Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I offer today legislation entitled the ``Consumer Rights in Federal Class Actions Act of 2000.'' It is designed to incorporate checks upon the abuses of class action law that has led to an increasing number of suits where the primary benefit accrues to the attorney, and not the class represented. The bill also takes steps to ensure that attorney fees in class action resolutions are in proportion to the benefits that actually accrue to the class. The last few years have seen the rise of ``coupon settlements'' in class action suits, in which attorneys reap literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees while the class members merely receive coupons for discounts on later purchases. For instance, in one well- known airline price-fixing settlement, class members received coupons in $8, $10, and $25 denominations which could not be pooled. In another class action settlement, a manufacturer was sued because its dishwashers caught on fire under conditions of normal use. Under the settlement, customers were provided coupons to purchase replacement dishwashers from the very same maker. So not only are the trial lawyers hitting the jackpot for themselves, but the defendants in many coupon settlements actually receive the benefit of a promotional tool for their products. These types of deals only further erode the credibility of our judicial system. Moreover, notices to class members are so densely worded and difficult to slog through that they are routinely ignored, and the class action attorneys are free to proceed and negotiate without true accountability to their supposed clients. The idea of attorneys working for the benefit of their clients has been turned on its head, and now in many class action lawsuits class members exist for the benefit of the lawyer, and the lawyer walks away from the table with a large fee while the class members receive next to nothing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has recently addressed the problem of ``coupon settlements'' with S. 353, the Class Action Fairness Act, which would move more large, multi-state claims into federal court where there has been more vigilance in reviewing class action certifications and settlements. This is an important reform, but I think we can take specific steps that go beyond this reform to cut down on the number of ``coupon settlements'' in class action lawsuits. The first reform in my bill requires that the attorney filing the class action lawsuit file a pleading, including a disclosure of the recovery sought for class members and the anticipated attorney's fees, along with an explanation of how any attorney's fees will be calculated. This will give the court and the public notice of what the attorney is actually attempting to accomplish with the litigation for the class, and for themselves. The second reform would require that, after a proposed settlement agreement has been filed by the parties, counsel for the class shall provide notice to the class members of the expected benefits they will receive, the rights they will waive through the settlement, the fee amount class counsel will seek, an explanation of how the attorney fee will be calculated and funded, and the right of any class member to enter comments into the court record about the proposed settlement terms. This will give class members a more thorough knowledge about what they will receive in the settlement compared to what the attorney would receive, and will provide the court a mechanism for receiving comments from the class about the proposed settlement terms before rejecting or approving the agreement. The third reform would require a regular, continuing disclosure as to how many members of the class are participating in the settlement. One of the dirty secrets of coupon settlements is that the benefits to the class are often of such minimal value that the class members do not even bother to take the steps necessary to receive the benefit, making the high fees received by the attorneys even more outrageous. Some settlements even offer cash recoveries to class members that are so minimal that it is not worth their time to recover the funds. The required disclosure will be via Internet so that the public and legal researchers can access the information, and also will be mailed directly to the class members for their information and use. The final reform is that Congress will authorize a report by the Judicial Conference of the United States on ways to correct a particular abuse by class action lawyers in which they use polling surveys of the class to determine how many class members would utilize the settlement, and then submit it to the court as evidence for determining an appropriate fee. Courts have indeed used these tools to determine fees, however, the polling numbers regularly overestimate class utilization of the settlements by a wide margin, leading to inflated fee awards for class attorneys. My legislation directs the Conference to make recommendations to ensure that attorneys receive fees that are commensurate with the degree that the lawsuit benefits the class. The Judicial Conference is also directed to make recommendations affecting the broader topic of ensuring that proposed class action settlements are fair to the class members for whom the settlements are supposed to benefit. My legislation will expose the trial bar to greater scrutiny in lawsuits that are filed primarily to line their own pockets, give class members greater rights in assessing the settlement offers, and set in motion other reforms that will put attorneys fees in line with the benefit they bring to the class. This is a true consumers' rights bill that will cut down on the abuses by the trial bar and shed more light on who is actually being benefited by these lawsuits. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense reform.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I offer today legislation entitled the ``Consumer Rights in Federal Class Actions Act of 2000.'' It is designed to incorporate checks upon the abuses of class action law that has led to an increasing number of suits where the primary benefit accrues to the attorney, and not the class represented. The bill also takes steps to ensure that attorney fees in class action resolutions are in proportion to the benefits that actually accrue to the class. The last few years have seen the rise of ``coupon settlements'' in class action suits, in which attorneys reap literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees while the class members merely receive coupons for discounts on later purchases. For instance, in one well- known airline price-fixing settlement, class members received coupons in $8, $10, and $25 denominations which could not be pooled. In another class action settlement, a manufacturer was sued because its dishwashers caught on fire under conditions of normal use. Under the settlement, customers were provided coupons to purchase replacement dishwashers from the very same maker. So not only are the trial lawyers hitting the jackpot for themselves, but the defendants in many coupon settlements actually receive the benefit of a promotional tool for their products. These types of deals only further erode the credibility of our judicial system. Moreover, notices to class members are so densely worded and difficult to slog through that they are routinely ignored, and the class action attorneys are free to proceed and negotiate without true accountability to their supposed clients. The idea of attorneys working for the benefit of their clients has been turned on its head, and now in many class action lawsuits class members exist for the benefit of the lawyer, and the lawyer walks away from the table with a large fee while the class members receive next to nothing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has recently addressed the problem of ``coupon settlements'' with S. 353, the Class Action Fairness Act, which would move more large, multi-state claims into federal court where there has been more vigilance in reviewing class action certifications and settlements. This is an important reform, but I think we can take specific steps that go beyond this reform to cut down on the number of ``coupon settlements'' in class action lawsuits. The first reform in my bill requires that the attorney filing the class action lawsuit file a pleading, including a disclosure of the recovery sought for class members and the anticipated attorney's fees, along with an explanation of how any attorney's fees will be calculated. This will give the court and the public notice of what the attorney is actually attempting to accomplish with the litigation for the class, and for themselves. The second reform would require that, after a proposed settlement agreement has been filed by the parties, counsel for the class shall provide notice to the class members of the expected benefits they will receive, the rights they will waive through the settlement, the fee amount class counsel will seek, an explanation of how the attorney fee will be calculated and funded, and the right of any class member to enter comments into the court record about the proposed settlement terms. This will give class members a more thorough knowledge about what they will receive in the settlement compared to what the attorney would receive, and will provide the court a