MI, Mr. Leslie Brown, principal. Brace-Lederle Elementary School, Southfield, MI, Dr. Bobbie K. Hentrel, principal. Grand View Elementary School, Grandville, MI, Mr. Rich Doyle, principal. Lincoln Park Elementary School, Norton Shores, MI, Ms. Tresea Goff, principal. Pine Tree Elementary School, Lake Orion, MI, Mrs. Beverly Tepper, principal. Roguewood School, Rockford, MI, Mrs. Sharon Bennett, principal. Troy Union Elementary School, Troy, MI, Dr. Ronald J. O'Hara, principal. Educating our children is no simple task, and everyone involved with the success of these blue ribbon schools deserves to feel a great sense of pride. On behalf of all my fellow Senators I extend to the staff, students, and parents of each of these communities my most sincere congratulations and best wishes for the even brighter future that awaits them.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record an editorial by C. Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The editorial, which appeared in the Journal of Commerce, explains how the Mandates Information Act will improve the quality of Congress's deliberation on proposed unfunded mandates on the private sector. The editorial follows: [From the Journal of Commerce, June 2, 1997] Passing the Budget Buck (By Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr.) Weary of the federal government's habit of enacting popular environmental and other reforms but imposing all their costs on state and localities, governors and local officials revolted in 1995. They rightly charged that for every dollar spent on federal priorities, they lost the ability to control and allocate their own budgets. That outcry resulted in the 104th Congress's Unfunded Mandates Act. The legislation didn't halt unfunded public-sector mandates but it did increase Congress's accountability by requiring both disclosure of costs of significant mandates and explicit votes on the intent to impose those costs. There remains a gap in the quest for accountability and disclosure. Congress is still free to ignore costs when enacting legislation that will impose mandates on the private sector. Recognizing that government-imposed costs can have profound economic consequences, Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., is leading a new campaign to force Congress to disclose and assume responsibility for private mandates through the same procedure that exists for public ones. In an era of budget balancing, Sen. Abraham's campaign assumes new importance. Costs of off-budget mandates on the public now exceed $600 billion a year. That's more than one- third the size of the entire federal budget, greater than personal income taxes, and several times the annual deficit. The danger is that, as the federal budget is cut to eliminate the deficit by 2002, pressure to shift the costs of favored government programs off-budget to the private sector will mount. For example, advocates of a new federal job training program could propose funding it through a Department of Labor appropriation, or alternatively, through a new mandate that all Fortune 500 firms provide such training. The first appears on the budget, the second does not. With the ``Mandates Information Act of 1997,'' Sen. Abraham and Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., hope to remedy today's absence of disclosure and regulatory bias. They hope to ensure that mandates imposing higher wages, increasing unemployment, or increasing consumer prices shall no longer slip through Congress unacknowledged. Their proposal would work by extending certain provisions of the 104th Congress' popular Unfunded Mandates Act to remove the arbitrary distinction between public and private sector mandates. The Mandates Information Act would allow a single Senator or House member to raise a point of order against any private sector mandate costing over $100 million annually. The point of order would halt further floor action until members vote specifically to waive it. Making Congress explicitly vote on its intent to impose a burden in this fashion wouldn't necessarily stop any mandate. But it would allow constituents to determine where their representative stood on a particular mandate. Cost estimates would be prepared by the Congressional Budget Office prior to floor consideration for any bill reported out of committee, and disclosed in a document, called a ``Consumer Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement.'' The statement would include mandate impact estimates on consumer prices and actual supply of goods and service in consumer markets; wages, benefits and employment opportunities; the hiring practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees. Knowing such impacts is worthwhile. Sen. Abraham points out that mandates not only result in workers losing jobs, they can prevent job formation in the first place. Mandates mount as a small firm grows; for example, at 15 employees, mandatory compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act kicks in; at 25, the Health Maintenance Organization Act does; at 50, the Family and Medical Leave Act applies. Sen. Abraham cites the case of Hasselbring-Clark, an office equipment supply firm in Lansing, Mich. Its treasurer Noelle Clark says, given the additional mandates that would otherwise apply, ``we have hired a few temps to stay under 49 (employees).'' Since the Abraham-Condit bill merely calls for disclosure, it should stand above criticism from advocates of government- regulation; if the majority believes it worthwhile to pass a mandate in the first place, enough votes to override the simply majority point of order ought to be there as well. The point of order enforcement mechanism for high-dollar rules and the impact statement together could help make Congress far more answerable for excessive mandates. That could be the lasting innovation of the Mandates Information Act. While most regulatory reforms attempt merely to require agencies to police themselves better through cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Abraham and Rep. Condit are bringing the focus back to the real source of excessive lawmaking: Congress.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, these Tastykakes were the bet of the Senator from Pennsylvania to our Little Caesars pizzas from Detroit. I might add that Red Wings' owner Mike Illitch is also the owner of Little Caesars. While I now have some bragging rights on the floor of the Senate, the real winners will be the students at Warren G. Harding Elementary School in Detroit. The kids will soon taste the sweetness of the Red Wings success as Senator Santorum ships 300 boxes of these Tastykake cupcakes for a victory party at the school in the next week or two. And to make it extra special, in a show of true sportsmanship, Little Caesars will provide pizzas to the students at Harding as well. We look forward to celebrating our victory of the Stanley Cup with the students of Harding Elementary School in the weeks ahead. I thank you, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 1997 Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings. Following Saturday night's 2 to 1 victory in game four of the NHL finals, completing the Wings series sweep of the Philadelphia Flyers, the sports world has taken notice of what those of us from Michigan have known for years, that Detroit is the home of the best hockey team, and the greatest hockey fans, on the planet. After a long 42-year absence, the Stanley Cup has returned home to Hockeytown USA. Sometimes in sports certain teams capture fans' imaginations in a way that embodies the spirit of an entire city. The 1984 Tigers were so good they dominated the game of baseball from the first pitch of opening day through the last out of the World Series. The 1989 Pistons, with their gritty, tough style of defensive play were the ultimate blue collar champions. So it is also the case of this year. The 1997 Red Wings have inspired Detroit in a similar manner. These players have experienced recent disappointment. They came so close to the title the previous two seasons, eliminated in the finals by New Jersey in 1995 and in the semifinals by Colorado in 1996, only to be denied. However, where lesser teams would have crumbled under the weight of such adversity, this team learned from its losses, and came back with even greater determination and focus. While I salute the entire Detroit Red Wings' organization for their achievement, there are a few individuals in particular who deserve special recognition. Capt. Steve Yzerman has brought so many highlights to Detroit Red Wings fans over the years, his name clearly deserves mention in the same breath as past greats such as Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Sid Abel, and Alex Delvecchio. No one has played harder through more pain or is more responsible for this Stanley Cup than Steve Yzerman. With his unassuming manner off the ice and fierce competitiveness on, for 14 years this exceptional man has been a credit to the Red Wings and the city of Detroit, and for this, he deserves our thanks. With this championship, Coach Scotty Bowman has now won seven Stanley Cups, more than any other coach in NHL history. Goalie Mike Vernon, named MVP of the playoffs, was simply masterful in the net throughout the series. Then there are the five Russian immigrant players--Sergei Fedorov, Igor Larionov, Slava Kozlov, Slava Fetisov, and Vladmir Konstantinov--each of whom played a vital role in the success of this team. The Red Wings had so many leaders, such as Brendan Shanahan, Kirk Maltby, Darren McCarty, and others, that I am afraid I can't mention them all here. Mr. President, virtually everybody's contribution on the team should be highlighted today. Most important, one final tribute needs to be reserved for team owner Mike Illitch. Mr. Illitch's commitment to making the Red Wings the best hockey team in the NHL mirrors his dedication to making the city of Detroit the finest city in America. His efforts with the Red Wings are really just an extension of his care and concern for Detroit. Whatever this city has sought, whether it be economic development or the return of the Stanley Cup, Mike Illitch has tried to be part of the solution. In fact, this championship is only one small indicator of the rebirth of Detroit. It has been many years since others have looked to this city for inspired examples of urban renewal. Without question, however, current developments in Detroit are quickly rendering such negativism a thing of the past. Detroit is truly a city whose best days are yet to come, and great credit is due to the leadership of individuals like Mike Illitch and Mayor Dennis Archer for making this goal a reality. For today, as we celebrate the Red Wings we also celebrate the city of Detroit. The only thing missing from Saturday night's victory was the violence and mischief that so often mars such achievements, a fact which should not be overlooked. The eyes of the sporting world were on the Detroit Red Wings and their fans this weekend, and what they saw was nothing less than positive. The Stanley Cup Champion Red Wings are one of brightest lights in a city that has a great deal of which to be proud. Mr. President, prior game 1 of the finals, I made a friendly wager with our colleague Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, on the outcome of the series. Senator Santorum unwisely bet Philadelphia Tastykakes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to display them here at this time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