mechanism for receiving comments from the class about the proposed settlement terms before rejecting or approving the agreement. The third reform would require a regular, continuing disclosure as to how many members of the class are participating in the settlement. One of the dirty secrets of coupon settlements is that the benefits to the class are often of such minimal value that the class members do not even bother to take the steps necessary to receive the benefit, making the high fees received by the attorneys even more outrageous. Some settlements even offer cash recoveries to class members that are so minimal that it is not worth their time to recover the funds. The required disclosure will be via Internet so that the public and legal researchers can access the information, and also will be mailed directly to the class members for their information and use. The final reform is that Congress will authorize a report by the Judicial Conference of the United States on ways to correct a particular abuse by class action lawyers in which they use polling surveys of the class to determine how many class members would utilize the settlement, and then submit it to the court as evidence for determining an appropriate fee. Courts have indeed used these tools to determine fees, however, the polling numbers regularly overestimate class utilization of the settlements by a wide margin, leading to inflated fee awards for class attorneys. My legislation directs the Conference to make recommendations to ensure that attorneys receive fees that are commensurate with the degree that the lawsuit benefits the class. The Judicial Conference is also directed to make recommendations affecting the broader topic of ensuring that proposed class action settlements are fair to the class members for whom the settlements are supposed to benefit. My legislation will expose the trial bar to greater scrutiny in lawsuits that are filed primarily to line their own pockets, give class members greater rights in assessing the settlement offers, and set in motion other reforms that will put attorneys fees in line with the benefit they bring to the class. This is a true consumers' rights bill that will cut down on the abuses by the trial bar and shed more light on who is actually being benefited by these lawsuits. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense reform.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, September is Sea Cadet Month, and today I rise to pay tribute to the Naval Sea Cadet Corps. Sea Cadet organizations exist in most of the maritime nations around the world. Having recognized the value of these organizations, the Department of the Navy requested the Navy League to establish a similar program for American youth. Since their creation in 1958--and their federal incorporation by Congress in 1962--the Naval Sea Cadets Corps has encouraged and aided American youth ages 13-17, training them in seagoing skills and instilling within them patriotism, courage, and commitment. By teaching America's youth the important role of maritime service in national defense and economic stability, the Corps has produced responsible and capable leaders. Weekly and monthly drills at local units and more intensive two-week training sessions, stress physical fitness, seamanship, shipboard safety, first aid, naval history, and leadership while advanced training sessions range from a submarine seminar to aviation school. Thanks in part to this training, Sea Cadets demonstrate the leadership skills and responsibility that allow them to excel and become leaders in their communities. I wish to pay special tribute to LT Lance Nemanic and the Twin Cities Squadron of the Sea Cadets, for their dedicated service to Minnesota's Youth. I would also like to thank those men and women who continue to make the U.S. Sea Cadets Corps the pride of the Navy.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on the 101st anniversary of its founding, which is to be celebrated this Friday, September 29, For over a century, the men and women of the VFW and the VFW Ladies Auxiliary have worked tirelessly to ensure that veterans are treated with the respect they deserve. The Veterans of Foreign Wars can trace its origins to 1899, with the founding of several local organizations composed of veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection. Members of these organizations were interested in securing medical care and pensions related to their military service. Over the next few years, these groups took part in a series of mergers, until by 1913 a single group calling itself ``the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States'' was formed. The VFW was chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1936. According to the VFW, which is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, eligibility requirements for membership include ``military service on foreign soil or in hostile waters in a campaign for which the U.S. government has authorized a medal.'' This has been a particularly war-torn century, and America has provided leadership in many of our century's conflicts, so a great many Americans meet these requirements. And a great many Americans have taken advantage of the benefits of membership: at this time, almost 2 million men and women belong to the VFW, including over 72,000 in my home state of Minnesota. The VFW pursues a number of goals through its many programs and services, which are aimed at strengthening comradeship among its members, perpetuating the memory and history of our fallen soldiers, fostering patriotism, defending the Constitution, and promoting service to our communities and our country. The VFW also works to advance legislation benefiting veterans, their dependents and survivors. One of its main legislative goals, and one that's very near and dear to my own heart, is ensuring that Congress maintains an adequate budget for veterans' health care. The VFW also fights to make a full range of employment and educational opportunities available to veterans after they exit the service. And through its goals of an open national cemetery in every state, the VFW is honoring our nation's heroes in death no less than in life. Through these and other activities, the VFW is working hard to make sure that our nation lives up to its sacred commitment to those who have given freedom to America and the world by giving so much of themselves. As a nation, we are duty-bound to pass on the experiences of America's veterans, and their brothers and sisters who didn't come home, to future generations. Through the sacrifices of our servicemen and women, freedom and prosperity flourish. The Veterans of Foreign Wars does the vitally important work of making sure that these sacrifices will never be forgotten.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the month of September as Baby Safety Month. This year's theme, ``Good Night, Sleep Tight,'' stresses crib safety. As a grandparent, I experienced the tragic loss of my grandson Blake on March 30, 1995, when he passed away from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS. My experience, and the experiences of the many others I have met since then who faced similar losses, have helped heighten for me the importance of doing everything we can to ensure the safety of an infant. A baby brings so much joy and excitement into a family, along with a new perspective on life. Of course, a birth also means a host of baby products coming into the home--everything from a car seat and safety locks on cabinet doors, to a crib. Experts recommend parents do not use second-hand products because of the safety standards new baby products have to meet. However, if older products are used, parents should make certain they do not have loose or missing parts. The most important thing parents can do for the safety of their baby is to supervise them carefully, especially when they are using juvenile products. Baby products are designed for safe use, but not as a substitute for parental supervision. For more than 20 years, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association has been helping parents keep their babies safe from harm by certifying juvenile products and working with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), a nonprofit organization, to inform and educate the American public on safe products. Research has told us that normal, healthy infants should ALWAYS sleep on their backs unless otherwise advised by a pediatrician. Consulting their pediatrician and using a safe crib that meets current federal and ASTM standards will help parents feel comfortable placing their babies to sleep. Despite all the precautions, however, nearly 50 babies suffocate or strangle themselves each year in cribs with unsafe designs. During Baby Safety Month, JPMA provides promotional materials at retail outlets to help promote crib and baby safety to every new parent. Since the death of my grandson, I have been privileged to get to know the men and women of the Minnesota SIDS Center, which serves Minnesotans by working to prevent SIDS and helping families who have suffered a loss due to SIDS. They are doing important work, and their efforts are very much appreciated. The Minnesota SIDS Center and other organizations have helped reduce SIDS rates by 43 percent by spreading the word to parents that putting infants to sleep on their backs has been proven to reduce SIDS deaths in some cases. The lives of more than 1,500 infants are being spared each year. That is exciting news. Even with the recent progress, though, SIDS claims nearly 3,000 lives every year and remains the leading cause of death for infants between one month and one year of age. Clearly, there is still much more we need to learn. Mr. President, I hope every parent, new and expecting, takes the necessary precautions to prevent all potential risks to the safety of their baby. I would also like to thank those at the Minnesota SIDS Center and similar organizations across America who are working hard to improve the safety of every baby, thereby ensuring that ``Good Night, Sleep Tight'' is more than just another catchy slogan.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize September 22 as American Business Women's Day. On this day in 1949, the American Business Women's Association (ABWA) was founded as a support organization for women either entering or already in the workforce. The ABWA was founded by Mr. Hilary A. Bufton, Jr., a Missouri business owner who realized the positive economic impact women can have in the workplace. American Business Women's Day won national attention after passage of a congressional resolution in 1983 and 1986, and President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation granting it official recognition. Today, American Business Women's Day gives every American an opportunity to recognize the vital contributions women are making to this nation. Women have long played a vital role in America's workforce. As scientists, elected officials, presidents of companies, and small business owners, in every job category in every profession upon which this nation depends, women take key roles in all facets of business. Some 27.5 million women work in the 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the United States, representing 38 percent of all businesses and generating over $3.6 trillion in annual sales. Consisting of nearly 48 percent of the overall workforce in the United States, more than 61 million working women continue to prove their excellence with the positive influence they have on America's growing economy. These women are rightly concerned about the critical issues in Congress that affect their ability to work and provide for their families, at the same time they are often trying to balance the competing demands of business and family. The tax burden, for example, imposes a marriage penalty on women who choose to get married, which in turn often forces both spouses to take jobs just to meet their annual tax obligations. And that, of course, ultimately forces families to spend less time together. The estate tax, or ``death tax,'' severely limits the ability of a business owner to pass along her business to her children, and often results in that business having to be sold upon her death. Social Security discriminates against women, especially those who are forced to return to the workforce after the death of a spouse, or who choose to work part time while raising a family. Obsolete federal laws restrict the ability of employers to offer flexible working arrangements. For example, a week in which a working mother must stay home with a sick child cannot legally be ``balanced'' with the hours of the following week, when a lighter home schedule means a worker could spend extra hours on the job. At the urging of thousands of Minnesota's working women, these are concerns I have worked hard to address. We have made progress--the $500 per-child tax credit I authored is helping ease the family tax burden-- but much work remains. The American Business Women's Association has recognized 10 influential women each year since 1953 for their stellar achievements and contributions to the American work force. I am proud to mention that Ms. Leslie Hall from Rochester, MN, is one of the 10 finalists for the year 2001. Ms. Hall is an associate of clinical microbiology at the Mayo Clinic, who was recognized in 1998, for her scientific work in mycology as the recipient of the Billy H. Cooper Memorial Award. I congratulate her for her many achievements. Mr. President, I am honored to be able to stand here today and pay tribute to every woman in my home state of Minnesota and across America who has contributed to our nation's economic prosperity and innovation. They have my sincere thanks.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to clarify the tax exemption status for small property and casualty insurance companies. These small companies are vitally important to provide needed services for our rural and farming communities. Under current law, an insurance company with up to $350,000 in premium is tax-exempt. In addition, companies with premiums that exceed $350,000 but do not exceed $1,200,000 are allowed to elect to be taxed on their net investment income. Investment income or assets are not considered when determining qualification for either tax-exempt status or investment income taxation. These companies are allowed to elect to be taxed on their net investment income. Early this year, President proposed in his FY 2001 budget to modify this calculation to include investment and other types of income. The proposal would also change the tax law to allow companies with premiums below $350,000 to elect to be taxed on their net investment income. By including investment income into the calculation, it is the intent of the administration to prohibit foreign companies and other large insurers from sheltering income from taxes. However, by including investment into the calculation, the intended beneficiaries, small property and casualty insurance companies, will not be able to qualify for the exemption defeating the intent of Congress and purpose for the provision. Mr. President, since 1921, small insurance companies have been exempt from federal taxation so that all their financial resources could be used for claims paying. It has been the public policy goal to maintain small, rural, farm- oriented insurers so that all Americans would have access to coverage at a reasonable cost. While the administration's goal of closing the loophole is admirable, the current proposal would only serve to harm the small U.S. farm insurance company that the provision is there to protect. My legislation would close the loophole by limiting the provision to only those companies that are directly owned by their policyholders and the company operates in only one state. In addition, the legislation would increase the tax exemption level from $350,000 to $531,000, indexed for inflation every year thereafter, and it would increase the investment income election from $1.2 million to $1.8 million, indexed for inflation every year thereafter. The last time these levels were increased was 1986. Inflation has eroded the levels to the point of being irrelevant. The increased levels were calculated by using the CPI to adjust the levels for inflation. Mr. President, by making these changes we can ensure that our rural and farming communities will continue to receive the needed insurance services. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to clarify the tax exemption status for small property and casualty insurance companies. These small companies are vitally important to provide needed services for our rural and farming communities. Under current law, an insurance company with up to $350,000 in premium is tax-exempt. In addition, companies with premiums that exceed $350,000 but do not exceed $1,200,000 are allowed to elect to be taxed on their net investment income. Investment income or assets are not considered when determining qualification for either tax-exempt status or investment income taxation. These companies are allowed to elect to be taxed on their net investment income. Early this year, President proposed in his FY 2001 budget to modify this calculation to include investment and other types of income. The proposal would also change the tax law to allow companies with premiums below $350,000 to elect to be taxed on their net investment income. By including investment income into the calculation, it is the intent of the administration to prohibit foreign companies and other large insurers from sheltering income from taxes. However, by including investment into the calculation, the intended beneficiaries, small property and casualty insurance companies, will not be able to qualify for the exemption defeating the intent of Congress and purpose for the provision. Mr. President, since 1921, small insurance companies have been exempt from federal taxation so that all their financial resources could be used for claims paying. It has been the public policy goal to maintain small, rural, farm- oriented insurers so that all Americans would have access to coverage at a reasonable cost. While the administration's goal of closing the loophole is admirable, the current proposal would only serve to harm the small U.S. farm insurance company that the provision is there to protect. My legislation would close the loophole by limiting the provision to only those companies that are directly owned by their policyholders and the company operates in only one state. In addition, the legislation would increase the tax exemption level from $350,000 to $531,000, indexed for inflation every year thereafter, and it would increase the investment income election from $1.2 million to $1.8 million, indexed for inflation every year thereafter. The last time these levels were increased was 1986. Inflation has eroded the levels to the point of being irrelevant. The increased levels were calculated by using the CPI to adjust the levels for inflation. Mr. President, by making these changes we can ensure that our rural and farming communities will continue to receive the needed insurance services. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a brief colloquy on an extremely important flood reduction project. As the Chairman may recall, I have been a strong proponent of the ongoing Breckenridge flood reduction project in Breckenridge, Minnesota. I am pleased that the Chairman has agreed that this existing flood control project should continue to proceed expeditiously. As a result of the 1997 floods, the city of Breckenridge experienced over $30 million in flood related damages. That flood cost the Federal Government millions of dollars in expenditures for advanced measures for flood fighting, flood emergency actions during the flood, and post-flood cleanup and recovery efforts at Breckenridge. After the 1997 flood, the city has taken numerous actions to protect themselves from future catastrophic flooding. Such actions include the acquisition of many flood prone properties; local design and construction of new local flood levees at selected areas; initiation of a partnership between the Corps of Engineers, the city, and the State of Minnesota for a cost-shared Section 205 Feasibility Study to define an implementable Federal flood reduction project. The city of Wahpeton, North Dakota is located immediately across the Red and Bois de Sioux Rivers from Breckenridge and is therefore strongly inter-related from a hydraulic and social perspective. Wahpeton has also entered into a separate cost-shared Section 205 flood reduction study for protecting their city. The flood protection plans now formulated for Wahpeton and Breckenridge are interdependent with each project relying on flood control features to be implemented by their sister city. If Wahpeton moves forward before Breckenridge, then Breckenridge could experience even more flooding. The two projects should proceed together. Therefore, in order for either project to move forward through completion these separate Federal flood reduction projects must both be constructed expeditiously. The timing associated with construction of each project will affect the implementation options and costs for each project. I would like to continue to work with the Chairman as this bill goes to conference in providing further assurances that this existing flood control project be constructed as quickly as possible so that the city of Breckenridge can be protected from future flooding.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his assistance. Adaptive Assessment and monitoring

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize September as National Library Card Sign-up Month and pay tribute to those dedicated individuals who, through their passion for books and learning, make our libraries places of great discovery. As school begins for millions of children this month, parents and mentors are coming together to promote one of the most important school supplies, one available free to every child: a library card. With the support of the American Library Association, National Library Card Sign-up Month spotlights the wealth of resources found at our local public libraries. Libraries not only offer books, magazines, and reference materials, but many also provide CDs, videos, and Internet connections to assist children and adults meet their educational goals. There is no better place than our libraries for bringing the world and the events that shape it--past and present--to life. Fortunately, a child doesn't need any special gadgets to experience all the library has to offer; they just need their library card. A library card can open the doors to space exploration, put a reader in the front seat with a storm chaser, transport anyone with a good imagination back thousands of years in time, and offer every imaginable point of view on every topic of interest. Mr. President, during National Library Card Sign-up Month, I commend America's schools and libraries for providing and promoting an environment that sparks a passion in people of all ages for books and learning. And I urge parents and teachers alike to share their knowledge and passion for learning with our children by signing them up for library cards at the local public library.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the United States Air Force as it celebrates its 53rd anniversary. For more than half a century, the men and women of the Air Force, through their dedicated service and sacrifice, have helped to ensure the freedom and security of America and the world. Although military aviation in this country had its beginnings in the Army, less than four years after the Wright brothers made their historic first flight, it was not until 1947 that the Air Force was established as a separate branch of the armed services. The birth of the Air Force itself can be traced to 1907, when the Aeronautical Division of the U.S. Army Signal Corps was organized. In 1935, the General Headquarters was established, and the Air Corps gained control of tactical units under General Frank Andrews, after whom Andrews Air Force Base was named. Between the years of 1939 and 1945, this organization was known as the Army Air Force and was led by the legendary General Henry ``Hap'' Arnold. In March 1942, the Army Air Force became coequal with the Army ground forces, a major step in the evolution of the Air Force. Chief Army officers such as Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower witnessed firsthand the vital role played by air power in World War II, and foresaw the increasing importance of air power in future conflicts. Military leaders recognized that the growing strategic significance of aircraft made necessary the creation of an additional military branch, alongside the Army, Navy, and Marines, and in 1947 the National Security Act made the Air Force an autonomous military power. Over the course of its illustrious history, the Air Force has taken on additional responsibilities, extending its reach beyond the atmosphere into space. In 1956, it was put in charge of all land-based ballistic missile systems. The first missile under the control of the Air Force--the Atlas ballistic missile--was made operational in September 1959. By 1965, the Air Force was responsible for the development of satellites, boosters, space probes, and other systems used by NASA. According to former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, America is safer in a dangerous world because of what the Air Force brings to our nation's defense: ``long range lethal combat power . . . strategic mobility . . . global awareness that comes from space assets, and . . . theater air dominance.'' This has been made possible through a combination of highly trained service members and highly sophisticated technology. Thanks to the Air Force, the lives of American servicemen and women in all military branches are safer than ever before during times of conflict. Military aircraft are now able to achieve many military objectives that once required ground troops, and American casualties are greatly reduced as a result. The amazing performance of the Air Force in the Persian Gulf War, which by all accounts dramatically reduced the number of American lives lost in that conflict, shows just how much we all owe our brave airmen. In addition to its critical defense role, the Air Force has been highly active in humanitarian and relief efforts over the years. One of the most famous of these undertakings was the Berlin airlift between June 1948 and June 1949. The largest airlift/evacuation in American history occurred in 1991 when the Air Force moved 52,000 military personnel and dependents from the Philippines to the U.S. following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. An airlift in February of 1992 provided food and medicine to Russia in Operation Provide Hope. Operation Provide Promise, a relief effort into Sarajevo in 1992, was the longest sustained humanitarian airlift in history. The Air Force has also been involved in hundreds and hundreds of other relief missions all over the world in response to earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. I would like to take this opportunity to note the contributions made by Minnesotans and those men and women serving at Minnesota's Air Force bases. These airmen have made a vital contribution to the success of the Air Force over the past 53 years. I would like to thank in particular those serving at Minnesota's Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard facilities, specifically the airmen of the 934th Airlift Wing and 133rd Airlift Wing in Minneapolis and the 148th Fighter Wing in Duluth who keep our C-130s and F-16s flying. These men and women deserve our thanks for making sure that we will always be prepared to face with confidence any future threats to our nation's security. On behalf of all Minnesotans, I thank the members of the Air Force for their selfless devotion to our nation's defense. Throughout the history of the Air Force, its members have made countless sacrifices for their country, from the financial struggles all too often faced by service members and their families, to the high price paid by those who have been wounded, taken prisoner, or killed in battle. A grateful nation will always be in their debt. I'm sure my colleagues will join me in recognizing the rich heritage and dedicated service of the United States Air Force on its anniversary.