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

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act of 1997. This bill will provide targeted relief from litigation excesses to small businesses. Small businesses in Michigan and across the Nation have faced increasingly burdensome litigation and desperately need relief from unwarranted and costly lawsuits. While other sectors of our society and our economy also need relief from litigation excesses, small businesses by their very nature are particularly vulnerable to lawsuit abuses and especially unable to bear the high costs of unjustified and unfair litigation against them. As this week is Small Business Week, it provides a fine opportunity for us to focus on relieving the burdens faced by small businesses. Small businesses represent the engine of our growing economy and provide countless benefits to communities across America. The Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business, for example, has estimated that there are over 20 million small businesses in America and that small businesses generate 50 percent of the country's private sector output. When I was in Michigan last week over the Memorial Day recess, I heard story after story from small businesses about the constraints, limitations, and fear imposed on them by the threat of abusive and unwarranted litigation. I also heard about the high costs that they must pay for liability insurance. Those represent costs that could be going to expand small businesses, to provide more jobs, or to offer more benefits. According to a recent Gallup survey, one out of every five small businesses decides not to hire more employees, expand its business, introduce a new product, or improve an existing one out of fear of lawsuits. Before the Memorial Day recess, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, which--if signed by the President--will provide specific protections from abusive litigation to volunteers. The Senate passed that legislation by an overwhelming margin of 99 to 1. That legislation provides a model for further targeted reforms for sectors that are particularly hard hit and in need of immediate relief. Small businesses have carried an often unbearable load from unwarranted and unjustified lawsuits. Data from San Diego's superior court published by the Washington Legal Foundation revealed that punitive damages were requested in 41 percent of suits against small businesses. It is unfathomable that such a large proportion of our small businesses are engaging in the sort of egregious misconduct that would warrant a claim of punitive damages. Unfortunately, those sort of findings are not unusual. The National Federation of Independent Business has reported that 34 percent of Texas small business owners have been sued or threatened with court action seeking punitive damages. Those figures are outrageously high and simply cannot have anything to do with actual wrongdoing. We know of far too many examples of expensive and ridiculous legal threats faced by our small businesses that they must defend every day. In a case reported by the American Consulting Engineers Council, a drunk driver had an accident after speeding and bypassing detour signs. Eight hours after the crash, the driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.09. The driver sued the engineering firm that designed the road, the contractor, the subcontractor, and the State highway department. Five years later, and after expending exorbitant amounts on legal fees, the defendants settled the case for $35,000. The engineering firm--a small 15 person firm--was swamped with over $200,000 in legal costs. That represents an intolerable amount for a small business to have to pay in defending a questionable and unwarranted lawsuit. There are more examples. In an Ann Landers column from October 1995, a case was reported that involved a minister and his wife who sued a guide dog school for $160,000 after a blind man who was learning to use a seeing-eye dog stepped on the woman's toes in a shopping mall. The guide dog school, Southeastern Guide Dogs, Inc., which provided the instructor supervising the man, was the only school of its kind in the Southeast. It trains seeing-eye dogs at no cost to the visually impaired. The couple filed their lawsuit 13 months after the so-called accident, in which witnesses reported that the woman did not move out of the blind man's way because she wanted to see if the dog would walk around her. The experiences of a small business in Michigan, the Michigan Furnace Co., is likewise alarming. The plawsuit in the history of her company has been a nuisance lawsuit. She indicates that if the money the company spends on liability insurance and legal fees was distributed among the employees, it would amount to a $10,000 annual raise per employee. These costs are stifling our small businesses and the people who work there. The straightforward provisions of the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act will provide small businesses with relief by discouraging abusive litigation. The bill contains essentially two principal reforms. First, the bill limits punitive damages that may be awarded against a small business. In most civil lawsuits against small businesses, punitive damages would be available against the small business only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm was caused by the small business through at least a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of the claimant. Punitive damages would also be limited in amount. Punitive damages would be limited to the lesser of $250,000 or two times the compensatory damages awarded for the harm. That formulation is exactly the same formulation that appears in the small business protection provision that was included in the product liability conference report that passed in the 104th Congress. Second, joint and several liability reforms for small businesses are included under the exact same formulation that was used both in the Volunteer Protection Act passed this Congress and in the product liability conference report passed last Congress. Joint and several liability would be limited so that a small business would be liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to the small business's responsibility for causing the harm. If a small business is responsible for 100% of an accident, then it will be liable for 100% of noneconomic damages. But if it is only 70%, 25%, 10%, or any other amount responsible, then the small business will be liable only for that same percent of noneconomic damages. Of course, small businesses would still be jointly and severally liable for economic damages, and any other defendants in the action that were not small businesses could be held jointly and severally liable for all damages. This should provide some protection to small businesses so that they will not be sought out as ``deep pocket'' defendants by trial lawyers who would otherwise try to get them on the hook for harms that they have not caused. The fact is that many small businesses simply do not have deep pockets, and they frequently need all of their resources just to stay in business, take care of their employees, and make ends meet. The other provisions in the bill specify the situations in which those reforms apply. The bill defines small business as any business having fewer than 25 employees. That is the same definition of small business that was included in the Product Liability Conference Report. Like the Volunteer Protection Act, this bill covers all civil lawsuits with the exception of suits involving certain types of egregious conduct. The limitations on liability included in the bill would not apply to any misconduct that constitutes a crime of violence, act of international terrorism, hate crime, sexual offense, or civil rights law violation, or which occurred while the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or any drug. Also like the Volunteer Protection Act, the bill includes a State opt-out. A State would be able to opt out of the provisions of the bill provided the State enacts a law indicating its election to do so and containing no other provisions. I do not expect that any State will opt-out of these provisions, but I feel it is important to include one out of respect for principles of federalism. I am pleased to have Senators McConnell, Coverdell, Santorum and McCain as original cosponsors of the legislation and very much appreciate their support for our small businesses and for meaningful litigation reforms. The bill is also supported by the National Federation of Independent Business and by the National Restaurant Association. I ask unanimous consent that letters from those two organizations be inserted in the Record. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record, as well as the full text of the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support this simple and much- needed legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act of 1997. This bill will provide targeted relief from litigation excesses to small businesses. Small businesses in Michigan and across the Nation have faced increasingly burdensome litigation and desperately need relief from unwarranted and costly lawsuits. While other sectors of our society and our economy also need relief from litigation excesses, small businesses by their very nature are particularly vulnerable to lawsuit abuses and especially unable to bear the high costs of unjustified and unfair litigation against them. As this week is Small Business Week, it provides a fine opportunity for us to focus on relieving the burdens faced by small businesses. Small businesses represent the engine of our growing economy and provide countless benefits to communities across America. The Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business, for example, has estimated that there are over 20 million small businesses in America and that small businesses generate 50 percent of the country's private sector output. When I was in Michigan last week over the Memorial Day recess, I heard story after story from small businesses about the constraints, limitations, and fear imposed on them by the threat of abusive and unwarranted litigation. I also heard about the high costs that they must pay for liability insurance. Those represent costs that could be going to expand small businesses, to provide more jobs, or to offer more benefits. According to a recent Gallup survey, one out of every five small businesses decides not to hire more employees, expand its business, introduce a new product, or improve an existing one out of fear of lawsuits. Before the Memorial Day recess, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, which--if signed by the President--will provide specific protections from abusive litigation to volunteers. The Senate passed that legislation by an overwhelming margin of 99 to 1. That legislation provides a model for further targeted reforms for sectors that are particularly hard hit and in need of immediate relief. Small businesses have carried an often unbearable load from unwarranted and unjustified lawsuits. Data from San Diego's superior court published by the Washington Legal Foundation revealed that punitive damages were requested in 41 percent of suits against small businesses. It is unfathomable that such a large proportion of our small businesses are engaging in the sort of egregious misconduct that would warrant a claim of punitive damages. Unfortunately, those sort of findings are not unusual. The National Federation of Independent Business has reported that 34 percent of Texas small business owners have been sued or threatened with court action seeking punitive damages. Those figures are outrageously high and simply cannot have anything to do with actual wrongdoing. We know of far too many examples of expensive and ridiculous legal threats faced by our small businesses that they must defend every day. In a case reported by the American Consulting Engineers Council, a drunk driver had an accident after speeding and bypassing detour signs. Eight hours after the crash, the driver had a blood alcohol level of 0.09. The driver sued the engineering firm that designed the road, the contractor, the subcontractor, and the State highway department. Five years later, and after expending exorbitant amounts on legal fees, the defendants settled the case for $35,000. The engineering firm--a small 15 person firm--was swamped with over $200,000 in legal costs. That represents an intolerable amount for a small business to have to pay in defending a questionable and unwarranted lawsuit. There are more examples. In an Ann Landers column from October 1995, a case was reported that involved a minister and his wife who sued a guide dog school for $160,000 after a blind man who was learning to use a seeing-eye dog stepped on the woman's toes in a shopping mall. The guide dog school, Southeastern Guide Dogs, Inc., which provided the instructor supervising the man, was the only school of its kind in the Southeast. It trains seeing-eye dogs at no cost to the visually impaired. The couple filed their lawsuit 13 months after the so-called accident, in which witnesses reported that the woman did not move out of the blind man's way because she wanted to see if the dog would walk around her. The experiences of a small business in Michigan, the Michigan Furnace Co., is likewise alarming. The plawsuit in the history of her company has been a nuisance lawsuit. She indicates that if the money the company spends on liability insurance and legal fees was distributed among the employees, it would amount to a $10,000 annual raise per employee. These costs are stifling our small businesses and the people who work there. The straightforward provisions of the Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection Act will provide small businesses with relief by discouraging abusive litigation. The bill contains essentially two principal reforms. First, the bill limits punitive damages that may be awarded against a small business. In most civil lawsuits against small businesses, punitive damages would be available against the small business only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm was caused by the small business through at least a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of the claimant. Punitive damages would also be limited in amount. Punitive damages would be limited to the lesser of $250,000 or two times the compensatory damages awarded for the harm. That formulation is exactly the same formulation that appears in the small business protection provision that was included in the product liability conference report that passed in the 104th Congress. Second, joint and several liability reforms for small businesses are included under the exact same formulation that was used both in the Volunteer Protection Act passed this Congress and in the product liability conference report passed last Congress. Joint and several liability would be limited so that a small business would be liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to the small business's responsibility for causing the harm. If a small business is responsible for 100% of an accident, then it will be liable for 100% of noneconomic damages. But if it is only 70%, 25%, 10%, or any other amount responsible, then the small business will be liable only for that same percent of noneconomic damages. Of course, small businesses would still be jointly and severally liable for economic damages, and any other defendants in the action that were not small businesses could be held jointly and severally liable for all damages. This should provide some protection to small businesses so that they will not be sought out as ``deep pocket'' defendants by trial lawyers who would otherwise try to get them on the hook for harms that they have not caused. The fact is that many small businesses simply do not have deep pockets, and they frequently need all of their resources just to stay in business, take care of their employees, and make ends meet. The other provisions in the bill specify the situations in which those reforms apply. The bill defines small business as any business having fewer than 25 employees. That is the same definition of small business that was included in the Product Liability Conference Report. Like the Volunteer Protection Act, this bill covers all civil lawsuits with the exception of suits involving certain types of egregious conduct. The limitations on liability included in the bill would not apply to any misconduct that constitutes a crime of violence, act of international terrorism, hate crime, sexual offense, or civil rights law violation, or which occurred while the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or any drug. Also like the Volunteer Protection Act, the bill includes a State opt-out. A State would be able to opt out of the provisions of the bill provided the State enacts a law indicating its election to do so and containing no other provisions. I do not expect that any State will opt-out of these provisions, but I feel it is important to include one out of respect for principles of federalism. I am pleased to have Senators McConnell, Coverdell, Santorum and McCain as original cosponsors of the legislation and very much appreciate their support for our small businesses and for meaningful litigation reforms. The bill is also supported by the National Federation of Independent Business and by the National Restaurant Association. I ask unanimous consent that letters from those two organizations be inserted in the Record. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record, as well as the full text of the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support this simple and much- needed legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my deepest respects to Father William Cunningham. Detroit lost one of its favorite sons on Monday, May 26, when Father Cunningham died following a 7-month battle with liver cancer. His passing, and the loss we now face, brings us great sorrow. True heroes, after all, are never easily replaced. However, it also provides us a moment's pause to reflect upon and celebrate the extraordinary deeds of a man too humble to accept any congratulations while still in our midst. Rarely do individuals, by the sheer force of the power of their vision, manage to alter the destiny of an entire city. Father Cunningham, without question, was one of these individuals. His commitment to Detroit, and to eradicating the problems that plagued it, was unwavering. Where others decried the insurmountable obstacles, Father Cunningham optimistically advocated solutions. William Thomas Cunningham grew up in Detroit's Boston-Edison neighborhood. He attended Sacred Heart and St. John's Provincial Seminaries and was ordained into the priesthood in 1955. Father Cunningham was teaching English at Sacred Heart Seminary when widespread rioting broke out in Detroit in the summer of 1967. Just a few short blocks from his classroom Detroit was being torn apart, both literally and figuratively. In the aftermath of this deadly summer, Father Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis, a Taylor, MI, housewife and mother, joined forces. Angered by what they felt was an inadequate response on the part of the religious, academic, industrial, and government establishments, Cunningham and Josaitis formed a civil rights organization, Focus:HOPE, to work to ensure the summer of 1968 was a peaceful one. In an effort to promote racial harmony, Cunningham and Josaitis began gathering and distributing food and clothing to riot victims. In the process of doing so, Cunningham learned of Agriculture Department warehouses stocked with food supplies. With the missionary's zeal and powers of persuasion that made him such an effective public servant, Cunningham convinced the USDA to donate these large stockpiles for assistance to the inner city poor. Today, Focus:HOPE feeds 51,000 people a month. However, Focus:HOPE has evolved and grown into so much more than just an organization that feeds the hungry. Father Cunningham was driven by the belief that the only thing separating the poor and unemployed in downtown Detroit from their better off counterparts in the surrounding suburbs was a lack of job training and education. So Focus:HOPE set out to make people more employable. Two decades later, on a forty acre industrial and educational complex on Oakman Boulevard in Detroit, Focus:HOPE runs myriad highly successful enterprises. The Center for Advanced Technologies trains 85 people to graduate with bachelor's degrees accredited by Wayne State University. The Machinist Training Institute offers year-round classes and boasts of a 100-percent graduation and placement rate. Yet another program is Fast-Track, a training course to teach prospective job applicants the necessary math and communications skills to be competitive. Focus:HOPE also runs two for-profit auto parts manufacturing firms, High-Quality and Tec Express, not to mention a child care center, a communications center and a food distribution center. Consider the following statistics as a measure of the success of Father Cunningham's work. At the time of its conception in 1968, Focus:HOPE had a budget of about $12,000. In 1996, that budget had grown to $76 million. Focus:HOPE currently employs over 800 people and has 45,000 volunteers. Last October, Father Cunningham was diagnosed with cancer. He certainly wouldn't have been faulted had he chose to rest and enjoy his final days. Yet, as he had done his entire life, Father Cunningham chose to fight on. At the same time he battled his cancer, he continued to press forward with his latest project. In the days ahead, Focus:HOPE will open Tech Villas, an apartment complex of over 100 units, will be constructed within an empty former Michigan Yellow Pages building. Father Cunningham was a man who had received the praise of presidents, heads of industry, and an entire city grateful for his vision. In the end, however, Father Cunningham still thought of himself as a simple parish priest, no more important than those he served. It may be years before Detroit sees the likes of another leader as dynamic and committed as was Father Cunningham. No amount of tribute can ever begin to sufficiently repay our debt to Father Cunningham and Eleanor Josaitis, who will carry on their work. Mr. President, on behalf of all my colleagues in the Senate and all those who live in my State of Michigan, I bid a fond farewell to Father William Cunningham. While he may no longer be with us, his legacy lives on in the institution he built, in the city he helped save, and in the countless lives he touched. We truly were blessed by his presence.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak briefly, prior to Senator Helms speaking, with regard to Senator Thurmond.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you very much. I am happy to be here today. My plane arrived on time, which I was a little nervous about because I was afraid I would miss the opportunity to join our colleagues in talking about the great Senator from the State of South Carolina to whom we pay tribute today and whose recent accomplishment of becoming the longest serving Member of this Chamber is one we all, I think, celebrated from a distance a couple of days ago. When I was elected to the Senate in 1994, I found myself, after the election was over, given the first chance really to reflect on what it meant to serve here and the people that I would have the chance to serve with. I think during an election campaign you only focus on the issues and the opposition and the campaign. But when it was finished, I was able to think about the remarkable chance I was going to have to come to this Chamber and be a part of a Chamber filled with so much history and have the opportunity to serve with such a distinguished Member as is the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from North Carolina and others who have been here and who have made their marks. No sooner did I arrive--I was listening to the Senator from Alaska describe his first meeting with Senator Thurmond. In my first meeting with him, I was amused because he came up and said he was stunned that anybody like me could get elected from the State of Michigan. I remember when he said that, I was thinking that he was taking note of the fact that I was the first member of my party to win in that State since 1972, and his recollection of how long it had been since a Michigan Senator from my party had been elected made me feel pretty pleased that I had become known to him and that he had taken note of my success. I was then delighted when, as a consequence of the committee selection process, I was able to secure a seat on the Judiciary Committee, which gave me an opportunity to serve directly with the former chairman of that committee, who had distinguished himself in that role. Indeed, some of the former staffers of that committee now live in my State, and we have had the chance to reminisce about some of the various accomplishments that took place when Senator Thurmond chaired the Judiciary Committee. Then, indeed, as all the Members who have already spoken have acknowledged, his leadership both in his State prior to his election to the Senate and since coming here in a variety of areas, ranging from the defense of this Nation to the role he has played in the judiciary process and in fighting to combat crime and lawlessness are all signs, of course, of somebody who has made this country stronger because of his presence in this Chamber. I want to single out, though, one particular incident that I remember very vividly, and it showed me the other side of Senator Thurmond. Shortly after my arrival here in 1995, we had, as many of the Members will remember, a very busy first 6 months in that year. We were here night after night after night very late, often in situations where we could not share with our families important occasions. One such occasion was coming up--in fact, it is going to be repeated again in a few weeks--which was the birthday of my twin daughters. They were born on June 22, 1993. So our family planned to have a birthday party for those twins on June 22, 1995. We had plans to take them to a restaurant and have a birthday cake. At the last minute it turned out we had votes that night. That was back when we were keeping the Senate dining room open for Members and their families on Thursday nights. And, happily, therefore, we were able to still have dinner together, although not as we had planned. We were down in the dining room, and it was just my wife, myself, and our two kids. The folks who worked there were nice enough to prepare a birthday cake at the last minute. So we had two candles on that cake. Our little daughters, after eating a little bit of their dinner, immediately turned to the birthday cake and plowed into it with their fingers and began eating, as 2-year-olds do, in any fashion they could without using utensils. About that time Senator Thurmond appeared in the dining room and wondered what all the hubbub was over at Senator Abraham's table. He came over and asked what the occasion was and we told him it was our birthday party for twin daughters. He took a lot of time and gave each of the girls a birthday hug, and as he walked away I noticed a couple of fingerprints may have adhered to the back of his coat that night from one of our little girls. The degree to which he cares about all of us here and the affection he has for us and our families which shows a side beyond the leadership side that makes him such a special person. I just want to say, Senator, I am very proud to have been given the chance to come to the Senate, and especially proud to have had the chance to serve with you. I want to thank you on behalf of my constituents for your contributions to our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to address United States policy toward China. When Ronald Reagan visited China in 1984, he declared in a speech that: Economic growth and human progress make their greatest strides when people are secure and free to think, speak, worship, choose their own way and reach for the stars. While China has made great strides since Ronald Reagan spoke those words, it is clear today that the people of China are not free to think, speak, worship, or choose their own way. The question is how the United States, a nation conceived in liberty, should respond to continuing violations of basic human rights in China and other actions of the Chinese leadership. Religious persecution, abuses against minorities, coercive family planning, military threats, and weapons proliferation and attempts to improperly influence American elections. All of these policies have been and continue to be undertaken by the Chinese Government. And all of them must stop. One thing is clear, Mr. President: As the world's leading democracy, the United States cannot simply look the other way, ignoring the Chinese Government's record on human rights. And, despite the real and measurable expansion of freedom in some spheres in China, problems remain. The organization Amnesty International has stated that: a fifth of the world's people are ruled by a government that treats fundamental human rights with contempt. Human rights violations