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, what is the order of business before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. I would like to speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to take time before leaving for the weekend to be here to express my strong disappointment with President Clinton and his Democratic allies in the Congress who have once again denied millions of American couples marriage penalty relief. On August 5, President Clinton vetoed the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act. This week, due to strong opposition from some of our Democrat colleagues, the House fell 16 votes short of the number needed to override the President's veto, thus letting down 22 million American couples, including 550,000 couples from my state of Minnesota. These hard-working Americans are penalized, on average, $1,500 per year simply because they are married. This $32 billion annual tax burden is extremely unfair to these working men and women. Washington is taking this money from American couples at a time when it doesn't need the money as much as these families do. This money could be used for savings for their children's education, for daycare, for tutors, for braces, for a new washer/dryer, for a family vacation, or for a down payment on a car. For President Clinton and his Democrat allies in the Congress to deny working men and women this desperately needed tax relief is not only wrong, it is a disgrace. It is shameful that their spending appetite is growing bigger each year and faster than the incomes of American workers and all of the people across this country who simply choose to get married, start a family, to begin their lives together, and at the altar they have the IRS standing with them. Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples. There are more than 60 provisions in the tax code that penalize working American couples by pushing them into a higher tax bracket, punishing them because of their decision to be joined in holy matrimony. This was not the intention of Congress when it separated tax schedules for married and unmarried people. It also runs contrary to our often-stated desire to strengthen the institution of the family in America a desire that was reaffirmed with the enactment of my $500 per child tax credit legislation. The family has been, and will continue to be, the bedrock of our society. Strong families make strong communities; strong communities make for a strong America. We all agree that this marriage penalty tax treats married couples unfairly. President Clinton himself agrees that the marriage penalty is unfair. He has said that. He believes the marriage penalty tax is unfair, but he vetoed a bill that, by the way, was a compromise, calling into question his resolve to reverse this inequity that he called unfair. But evidently the President believes it is more important for Washington to collect unfair taxes than it is to give tax breaks to working Americans. He uses any and all excuses he can find to keep as many dollars as possible coming into the Government's coffers. Even at a time of huge surpluses, he refuses to let American couples keep a little bit more of their own money. We are not even talking tax cuts; all we are talking about is tax overcharges that should be returned. If you overpay a bill, you expect to get your change back. If you go to McDonald's and the meal is $5 and you give them $10, you expect to get your change back--or for any kind of a transaction. In this transaction, you should be able to expect to get your money back. On a marriage penalty which is unfair, you should at least be able to get your refund. But despite the rhetoric of this administration suggesting otherwise, the Clinton and Gore administration and its Democratic allies in Congress are not serious about correcting this unfair tax penalty. Out of eight budgets the Clinton/Gore administration proposed, only one included a tiny bit of relief for married couples. Their paltry marriage penalty relief means millions of couples would not receive the tax relief they want and need. In fact, the President's plan was less than 25 percent of the plan that was sent to him, which would mean that out of 100 couples, he would say 75 married couples don't deserve tax relief even though they are unfairly taxed. A minor, paltry tax relief was proposed by this administration. Today, families pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and shelter combined. Something is wrong when parents work more to provide for the government than they do for their own families. It is time for the government to contribute to the strengthening of the family, rather than aiding its breakdown. There is no legitimate policy reason to continue punishing millions of American couples through this unfair marriage penalty. By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton and his Democrat allies in the Congress have shown that they care less about working couples who are struggling to raise families. They care more about dumping money into Washington's coffers. By continuing this bad tax policy that discourages marriage, they will force millions of married couples to pay more taxes to support a big government rather than being able to provide better for American families. By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton and his Democrat allies in Congress have chosen to continue to discriminate against working women. Since more and more women work today, their added incomes drive their households into higher tax brackets unfairly, reducing their take-home pay. By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton and his Democrat allies in Congress have done harm to the minority, low-income families whom they claim to help, because the marriage penalty hits lower-income working families hardest. This is not a tax cut for the rich, as this administration always loves to say. Anytime there is any tax relief out there, it is always somehow for the rich. But this hits hard-working, middle-class, middle- income families. In fact, President Clinton has denied relief for couples at the bottom end of the income scale who incur penalties. As a result of the marriage penalty, they paid nearly $800 in additional taxes, which represents 8 percent of their income. So what about that? This is not tax relief for the rich. By denying Americans marriage penalty tax relief, President Clinton and his Democrat allies in Congress have undermined the family the institution that is the foundation of our society by discouraging women from marriage, or even leading some married couples to get friendly divorces. This is just plain wrong. To President Clinton and Vice President Gore, I would consider asking you once again to put aside the election-year politics and reconsider your veto on our marriage penalty tax relief that would help millions of couples live the American Dream. I would ask that. But I know it would be a waste of time. And so do millions of Americans. I know and they know we'll have to wait for a President that is more sympathetic to those who work everyday rather than big government. To ask this President to reduce or sign this bill I guess would be a waste of time, because I believe, as do millions of Americans, that we will not see one dime of tax relief as long as he is in the White House. We need another President who is going to be more sympathetic to those who pay the bills. I always call them the most used and abused and underappreciated people in the country. That is the people who pay the bills--the taxpayers. To the 44 million Americans, including 1.1 million Minnesotans, who suffer from this unfair penalty, I want to pledge that we will repeal this marriage tax bill next year and we will not rest until our Tax Code becomes truly family friendly. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to remind my colleagues that today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. On this occasion, we should remember and pay tribute to the 2,005 soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who are still missing and unaccounted for, and we stand in solidarity with their loved ones and families. I am humbled by, and grateful for their love of country and sense of duty and honor. It is difficult not to feel uneasy amidst the mixture of somber thoughts and feelings of gratitude and pride that this day brings. Uneasy, because, while we are a nation at peace and the wars in which these men fought are long over, they have not all returned home. These Americans swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and with great personal sacrifice, carried through on that promise to their nation. Undoubtedly, many endured years in starved, tortured, isolated misery. Their integrity and heroism are examples of the core values on which this nation was founded. Today, I want to pay special tribute to the dedication and service of the soldiers from my home State of Minnesota who are or were POW/MIAs from the Vietnam war and the Korean war. These great Americans and their families have the gratitude of this free Nation. Yet, we must not rest until all American POW/MIAs are returned and accounted for, and the many questions that have overwhelmed their families are answered. I urge the Senate, the administration, the Departments of Defense and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Agency to redouble their efforts to bring our soldiers home as quickly as possible. Let us all take heart from the POW/MIA flag, which is displayed every day in the Capitol rotunda and which I display proudly in my offices. ``You Are Not Forgotten.'