continue on a massive scale. In addition, there have been numerous reports of religious persecution in China. These reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch/Asia do not state that China has recently been targeting religious leaders for execution. But some religious leaders have been executed along with others in remote provinces. And long and arduous sentences have been handed out to certain Chinese religious leaders. For example, Tibetan abbot, Shadrel Rimposh, was in charge of the original search in that country to find the missing child whom the Tibetans consider the reincarnation of the Pansen Lama. The abbot was missing for more than a year, officially labeled ``a criminal and a scum of Buddhism'' by the government. Recently the government sentenced him to 6 years in prison. Other religious leaders have been sent to labor camps. The people of Tibet have been subject to particularly harsh abuse from the Chinese Government because their form of the Buddhist religion is so closely tied to their independence movements; movements that have met with brutal suppression. Allow me to quote at length from a 1997 Human Rights Watch/Asia report: In the Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas of Chinese provinces the effects of a July 1994 policy conference on Tibet combined with the Strike Hard campaign produced more arrests of suspected independence supporters, a stepped-up campaign to discredit the Dalai Lama as a religious leader, crackdowns in rural areas as well as towns, a major push for ridding monasteries and nunneries of nationalist sympathizers, and the closure of those that were politically active. Monks who refused to sign pledges denouncing the Dalai Lama or to accept a five-point declaration of opposition to the proindependence movement, faced expulsion from their monasteries. In May 1994, a ban on the possession and display of Dalai Lama photographs led to a bloody confrontation at Goneden and to searches of hotels, restaurants, shops, and some private homes. Over 90 monks were arrested; 53 remained in detention as of October despite Chinese official reports that none of the 61 arrested were still being held. At least one person and perhaps two others are known to have died in the melee. Chinese authorities acknowledge that they are holding Jendune Yee Kneema the child recognized by the Dalai Lama but rejected by Chinese authorities as the reincarnation of the Pansen Lama, under the protection of the government at the request of his parents. The whereabouts of this missing child should be a major source of concern for every one who cares about religious liberty. But Tibetan Buddhists are not the only people of faith who face persecution at the hands of the Chinese Government. Under a 1996 state security law, all religious institutions must register with the state. Those who do not so register and choose instead to operate underground face the government's wrath. Human Rights Watch/Asia reported recently that: Unofficial Christian and Catholic communities were targeted by the government during 1996. A renewed campaign aimed at forcing all churches to register or face dissolution, resulted in beating and harassment of congregants, closure of churches, and numerous arrests, fines, and sentences. In Shanghai, for example, more than 300 house churches or meeting points were closed down by the security authorities in April alone. From January through May, teams of officials fanned out through northern Haybay, a Catholic stronghold, to register churches and clergy and to prevent attendance at a major Marian shrine. Public security officers arrested clergy and lay Catholics alike, forced others to remain in their villages, avoid foreigners, refrain from preaching, and report to the police anywhere from one to eight times daily. In some villages, officials confiscated all religious medals. In others, churches and prayer houses were torn down or converted to lay use. In addition to religious belief and practice, there are other troubling issues of moral conscience. I am referring in particular to the Chinese Government's birth control policies. Mr. President, the Chinese Government claims that family planning is voluntary in that nation. Yet, according to Amnesty International, birth control has been compulsory since 1979. As a result: Pregnant women with too many children have been abducted and forced to have abortions and/or undergo sterilization. Pregnant women have been detained and threatened until they have agreed to have abortions. Above-quota new-born babies have reportedly been killed by doctors under pressure from officials. The homes of couples who refuse to obey the child quotas have been demolished. Relatives of those who cannot pay fines imposed for having had too many children have been held hostage until the money was paid. And those helping families to have above-quota children have been severely punished. Just one example, if I may, Mr. President, this one provided by Amnesty International: An unmarried woman in Haybay Province who had adopted one of her brother's children was detained several times in an attempt to force her brother to pay fines for having too many children. In November 1994 she was held for 7 days with a dozen other men and women. She was reportedly blindfolded, stripped naked, tied, and beaten with an electric baton. These stories bespeak an often brutal disregard for the rights of conscience, for the sanctity of marriage and family, and for human life itself. They are evil acts, Mr. President, nothing less than government perpetrated evil. Let me now shift to the military sphere. Here, Mr. President, we see Chinese Government practices that include military intimidation and the selling of advanced weaponry to rogue states. For example, on the eve of Taiwan's 1996 elections, China engaged in threatening missile firings unnecessarily close to Taiwanese cities. The Taiwanese were not cowed, they are a brave people. But these provocations, so soon after China's 1995 military exercises and missile launches in direct proximity to Taiwanese territory, have led the Taiwanese people to consider whether they need nuclear weapons to defend their homes. In addition, the Chinese Government has threatened international stability through its weapons sales to regimes, including Iran and Iraq, that sponsor terrorism and pose a direct threat to American military personnel and interests. Most dangerous has been the Chinese willingness to supply the Iranians with the technology and basic materials for their own chemical weapons program. Mr. President, these weapons pose a direct threat to American troops as well as stability and peace in the Middle East. Moreover, the Chinese Government apparently does not limit itself to military means as it tries to influence the policies of other nations. Allegations of Chinese involvement in our political system are disturbing, particularly considering the various implications that this has for our relations with that country. These allegations may involve both civil and criminal violations of our laws by individuals associated with the Chinese Government. The press has reported serious allegations that the Government of China attempted to influence last year's Presidential election by diverting illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. FBI investigators have found significant evidence that the Chinese Government targeted 30 legislators, and that it funneled money through businesses it controlled in America to the DNC. If proven, these allegations would signal violations of Federal Election Commission laws regarding foreign campaign contributions by the Chinese Government. Mr. President, this is a damning list, a list that cries out for action. As the world's sole remaining superpower and, perhaps more important, as the birth place of liberty and individual rights, we have a duty to uphold the principles of liberty wherever possible. Liberty continues to suffer abuse from the Chinese Government. And we should do something about it. In response to the serious problems I have raised some have called for an end to China's most-favored-nation trading status with the United States. In fact, the debate has focused almost exclusively on MFN. I believe 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. 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 ones 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, in my view, 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. Even in the short term, we should not underestimate trade and investment's positive impact. In China, employees at United States firms earn higher wages and are free to choose where to live, what to eat, and how to educate and care for their children, writes China policy expert Stephen J. Yates of the Heritage Foundation. 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, Mr. President, I am convinced that terminating MFN would be damaging to the people of Hong Kong, currently involved in a transfer of power from British to Chinese rule. All of us in Congress are concerned that China may violate the 1994 Sino-British Joint Declaration and squash political and economic freedom once Hong Kong again comes under Chinese rule. With 35,000 United States citizens and 1,000 United States firms in Hong Kong, America must be certain that China honors its agreement and we must remain watchful over the coming months and years. However, in formulating United States policy with regard to Hong Kong we must remember that repealing MFN for China will hit Hong Kong hard, particularly because so much trade goes through there. Goods from Hong Kong would face the same steep tariff as those from other parts of China. Hong Kong Governor, Chris Patten, has said that rescinding MFN would devastate Hong Kong's economy. For the people of Hong Kong there is no comfort in the proposition that if China reduces their freedoms the United States will take away their jobs. The letter from Governor Patten also said: There is one particular contribution which the United States of America, and Congress in particular, can make to ensure that Hong Kong remains well-equipped to face the future. That is to grant the unconditional renewal of China's MFN trading status, on which the continued strength of Hong Kong's economy depends. * * * This is one issue on which there is complete unanimity in Hong Kong across the community, and across the political spectrum. It is not good policy to attempt to help Hong Kong by taking an action that is opposed by the people we say we are trying to help. 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, we would not significantly punish the Chinese Government, but we would visit hardship on our own workers. Rather than eliminate jobs and stifle growth through increased tariffs, in my view, it would be better to take actions showing our displeasure with the Chinese Government, while encouraging China to become a more free and open society. I believe that Members of this body can agree on the need for strong American actions responding to human rights abuses in China. That is why I am introducing the China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement Act. And I am convinced that Members on both sides of the MFN debate can agree that the sanctions I am proposing today are necessary and justified, and that they will be effective. The goal of these sanctions will be to show our disapproval of the actions of the Chinese Government, while at the same time encouraging worthwhile economic and cultural exchanges that can lead to positive change in China. This legislation would focus on: First, who the United States allows into the country from China; second, United States taxpayer funds that subsidize China; third, United States Government votes and assistance in international bodies that provide financial assistance to China; fourth, targeted sanctions of PLA companies; and fifth, measures to promote human rights in China. Let me be specific. Under my bill, the U.S. Government would take the following actions: First, it would prohibit issuance of U.S. visas to human rights violators. The bill would prohibit the granting of United States visas to Chinese Government officials who work in entities involved in the implementation and enforcement of China's law and directives on religious practices. Specifically, this targets high-ranking officials of the state police, the Religious Affairs Bureau, and China's family planning apparatus. The same would go for all those involved in the massacre of students in Tianenman Square. Written notice from the President to Congress explaining why the entry of such individuals overrides our concerns about China's human rights abuses would be required for such individuals to enter the United States. Second, the bill would prohibit direct and indirect United States- taxpayer financed foreign aid for China. We can no longer ask U.S. taxpayers to subsidize a Communist leadership and government with which we have so many serious disagreements. Between 1985 and 1995 the United States supported 111 of 183 loans approved by the World Bank Group and 15 of 92 loans that the Asian Development Bank approved. In addition, the United States Government is providing assistance through international family planning institutions that provide money and services to support China's restrictive policies on reproduction. Under my bill, United States representatives would be required to vote ``no'' on all loans to China at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. An exception would be made in the case of humanitarian relief in the event of a natural disaster or famine. In addition, for every dollar a multilateral development bank or international family planning organization gives to China, my bill would subtract out a dollar in United States taxpayer funding to those bodies. Simply put, America should not be subsidizing current Chinese Government policies. If China continues its current behavior then it can fund programs by reducing the money it spends on building up its military or in propping up state enterprises. We do not want to encourage China to postpone tough decisions on moving to a free-market economy. Though we are standing on principle, we know from past experience that these measures will be more effective with help from our allies. That is why the bill requires the President to begin consultations with these allies on enacting similar measures and for the President to report to the Congress on the progress of those consultations. Third, the legislation includes actions targeted at companies associated with the Chinese military. There is increasing concern in America about Chinese companies backed by the People's Liberation Army. My bill would require the U.S. Government to publish a list of such companies operating in the United States. That would allow informed consumers and other purchasers to make a choice about whether they wish to do business with such companies. Most troubling have been the actions of two Chinese companies-- Polytechnologies Inc., known as Poly, and Norinco, the China North Industries Group. On May 22, 1996, officials from the United States Customs Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrested seven individuals and seized 2,000 Chinese-made AK-47 machine guns. On June 4, 1996, a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California indicted these seven individuals, along with seven others not in the United States, for violating 12 different sections of Federal law, including conspiracy, smuggling, and unlawful importation of defense articles. Those indicted individuals worked for Poly and Norinco. Leading executives of the firms, as well as Chinese Government officials, were indicted. The People's Liberation Army owns a majority share of Poly, while Norinco's operations are overseen by the State Council of the People's Republic of China. Undercover agents were told by a representative of Poly and Norinco that Chinese-made hand-held rocket launchers, tanks, and surface-to-air missiles could also be delivered. And who were to be the ultimate purchasers of the AK-47's and other military hardware? According to Federal agents, California street gangs and other criminal groups. This type of activity cannot be tolerated by the U.S. Congress. These companies need to be held responsible for their actions. Under my bill, for a period of 1 year, Poly and Norinco will not be allowed to export to, or maintain a physical presence in, the United States. Senator DeWine plans to introduce a separate bill that will target these two companies and I applaud him and Representative Chris Cox for their leadership on this issue. Mr. President, these tough measures are justified and necessary. But even as we implement them we should not cut off valuable interchange with China. We must always be open to more contact and exchange of ideas with the Chinese people. That is why the legislation calls for a doubling of current United States funding for student, cultural, and legislative exchange programs between the United States and the People's Republic of China, as well as doubling the funding for Radio Free Asia and programs in China operated through the National Endowment for Democracy. In addition, adopting a measure advocated by Representatives Frank Wolf and Chris Smith, the bill requires additional and extensive training for U.S. asylum officers in recognizing religious persecution. The legislation would require an annual report by the President on whether there has been improvement in China's policy of religious toleration and in its overall human rights record, including during the transition in Hong Kong. The sanctions would sunset after 1 year. This will allow Congress to evaluate the situation to determine whether and in what form sanctions should be continued. 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. Mr. President, these measures will direct punishment where it belongs, with the Chinese Government, not the Chinese people. By refusing to allow known violators of basic human rights to enter this country we can signal our revulsion at these practices. By refusing to use taxpayer money to subsidize Chinese activities we can show our disapproval of their military actions and make them choose between prosperity and belligerence. By banning Chinese companies from this country for attempting to sell weapons to violent street criminals we can show our willingness to defend our streets and our insistence that the Chinese Government cease its intrusive, illegal practices. In closing, Mr. President, we should not forget the government-led massacre of students in Tianenman Square. It has been less than 10 years since the atrocity, and we should not let it slip from our minds. Let me read you a dispatch filed from Beijing by New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristoff on June 4, 1989: The violence against students and workers in Tianenman Square was most obvious today, because for the most part they were the ones getting killed * * * To be an American on the square this morning was to be the object of fervent hope and inarticulate pleas for help. ``We appeal to your country,'' a university student begged as bullets careened overhead. ``Our Government is mad. We need help from abroad, especially America. There must be something that America can do.'' Through this legislation, America can stand with the Chinese people, and stand by the principles of political, religious, and economic liberty on which our Nation was founded. Let's not punish American and Chinese families by raising tariffs. Instead, let's punish specific abuses and encourage the further development of the economic and political liberties we cherish. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to address United States policy toward China. When Ronald Reagan visited China in 1984, he declared in a speech that: Economic growth and human progress make their greatest strides when people are secure and free to think, speak, worship, choose their own way and reach for the stars. While China has made great strides since Ronald Reagan spoke those words, it is clear today that the people of China are not free to think, speak, worship, or choose their own way. The question is how the United States, a nation conceived in liberty, should respond to continuing violations of basic human rights in China and other actions of the Chinese leadership. Religious persecution, abuses against minorities, coercive family planning, military threats, and weapons proliferation and attempts to improperly influence American elections. All of these policies have been and continue to be undertaken by the Chinese Government. And all of them must stop. One thing is clear, Mr. President: As the world's leading democracy, the United States cannot simply look the other way, ignoring the Chinese Government's record on human rights. And, despite the real and measurable expansion of freedom in some spheres in China, problems remain. The organization Amnesty International has stated that: a fifth of the world's people are ruled by a government that treats fundamental human rights with contempt. Human rights violations continue on a massive scale. In addition, there have been numerous reports of religious persecution in China. These reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch/Asia do not state that China has recently been targeting religious leaders for execution. But some religious leaders have been executed along with others in remote provinces. And long and arduous sentences have been handed out to certain Chinese religious leaders. For example, Tibetan abbot, Shadrel Rimposh, was in charge of the original search in that country to find the missing child whom the Tibetans consider the reincarnation of the Pansen Lama. The abbot was missing for more than a year, officially labeled ``a criminal and a scum of Buddhism'' by the government. Recently the government sentenced him to 6 years in prison. Other religious leaders have been sent to labor camps. The people of Tibet have been subject to particularly harsh abuse from the Chinese Government because their form of the Buddhist religion is so closely tied to their independence movements; movements that have met with brutal suppression. Allow me to quote at length from a 1997 Human Rights Watch/Asia report: In the Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas of Chinese provinces the effects of a July 1994 policy conference on Tibet combined with the Strike Hard campaign produced more arrests of suspected independence supporters, a stepped-up campaign to discredit the Dalai Lama as a religious leader, crackdowns in rural areas as well as towns, a major push for ridding monasteries and nunneries of nationalist sympathizers, and the closure of those that were politically active. Monks who refused to sign pledges denouncing the Dalai Lama or to accept a five-point declaration of opposition to the proindependence movement, faced expulsion from their monasteries. In May 1994, a ban on the possession and display of Dalai Lama photographs led to a bloody confrontation at Goneden and to searches of hotels, restaurants, shops, and some private homes. Over 90 monks were arrested; 53 remained in detention as of October despite Chinese official reports that none of the 61 arrested were still being held. At least one person and perhaps two others are known to have died in the melee. Chinese authorities acknowledge that they are holding Jendune Yee Kneema the child recognized by the Dalai Lama but rejected by Chinese authorities as the reincarnation of the Pansen Lama, under the protection of the government at the request of his parents. The whereabouts of this missing child should be a major source of concern for every one who cares about religious liberty. But Tibetan Buddhists are not the only people of faith who face persecution at the hands of the Chinese Government. Under a 1996 state security law, all religious institutions must register with the state. Those who do not so register and choose instead to operate underground face the government's wrath. Human Rights Watch/Asia reported recently that: Unofficial Christian and Catholic communities were targeted by the government during 1996. A renewed campaign aimed at forcing all churches to register or face dissolution, resulted in beating and harassment of congregants, closure of churches, and numerous arrests, fines, and sentences. In Shanghai, for example, more than 300 house churches or meeting points were closed down by the security authorities in April alone. From January through May, teams of officials fanned out through northern Haybay, a Catholic stronghold, to register churches and clergy and to prevent attendance at a major Marian shrine. Public security officers arrested clergy and lay Catholics alike, forced others to remain in their villages, avoid foreigners, refrain from preaching, and report to the police anywhere from one to eight times daily. In some villages, officials confiscated all religious medals. In others, churches and prayer houses were torn down or converted to lay use. In addition to religious belief and practice, there are other troubling issues of moral conscience. I am referring in particular to the Chinese Government's birth control policies. Mr. President, the Chinese Government claims that family planning is voluntary in that nation. Yet, according to Amnesty International, birth control has been compulsory since 1979. As a result: Pregnant women with too many children have been abducted and forced to have abortions and/or undergo sterilization. Pregnant women have been detained and threatened until they have agreed to have abortions. Above-quota new-born babies have reportedly been killed by doctors under pressure from officials. The homes of couples who refuse to obey the child quotas have been demolished. Relatives of those who cannot pay fines imposed for having had too many children have been held hostage until the money was paid. And those helping families to have above-quota children have been severely punished. Just one example, if I may, Mr. President, this one provided by Amnesty International: An unmarried woman in Haybay Province who had adopted one of her brother's children was detained several times in an attempt to force her brother to pay fines for having too many children. In November 1994 she was held for 7 days with a dozen other men and women. She was reportedly blindfolded, stripped naked, tied, and beaten with an electric baton. These stories bespeak an often brutal disregard for the rights of conscience, for the sanctity of marriage and family, and for human life itself. They are evil acts, Mr. President, nothing less than government perpetrated evil. Let me now shift to the military sphere. Here, Mr. President, we see Chinese Government practices that include military intimidation and the selling of advanced weaponry to rogue states. For example, on the eve of Taiwan's 1996 elections, China engaged in threatening missile firings unnecessarily close to Taiwanese cities. The Taiwanese were not cowed, they are a brave people. But these provocations, so soon after China's 1995 military exercises and missile launches in direct proximity to Taiwanese territory, have led the Taiwanese people to consider whether they need nuclear weapons to defend their homes. In addition, the Chinese Government has threatened international stability through its weapons sales to regimes, including Iran and Iraq, that sponsor terrorism and pose a direct threat to American military personnel and interests. Most dangerous has been the Chinese willingness to supply the Iranians with the technology and basic materials for their own chemical weapons program. Mr. President, these weapons pose a direct threat to American troops as well as stability and peace in the Middle East. Moreover, the Chinese Government apparently does not limit itself to military means as it tries to influence the policies of other nations. Allegations of Chinese involvement in our political system are disturbing, particularly considering the various implications that this has for our relations with that country. These allegations may involve both civil and criminal violations of our laws by individuals associated with the Chinese Government. The press has reported serious allegations that the Government of China attempted to influence last year's Presidential election by diverting illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. FBI investigators have found significant evidence that the Chinese Government targeted 30 legislators, and that it funneled money through businesses it controlled in America to the DNC. If proven, these allegations would signal violations of Federal Election Commission laws regarding foreign campaign contributions by the Chinese Government. Mr. President, this is a damning list, a list that cries out for action. As the world's sole remaining superpower and, perhaps more important, as the birth place of liberty and individual rights, we have a duty to uphold the principles of liberty wherever possible. Liberty continues to suffer abuse from the Chinese Government. And we should do something about it. In response to the serious problems I have raised some have called for an end to China's most-favored-nation trading status with the United States. In fact, the debate has focused almost exclusively on MFN. I believe 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. 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 ones 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, in my view, 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. Even in the short term, we should not underestimate trade and investment's positive impact. In China, employees at United States firms earn higher wages and are free to choose where to live, what to eat, and how to educate and care for their children, writes China policy expert Stephen J. Yates of the Heritage Foundation. 