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of Minnesota's POW/MIAs from the Vietnam and Korean Wars.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to draw attention to a vital service upon which many older Americans depend: assisted living. I also want to pay tribute to those who work in this nation's assisted living facilities and dedicate their lives to making someone else's life a little easier. Grandparents Day--Sunday, September 10--marks the beginning of the sixth annual National Assisted Living Week (September 10-16), sponsored by the National Center for Assisted Living. This year's theme is ``The Art of Life,'' highlighting the creative new ways in which seniors are expressing themselves as they strive to maintain their independence and autonomy. In the U.S., nearly 28,000 assisted living facilities accommodate more than 1.15 million people by providing supervision, assistance, and health care services. The need for assisted living services is growing with the rapidly increasing elderly population in America. Advances in medicine and technology have dramatically extended the ability of seniors to live independent lives without the need for assistance with daily functions. However, as seniors live longer, more of them eventually discover they need a helping hand in order to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed--a lifestyle they should not have to give up simply because they are growing older. Just as we are full of excitement from new challenges in our adolescence, in our later years, after retirement, we recognize that we cannot do it all ourselves. The difficult task is understanding when, after many years of easy mobility in life, an individual needs assistance. National Assisted Living Week promotes not only an increased quality of life for the elderly, but builds a team and network to accomplish this added quality of life by opening our eyes to the obstacles we can conquer if we only ask for a little assistance. National Assisted Living Week provides an environment which brings together friends and family with the staff and volunteers of assisted living programs to discover and explore the contributions and services these facilities offer to their communities. These centers will hold many events this week to spotlight their activities and help educate the communities they serve. National Assisted Living Week works as a catalyst, by helping to create strong relationships involving all facets of the community, including places of worship, health care facilities, schools, and businesses. During this National Assisted Living Week, I recognize the selfless efforts of those Minnesotans and many other caring Americans who help make dignity in retirement a reality, and I offer them my thanks as they promote assisted living as a quality way of life for America's elderly.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Thompson-Torricelli amendment, both in principle and, as all amendments to PNTR, this one is a killer that will delay PNTR until another Congress. I appreciate what they are trying to accomplish but disagree with the direction. Despite what you have heard, this is a very controversial amendment that carries more of a political message than is a legislative proposal that would accomplish its purpose. This legislation has not gone through the committee process, nor has it been thoroughly analyzed by many Members of this body. I urge my colleagues to read the latest version carefully before we vote--there have been four versions of this legislation, the last one presented this morning. I agree we should work with China to reduce its proliferation, just as we should work with all countries which proliferate. And I believe the President should exercise his authority under the 11 statutes we have now to sanction when that is necessary. I am not ready to give up on bilateral efforts and existing laws, especially as we are close to a new administration. This legislation is simply not appropriate since we don't know how the new administration will address nonproliferation. Recently Alan Greenspan commented at a hearing I attended that he opposes this legislation. Chairman Greenspan noted ``. . . there is a very serious question as to whether it will produce indeed what is suggested it will produce.'' He went on, ``But most importantly, to the extent that we block foreigners from investing or raising funds in the United States, we probably undercut the viability of our own system. But far more important is I'm not even sure how such a law would be effectively implemented because there is a huge amount of transfer of funds around the world.'' He says, ``the only thing that strikes me as a reasonable expectation is it can harm us more than it would harm others.'' This again begs the question of an amendment that could actually be counterproductive to our efforts to curb Chinese proliferation? Before I discuss my concerns about this amendment more specifically, I want to address charges I have heard against those of us who oppose this legislation. We are accused of being pawns of the business and agriculture communities. We are accused of not caring about nuclear proliferation. Some of us are accused of opposing the Thompson- Torricelli legislation because Senator Thompson has blocked some legislation we strongly supported. We have been accused of misrepresenting the amendment. The Senator has the right to question legislation or oppose it; so do I and others who oppose the approach of this amendment. I will state as firmly as I can--every position I take in the Senate is based on policy--not on politics, not on contributions, not on retribution--not on anything but whether the legislation is good policy and whether it can accomplish its purpose. This fails on both counts. At the same time, I respect my colleagues' belief that this legislation can accomplish its purpose. They firmly believe it takes a ``club 'em over the head'' approach to achieve any progress with China. I respect their right to that analysis, but very strongly disagree. And I strongly urge all of you to look at this legislation from a policy perspective, and nothing more. This is why we were sent here--not to punish a country which has leaders we don't agree with; not to vote for something that balances our PNTR vote; not to send a message to an outgoing administration. I share some of the concerns you will hear today about this administration's China policy. If there was evidence of proliferation that violated international agreements, it should be pursued under existing laws. But to pass new, tougher laws because one administration may not have been tough enough--particularly at the end of the administration--is surely ill-advised and inappropriate. We have no reason to believe that either Presidential candidate would not use existing laws to their full intent. I am especially concerned about this because of my own optimism that the Presidency will change parties, and I don't want the new administration's hands to be tied so severely in this way. Some have termed the broad congressional authority under this legislation as contrary to the President's authority as Commander in Chief under the Constitution. Many of you are aspiring Presidential candidates in the future. I ask you, Would you want this severe limitation on your authority as President? Mr. President, many of us sat down and tried to come up with a way to achieve a compromise with the sponsors when they tried to bring this amendment up before. This is now the fourth draft of the original Thompson-Torricelli legislation, and you have heard earlier today that it answers all of our concerns. There were some improvements, but many new issues of concern have been added, and the core problems remain. Clearly, proponents and opponents are still very far apart on this issue, and I do not believe it should be considered here today without committee hearings and action. Let's take a look at where we are with China on proliferation. We have a long way to go, but we shouldn't leave the impression that there has been no progress. We have just started talks again on nonproliferation after the Chinese called off our dialogue due to their concerns about the bombing of their embassy in Belgrade. Before that time, we had made some progress with China on sales to Iran. China has also followed up on various intelligence reports of proliferation. They have worked with U.S. officials to develop an export control system, and have admitted they need help administering an effective system as a developing nation with many people, many companies and many opportunities for proliferation that may or not be intended. We can hold their feet to the fire by providing support to help them improve-- or by enforcing existing laws if necessary. China has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Zangger Committee and has committed to adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines. I believe it has the will to improve. I also believe it has security concerns of its own that must be factored in. It has an alliance with Pakistan and it has concerns about how our missile defense system might affect their own security interests. Whether we agree with those positions or not, we cannot expect other countries not to be concerned when we improve our own security--or when other nations do so. I still believe engagement between two countries that have differences works better when both countries act out of respect for each other. When we work with others rather than dictating what the results should be and when. To threaten a country's sovereignty rights by imposing sanctions for proliferation we may not even be able to prove only promotes an adversarial relationship that will achieve no progress. Will an adversarial relationship continually worsened by an annual proliferation report which includes ``credible information'' of proliferation with an automatic expedited congressional review overturning a President's decisions not to sanction have any impact whatsoever on China's will to improve? Especially after China thought PNTR would bring an end to the annual review? Thompson-Torricelli continues the annual review and will make it easier for the Congress to sanction. Before the embassy bombing, we saw some good signs China did want to improve. That can start again, but not if this legislation represents the terms under which we will request improvement. This approach would threaten any country's sovereignty--and China has just as many of those concerns as we do. In fact, its long history probably makes them more concerned about how to respond to world powers wielding huge clubs. Further, U.S. leadership is jeopardized since no other country is likely to follow our lead, and I believe the U.S. should be a leader on proliferation issues. Other countries will also strongly object to the extraterritorial reach in the Thompson amendment. The amendment covers commercial items not controlled under existing multilateral arrangements. Therefore, the U.S. alone will decide whether these agreements have been violated by both adversaries and allies. My concerns about this legislation are many--and most of them would continue no matter how many concessions are made by the authors. First--unilateral sanctions do not work. Each year the President would submit a report to Congress detailing proliferation by companies and governments. His standard for identifying proliferation is ``credible information.'' By no means can this be defined as proof of proliferation. The President then would either impose the mandatory sanctions on the persons, companies, or government entities or indicate why he has not done so. The report also includes sales to Chinese companies which ``contributed to the design, development, production'' of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. That could draw in a lot of companies--contributed is a very broad term. A ``contribution'' could be unknowing and it may not even be material to developing a weapon or missile. Also in the report, the President would list noncompliance with international agreements, with export control laws by covered countries, which, if not sanctioned through a national security waiver, could result in a congressional sanction of the entire country--whether or not that country was attempting to help improve its nonproliferation record, laws and enforcement of its laws. It would also include a report on the Commerce Department's role in exporting licensing and post-shipment verifications--inferring Congress could also quickly reverse some of these decisions. To make matters worse, the report would include technology transfers the CIA determines would have ``a significant potential to make a contribution to the development'' of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Now the CIA is making policy under a fairly low evidentiary standard that could result in congressional action overturning any Presidential decision not to sanction, other than a national security waiver. This report, what is included in it, what is sanctioned under what evidentiary standard and what is not, opens up a can of worms we should not be considering here today in a floor amendment. To say trade sanctions are not included is simply inaccurate. Second--if the President chooses not to sanction, determining the low evidentiary standard of ``credible information'' cannot prove a national security risk in certain instances, there is an automatic congressional review, if 20 Senators agree, which would provide expedited congressional procedures that would allow Congress to quickly overturn any alleged proliferation in the report that is not sanctioned, thus putting Congress in the business of routinely sanctioning persons, companies or the government of China, Russia, or North Korea. This raises serious constitutional concerns and would allow Congress to politicize these decisions. This revised Thompson- Torricelli amendment exempts congressional review of alleged proliferation exempted from sanctions under the President's national security waiver authority which is an improvement. Congress cannot take the time to fully analyze these matters, no matter how much we would like that to happen. And since most of our personal staff doesn't have access to the highest clearance, we would rely on the advice of a very few staffers to make these very sensitive foreign policy decisions normally made by the President. At a recent Foreign Relation Committee hearing, even Elliott Abrams, an opponent of PNTR, indicated it was bad policy to have this kind of legislative review. He also opposed the insufficient waiver authority and thought the legislation should be broadened to more countries. Next--this amendment started out focusing just on China--even though there are other proliferators. Senator Thompson, after reviewing this criticism, broadened it to include North Korea and Russia, but still titles the bill the ``China Nonproliferation Act''. He claims after the third draft that his bill covers all countries, but it only covers ``key'' countries as determined by the CIA--once again we are letting the CIA dictate policy. I recall some of the past mistakes when CIA had too great a role in policy decisions. This legislation should include all countries, not just a couple, and not just ``key'' countries. No country should be exempt if there are proliferation concerns. It is only after I concluded this legislation would not accomplish its purpose of curbing proliferation that I object to the way unilateral sanctions would harm American workers and farmers. The actual sanctions under this legislation harm our workers despite what the authors claim. China would buy from other countries, not us, and the U.S.-China WTO agreement would be ignored. There are plenty of other countries willing to step in and take our share of this market from us. The claims that agriculture is exempted from the sanctions is meaningless, as agriculture exports from the U.S. would be the first point of retaliation by China if we impose sanctions. The author claims there are no mandatory trade sanctions. However, I believe my constituents who produce dual-use items and sell under Ex-Im Bank programs would strongly differ with that statement. While the latest draft claims that sanctions against countries are discretionary, the ability of the Congress to impose sanctions on countries listed in the reporting requirements as violators definitely could result in countries being sanctioned, if not by the President, by the Congress under the congressional review. Further, the definition of ``persons'' subject to mandatory sanctions still includes government entities, so it seems clear to me that countries still are covered. Mandatory sanctions would prohibit the sales of dual-use exports and U.S. assistance, including Ex-Im Bank programs. The discretionary sanctions against countries include scientific and academic exchanges as well as rule of law and human rights programs--programs that help us achieve progress with China in many areas of difference. Access to U.S. financial markets, all of which will seriously harm U.S. exporters, and, again serve no purpose since those sanctions will just force China to trade with other nations, risking the jobs of many American workers. As noted earlier, the President would also include on his annual list those who ``contribute to'' proliferation which could easily catch U.S. companies, as well as those in other countries, which export commercial items that are not controlled under multilateral agreements yet many end up being used in the design or production of nuclear weapons without the exporter's knowledge. The standard used under existing nonproliferation laws for sanctions is there would be a ``knowing'' transfer of technology that makes a ``direct and material contribution'' to weapons of mass destruction development, production or use. This is a major weakening of our current standard that could sanction many companies in the U.S. by cutting off their exports of dual-use items, some of which may have been diverted to an illegal end user without knowledge of the U.S. seller. Also, U.S. exports of nearly anything could be determined as ``contributing to the design, development, production,'' etc. of nuclear weapons. While the legislation claims to only cut off our exports to companies in China engaging in proliferation, the ``contribution to'' standard is very broad indeed, and at the very least could sanction companies engaging in joint ventures in China and Russia. And of course the Congress, in its expedited review, could well choose to cut off all exports of certain items without much debate or consideration. While the authors claim to only sanction under existing multilateral export control arrangements, the ``contribute to'' standard could reach far beyond these agreements, as discussed previously. The revised version claims to only enforce China's international nonproliferation commitments, but it lists the Missile Technology Control Regime annex which China has not agreed to implement. There are bilateral discussions addressing this matter which I hope will result in China agreeing to abide by the MTCR annex but the claim made by the authors is not accurate. Again, the President has sanctions authority under the Arms Export Control Act, Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act, IEEPA which currently covers our dual use export control laws, Export-Import Bank Act, Arms Control and Disarmament Act, Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, 1997 Intelligence Authorization Act, Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2000, and the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. China was sanctioned by President Bush in 1991 and by President Clinton in 1993 and 1997. I agree with Senator Thompson that these laws should be used to address proliferation by all countries. This legislation, for the first time, draws the SEC into nonproliferation policy by requiring it to come up with guidelines and regulations regarding notification of investors of any company listed in the report which have securities that are either listed or authorized for listing on one of our exchanges. Notice of listing would have to be included in all filings or statements submitted to the SEC. This would include companies the President has chosen not to sanction because progress is being made, or when he has exercised his national security waiver. This, too, is an extremely controversial new government mandate that brings the SEC into an area it knows nothing about and is an expansion of its authority that would be opposed by many of us. The revised version would also tie the President's hands on Russian and North Korean foreign policy matters. This legislation would involve the jurisdictions of four different committees, yet it also has many references to dual-use exports, which is the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. There is no reference to the Banking Committee in this legislation, yet supporters of the bill claim Banking Committee members are opposing this legislation due to differences with the authors of this bill. By refusing to involve Senators with committee jurisdiction in consideration of this legislation, or by reference in this amendment, I believe it is clear the problem is in the other direction. There are, I believe, inconsistencies in the way this bill is drafted. There are too many to justify considering this amendment without ample hearings and committee markup. The second, third and fourth drafts of the bill do not solve concerns raised in the original S. 2645. In fact, they have raised even more concerns and new issues. Because of these concerns, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Again, I want to say I appreciate the Senator's intent, but I just disagree with the direction of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I yield up to 3 minutes to my colleague from Montana to speak on the pending Wellstone amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from Montana for his remarks. Mr. President, I join in saying that we all share the concern of Senator Wellstone regarding China's repression of its citizens' religious freedoms. I am sure every other Member of the Senate does as well. But if passed, make no mistake about it, this amendment, as with any amendment that would be offered to this bill, will effectively kill permanent normalized trade relations with China, since a House-Senate conference and a second vote on PNTR would then be required. So this amendment, or any amendment, for any reason, basically is a killer amendment to this bill. That is why I am going to oppose all amendments to PNTR and ask my colleagues to join me in adopting this approach. As I've said before, I believe H.R. 4444 is certainly among the most important legislation we will consider this year and likely the most consequential of the past decade. That's because passage of PNTR will create vast new opportunities for our workers, farmers and businesses and also vast new opportunities for the people of China. It's also because PNTR serves America's broader national interest in meeting what is likely to be our single greatest foreign policy challenge in the coming years--managing our relations with China. And as those with the greatest experience working in faith-based organizations actually based in China will tell you, engaging the Chinese through PNTR and other avenues offers us the best chance to advance religious freedom--not hinder it, or stop it, but to advance religious freedom in China. The best thing they say we can do is help pass PNTR. Here is what Billy Graham, one of whose organizations has been working in China for 10 years providing Bibles, literature and leadership training, has to say: I believe it is far better for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship with China than treat it as an adversary. In my experience, nations can respond to friendship just as much as people do. And here is what Reverend Pat Robertson says: I do not minimize the human rights abuses which take place in [China], but I must say on first-hand observation that significant progress in regard to religious freedom and other civil freedoms has been made over the past twenty-one years. If the U.S. refuses to grant normal trading relations with [China] we will damage ourselves and set back the cause of those in China who are struggling toward increased freedom for their fellow citizens. Randy Tate, former Executive Director of Christian Coalition, said the following last year: Our case for greater trade . . . is less about money and more about morality. It is about ensuring that one-fifth of the world's population is not shut off from businesses spreading the message of freedom and ministries spreading the love of God. . . According to a letter from 21 U.S. religious leaders, Despite continued, documented acts of government oppression, people in China nonetheless can worship, participate in communities of faith, and move about the country more freely today than was even imaginable twenty years ago. . . . These positive developments have come about gradually in large part as a result of economic reforms by the Chinese government and the accompanying normalization of trade, investment and exchange with the outside world. Finally, let's listen to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama: ``Joining the World Trade Organization . . .'' he said, ``is one way (for China) to change in the right direction. I think it is a positive development. In the long run, certainly [the trade agreement] will be positive for Tibet. Forces of democracy in China get more encouragement through that way.'' Mr. President, let us also remember that H.R. 4444 contains a provision to establish a Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China modelled after the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which played such an important role in promoting human rights in the former Soviet Union. This new Commission's purpose is to monitor human rights conditions in China, including the right to worship free of involvement of and interference by the government. Each year, the Commission will issue a report to the President and the Congress setting forth the findings of the Commission as well as recommendations for legislative or executive actions to push China to improve its record on religious freedom and in other areas of human rights. Let us also remember that the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom visited China in 1999 to emphasize to Chinese authorities the priority the United States places on religious freedom. In addition, the United States has designated China as a ``country of particular concern'' for violations of religious freedom under the International Religious Freedom Act. Mr. President, every one of us in this body is concerned about religious freedom. Yet as so many religious leaders with long-term experience working in China contend, the best way to advance religious freedom is to further our engagement with China economically and otherwise. PNTR is central to such engagement, particularly as H.R. 4444 specifically addresses the issue of religious freedom. Finally, I must emphasize again that a vote in favor of the amendment offered by my friend from Minnesota--or for any amendment for that matter--effectively is a vote to kill PNTR. There is simply too little time left in this Congress to conference PNTR and conduct a second round of votes. I ask my colleagues to join with me in tabling this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement dealing with the Department of State be printed in the Record.