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, Mr. President, I am convinced that terminating MFN would be damaging to the people of Hong Kong, currently involved in a transfer of power from British to Chinese rule. All of us in Congress are concerned that China may violate the 1994 Sino-British Joint Declaration and squash political and economic freedom once Hong Kong again comes under Chinese rule. With 35,000 United States citizens and 1,000 United States firms in Hong Kong, America must be certain that China honors its agreement and we must remain watchful over the coming months and years. However, in formulating United States policy with regard to Hong Kong we must remember that repealing MFN for China will hit Hong Kong hard, particularly because so much trade goes through there. Goods from Hong Kong would face the same steep tariff as those from other parts of China. Hong Kong Governor, Chris Patten, has said that rescinding MFN would devastate Hong Kong's economy. For the people of Hong Kong there is no comfort in the proposition that if China reduces their freedoms the United States will take away their jobs. The letter from Governor Patten also said: There is one particular contribution which the United States of America, and Congress in particular, can make to ensure that Hong Kong remains well-equipped to face the future. That is to grant the unconditional renewal of China's MFN trading status, on which the continued strength of Hong Kong's economy depends. * * * This is one issue on which there is complete unanimity in Hong Kong across the community, and across the political spectrum. It is not good policy to attempt to help Hong Kong by taking an action that is opposed by the people we say we are trying to help. 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, we would not significantly punish the Chinese Government, but we would visit hardship on our own workers. Rather than eliminate jobs and stifle growth through increased tariffs, in my view, it would be better to take actions showing our displeasure with the Chinese Government, while encouraging China to become a more free and open society. I believe that Members of this body can agree on the need for strong American actions responding to human rights abuses in China. That is why I am introducing the China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement Act. And I am convinced that Members on both sides of the MFN debate can agree that the sanctions I am proposing today are necessary and justified, and that they will be effective. The goal of these sanctions will be to show our disapproval of the actions of the Chinese Government, while at the same time encouraging worthwhile economic and cultural exchanges that can lead to positive change in China. This legislation would focus on: First, who the United States allows into the country from China; second, United States taxpayer funds that subsidize China; third, United States Government votes and assistance in international bodies that provide financial assistance to China; fourth, targeted sanctions of PLA companies; and fifth, measures to promote human rights in China. Let me be specific. Under my bill, the U.S. Government would take the following actions: First, it would prohibit issuance of U.S. visas to human rights violators. The bill would prohibit the granting of United States visas to Chinese Government officials who work in entities involved in the implementation and enforcement of China's law and directives on religious practices. Specifically, this targets high-ranking officials of the state police, the Religious Affairs Bureau, and China's family planning apparatus. The same would go for all those involved in the massacre of students in Tianenman Square. Written notice from the President to Congress explaining why the entry of such individuals overrides our concerns about China's human rights abuses would be required for such individuals to enter the United States. Second, the bill would prohibit direct and indirect United States- taxpayer financed foreign aid for China. We can no longer ask U.S. taxpayers to subsidize a Communist leadership and government with which we have so many serious disagreements. Between 1985 and 1995 the United States supported 111 of 183 loans approved by the World Bank Group and 15 of 92 loans that the Asian Development Bank approved. In addition, the United States Government is providing assistance through international family planning institutions that provide money and services to support China's restrictive policies on reproduction. Under my bill, United States representatives would be required to vote ``no'' on all loans to China at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. An exception would be made in the case of humanitarian relief in the event of a natural disaster or famine. In addition, for every dollar a multilateral development bank or international family planning organization gives to China, my bill would subtract out a dollar in United States taxpayer funding to those bodies. Simply put, America should not be subsidizing current Chinese Government policies. If China continues its current behavior then it can fund programs by reducing the money it spends on building up its military or in propping up state enterprises. We do not want to encourage China to postpone tough decisions on moving to a free-market economy. Though we are standing on principle, we know from past experience that these measures will be more effective with help from our allies. That is why the bill requires the President to begin consultations with these allies on enacting similar measures and for the President to report to the Congress on the progress of those consultations. Third, the legislation includes actions targeted at companies associated with the Chinese military. There is increasing concern in America about Chinese companies backed by the People's Liberation Army. My bill would require the U.S. Government to publish a list of such companies operating in the United States. That would allow informed consumers and other purchasers to make a choice about whether they wish to do business with such companies. Most troubling have been the actions of two Chinese companies-- Polytechnologies Inc., known as Poly, and Norinco, the China North Industries Group. On May 22, 1996, officials from the United States Customs Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrested seven individuals and seized 2,000 Chinese-made AK-47 machine guns. On June 4, 1996, a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California indicted these seven individuals, along with seven others not in the United States, for violating 12 different sections of Federal law, including conspiracy, smuggling, and unlawful importation of defense articles. Those indicted individuals worked for Poly and Norinco. Leading executives of the firms, as well as Chinese Government officials, were indicted. The People's Liberation Army owns a majority share of Poly, while Norinco's operations are overseen by the State Council of the People's Republic of China. Undercover agents were told by a representative of Poly and Norinco that Chinese-made hand-held rocket launchers, tanks, and surface-to-air missiles could also be delivered. And who were to be the ultimate purchasers of the AK-47's and other military hardware? According to Federal agents, California street gangs and other criminal groups. This type of activity cannot be tolerated by the U.S. Congress. These companies need to be held responsible for their actions. Under my bill, for a period of 1 year, Poly and Norinco will not be allowed to export to, or maintain a physical presence in, the United States. Senator DeWine plans to introduce a separate bill that will target these two companies and I applaud him and Representative Chris Cox for their leadership on this issue. Mr. President, these tough measures are justified and necessary. But even as we implement them we should not cut off valuable interchange with China. We must always be open to more contact and exchange of ideas with the Chinese people. That is why the legislation calls for a doubling of current United States funding for student, cultural, and legislative exchange programs between the United States and the People's Republic of China, as well as doubling the funding for Radio Free Asia and programs in China operated through the National Endowment for Democracy. In addition, adopting a measure advocated by Representatives Frank Wolf and Chris Smith, the bill requires additional and extensive training for U.S. asylum officers in recognizing religious persecution. The legislation would require an annual report by the President on whether there has been improvement in China's policy of religious toleration and in its overall human rights record, including during the transition in Hong Kong. The sanctions would sunset after 1 year. This will allow Congress to evaluate the situation to determine whether and in what form sanctions should be continued. 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. Mr. President, these measures will direct punishment where it belongs, with the Chinese Government, not the Chinese people. By refusing to allow known violators of basic human rights to enter this country we can signal our revulsion at these practices. By refusing to use taxpayer money to subsidize Chinese activities we can show our disapproval of their military actions and make them choose between prosperity and belligerence. By banning Chinese companies from this country for attempting to sell weapons to violent street criminals we can show our willingness to defend our streets and our insistence that the Chinese Government cease its intrusive, illegal practices. In closing, Mr. President, we should not forget the government-led massacre of students in Tianenman Square. It has been less than 10 years since the atrocity, and we should not let it slip from our minds. Let me read you a dispatch filed from Beijing by New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristoff on June 4, 1989: The violence against students and workers in Tianenman Square was most obvious today, because for the most part they were the ones getting killed * * * To be an American on the square this morning was to be the object of fervent hope and inarticulate pleas for help. ``We appeal to your country,'' a university student begged as bullets careened overhead. ``Our Government is mad. We need help from abroad, especially America. There must be something that America can do.'' Through this legislation, America can stand with the Chinese people, and stand by the principles of political, religious, and economic liberty on which our Nation was founded. Let's not punish American and Chinese families by raising tariffs. Instead, let's punish specific abuses and encourage the further development of the economic and political liberties we cherish. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record.