Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I object now in order to give people time to finish some of the business they have before they come to the floor. We have the vote set right now for 12:15, is that correct?

Mr. GRAMS. I object to the request to move the vote up earlier.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote regarding the pending Wellstone amendment occur at 12:15 p.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time prior to a vote relative to the Byrd amendment, re: coal, be limited to 3 hours to be equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mr. GRAMS. The vote has been set for 12:15, is that right?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the ongoing dispute between advocates of low power FM radio and full power FM radio broadcasters. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Baucus, Inhofe, Gregg, and Hutchison. Our legislation, the ``Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000,'' was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives on April 13th by a vote of 274-110. On January 20th, the Federal Communications Commission narrowly adopted a proposal that would establish a new radio service known as low power FM radio (LPFM). Under this program, the Commission would license hundreds of new low power FM radio stations in two classes. The new service would license stations with a maximum power level of 10 watts that would reach an area with a radius of between 1 and 2 miles, and a second class of stations with a maximum power level of 100 watts that would reach an area with a radius of three and a half miles. Although the commission adopted first- and second-adjacent channel interference protections as part of its rulemaking, it chose to allow LPFM stations to be licensed on third- adjacent channels. The FCC began accepting applications for this new service on May 30th. Over the last several months, I have carefully listened to Minnesotans who care deeply about the issues involved in the debate over LPFM. In the absence of third-adjacent channel protection, incumbent FM broadcasters believe that low power FM radio stations would cause interference to existing radio services. LPFM advocates argue that the Federal Communications Commission has conducted adequate testing for interference and that requiring third adjacent channel protections would unnecessarily limit the number of licensed low power FM radio stations. Further, they suggest that the 1996 Telecommunications Act has resulted in unprecedented concentration within the telecommunications industry. Although I have many concerns about the impact of LPFM service upon current FM radio broadcasting, I share the commission's stated goal of increasing diversity in radio and television broadcasting. Earlier this Congress, I supported the enactment of the Community Broadcasters Act, which preserves the unique community television broadcasting provided by low power television stations that are operated by diverse groups such as high schools, churches, local government and individual citizens. I also look forward to reviewing the findings and recommendations from the ongoing survey of minority broadcast owners being conducted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that will be used to analyze the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act upon minority broadcast ownership in the United States. Mr. President, I am also very mindful of the concerns about LPFM raised by radio reading service programs. In my home state, the State Services for the Blind sponsors the ``Radio Talking Book'' program. Radio Talking Book is a closed-circuit broadcast system which uses FM subcarrier frequencies from radio stations in Minnesota and South Dakota to deliver readings from newspapers, magazines and books on a daily basis to more than 10,000 blind and visually impaired persons. Sub-carrier signals are the most vulnerable to low power FM radio interference because they are located at the outer edge of the frequency space. I am troubled by the Federal Communications Commission's decision to adopt LPFM without conducting field testing of subcarrier receivers. Nearly eight months after the Commission approved LPFM, engineering studies and field testing of these receivers have not yet been completed by the Commission, and it remains unclear as to how the FCC intends to address interference that may be caused to radio reading services. The agency's inaction underscores the haste in which the LPFM plan was developed and gives credence to the view that the adoption of the FCC rules was a rush to judgment. I ask unanimous consent that letters from Minnesota Public Radio, the Minnesota State Services for the Blind and the International Association of Audio Information Services be inserted into the Record at this time. For these reasons, I am pleased to introduce the ``Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000.'' I believe this legislation represents the interests of LPFM advocates, full power FM broadcasters, and most importantly--radio listeners. This compromise bill will allow the Federal Communications Commission to license lower power FM radio stations while requiring additional third adjacent channel protections for full power FM broadcasters. Among its other provisions, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000 would require that an independent party conduct testing in nine FM radio markets to determine whether LPFM without third adjacent channel protections would cause harmful interference to existing FM radio services. The legislation would require the FCC to submit a report to Congress which analyzes the experimental test program results; and evaluates the impact of LPFM on listening audiences, incumbent FM radio broadcasters, minority and small market broadcasters, and radio stations that provide radio reading services to the blind. Mr. President, some advocates of the low power FM plan adopted by the Commission argue that the Congress should simply allow the agency to move forward on LPFM without any input or modifications from Congress. Those individuals apparently favor granting legislative authority to federal regulatory agencies. Since the establishment of the Federal Communications Commission through an Act of Congress in 1934, members of the House and Senate have consistently exercised appropriate oversight of FCC rules and proposals. As a member of the Senate, I have carefully monitored the Commission's activities to ensure responsible public policy and the wisest use of taxpayer dollars. Over the last few years, I have expressed my concern over a number of issues considered by the Commission, including satellite television, rights-of-way management, universal service, the impact of digital television rules upon low power television and translator stations, and most recently low power FM radio. Congress should not abdicate its oversight responsibilities when considering the LPFM issue. Mr. President, I firmly believe that the ``Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000'' will strengthen community broadcasting without sacrificing existing radio services. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill and additional material be printed in the Record and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President. I would like to engage the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee in a brief colloquy on an extremely important public safety project in St. Paul, Minnesota. As the Chairman may recall, I have been a strong proponent of $3,000,000 in Federal funding for the Mississippi Place project in downtown St. Paul. Not surprisingly, I am quite disappointed that the Committee was unable to accommodate requests to initiate work on recently authorized projects. This project, authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, entails much needed improvements to the Mississippi River shoreline. For the past 100 years, this shoreline was virtually inaccessible to residents of St. Paul, cut off by a major parkway, industrial property and a main rail line. However, much has changed in the last five years, and the community now finds itself with an unprecedented opportunity to re-establish a physical connection to the Mississippi River. The industrial property has been converted into a new Science Museum and parkland, the parkway has been re-aligned and the rail lines have been regraded. As envisioned by the Corps, the project will consist of a series of improvements to a section of river which contains some of the strongest currents on the Upper Mississippi. The need to initiate prompt work on the project led the Minnesota State Legislature to allocate $3,000,000 in state matching funds to the 2000 Bonding Bill signed by the Governor. An additional $3,000,000 in funding from local and other sources will be made available for parklands, trails and other amenities. All told, the community has pledged two thirds of the funding required for the project, far in excess of what is required by law. But the most important work of all is the Corps portion along the shoreline, work which is critical to keeping the public (including 1.5 million annual visitors at the new Science Museum of Minnesota) away from the fast moving current. Without the funding I have requested from the Committee, this project will not be initiated. Mr. President, could the distinguished Chairman provide me with his views on the upcoming conference with the House on this legislation, with particular emphasis on the funding which I am seeking for this project?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment that would have provided $1 million in funding for the Red Lake River Flood Control Project at Crookston, Minnesota. This is a high priority of mine, and I regret the Committee's inability to fund new start construction projects. I understand there may be more flexibility to fund new starts in conference, and I want to continue to work with Chairman Domenici at that time to ensure funds are available to begin construction of this important project. Communities in the Red River Valley in Northwestern Minnesota have suffered some of the worst flooding in our nation's history during 1997. Many Americans watched the television coverage of Grand Forks, North Dakota and saw the burning buildings which destroyed a city block, all in a sea of water. But just across the Red River, on the Minnesota side, is East Grand Forks, a town of nearly 10,000 people that had no water, no electricity, and no sewer system. This disastrous flooding has severely disrupted the lives of many, many Minnesotans. Dreams of enjoying warm, spring weather after a brutally long Minnesota winter were replaced with efforts to ensure families and communities were safe, and that adequate food, water, and shelter was available. Just 22 short miles east of East Grand Forks is the community of Crookston. Fortunately, through hard work and some luck, Crookston escaped major flooding in 1997. But Crookston's luck may not hold. The Red Lake River has flooded Crookston in the past, and without improved flood protection, it will flood the city again. The city has experienced severe flooding as a result of the topography of the land, as well as agriculture drainage, loss of wetlands, and the construction of county ditch systems. In fact, all of which have altered the flow of water adding to the risk of flooding. The threat to life and property in Crookston has increased since the 1950 flood when many homes were destroyed. The city has constructed levees between 1950 and 1965, but these levees are seriously deteriorating. Mr. President, there is a plan for flood protection in Crookston. City planners have suggested a combination of channel cuts and dikes. The channel cuts would allow water to flow more quickly through town. The dikes would hold back flood water. The city needs federal funding for this project. Already, the State of Minnesota has appropriated $3.3 million for Crookston for the dual purpose of providing funds to match the pending federal money, and to buy out homes in preparation for construction of the project. Local contributions, thus far, have exceeded $1.5 million, a third of which was used to meet the 50% federal requirement for the feasibility study, and the remainder is to be used as a part of the local match for the construction of the project that was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The cost benefit ratio for the project was determined in the Corps' feasibility study to be 1.6, far exceeding the federal requirement of a 1:1 cost benefit ratio for flood prevention projects. It is my understanding that the city has met every requirement, cooperated with the Corps, and done everything asked of them to ensure the federal funding they expected after the authorization. I want to commend the leadership of Mayor Don Osborne, members of the city council and city engineers in working on this important flood control project for their community. It is my hope that federal funding for this project be achieved so that work can begin to provide essential flood protection for the people of Crookston. I urge the support of conferees for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the ongoing dispute between advocates of low power FM radio and full power FM radio broadcasters. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Baucus, Inhofe, Gregg, and Hutchison. Our legislation, the ``Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000,'' was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives on April 13th by a vote of 274-110. On January 20th, the Federal Communications Commission narrowly adopted a proposal that would establish a new radio service known as low power FM radio (LPFM). Under this program, the Commission would license hundreds of new low power FM radio stations in two classes. The new service would license stations with a maximum power level of 10 watts that would reach an area with a radius of between 1 and 2 miles, and a second class of stations with a maximum power level of 100 watts that would reach an area with a radius of three and a half miles. Although the commission adopted first- and second-adjacent channel interference protections as part of its rulemaking, it chose to allow LPFM stations to be licensed on third- adjacent channels. The FCC began accepting applications for this new service on May 30th. Over the last several months, I have carefully listened to Minnesotans who care deeply about the issues involved in the debate over LPFM. In the absence of third-adjacent channel protection, incumbent FM broadcasters believe that low power FM radio stations would cause interference to existing radio services. LPFM advocates argue that the Federal Communications Commission has conducted adequate testing for interference and that requiring third adjacent channel protections would unnecessarily limit the number of licensed low power FM radio stations. Further, they suggest that the 1996 Telecommunications Act has resulted in unprecedented concentration within the telecommunications industry. Although I have many concerns about the impact of LPFM service upon current FM radio broadcasting, I share the commission's stated goal of increasing diversity in radio and television broadcasting. Earlier this Congress, I supported the enactment of the Community Broadcasters Act, which preserves the unique community television broadcasting provided by low power television stations that are operated by diverse groups such as high schools, churches, local government and individual citizens. I also look forward to reviewing the findings and recommendations from the ongoing survey of minority broadcast owners being conducted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that will be used to analyze the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act upon minority broadcast ownership in the United States. Mr. President, I am also very mindful of the concerns about LPFM raised by radio reading service programs. In my home state, the State Services for the Blind sponsors the ``Radio Talking Book'' program. Radio Talking Book is a closed-circuit broadcast system which uses FM subcarrier frequencies from radio stations in Minnesota and South Dakota to deliver readings from newspapers, magazines and books on a daily basis to more than 10,000 blind and visually impaired persons. Sub-carrier signals are the most vulnerable to low power FM radio interference because they are located at the outer edge of the frequency space. I am troubled by the Federal Communications Commission's decision to adopt LPFM without conducting field testing of subcarrier receivers. Nearly eight months after the Commission approved LPFM, engineering studies and field testing of these receivers have not yet been completed by the Commission, and it remains unclear as to how the FCC intends to address interference that may be caused to radio reading services. The agency's inaction underscores the haste in which the LPFM plan was developed and gives credence to the view that the adoption of the FCC rules was a rush to judgment. I ask unanimous consent that letters from Minnesota Public Radio, the Minnesota State Services for the Blind and the International Association of Audio Information Services be inserted into the Record at this time. For these reasons, I am pleased to introduce the ``Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000.'' I believe this legislation represents the interests of LPFM advocates, full power FM broadcasters, and most importantly--radio listeners. This compromise bill will allow the Federal Communications Commission to license lower power FM radio stations while requiring additional third adjacent channel protections for full power FM broadcasters. Among its other provisions, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000 would require that an independent party conduct testing in nine FM radio markets to determine whether LPFM without third adjacent channel protections would cause harmful interference to existing FM radio services. The legislation would require the FCC to submit a report to Congress which analyzes the experimental test program results; and evaluates the impact of LPFM on listening audiences, incumbent FM radio broadcasters, minority and small market broadcasters, and radio stations that provide radio reading services to the blind. Mr. President, some advocates of the low power FM plan adopted by the Commission argue that the Congress should simply allow the agency to move forward on LPFM without any input or modifications from Congress. Those individuals apparently favor granting legislative authority to federal regulatory agencies. Since the establishment of the Federal Communications Commission through an Act of Congress in 1934, members of the House and Senate have consistently exercised appropriate oversight of FCC rules and proposals. As a member of the Senate, I have carefully monitored the Commission's activities to ensure responsible public policy and the wisest use of taxpayer dollars. Over the last few years, I have expressed my concern over a number of issues considered by the Commission, including satellite television, rights-of-way management, universal service, the impact of digital television rules upon low power television and translator stations, and most recently low power FM radio. Congress should not abdicate its oversight responsibilities when considering the LPFM issue. Mr. President, I firmly believe that the ``Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000'' will strengthen community broadcasting without sacrificing existing radio services. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill and additional material be printed in the Record and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, what is the order of business pending before the Senate?

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to talk about my support for H.R. 4444, but I just want to respond briefly to one comment of the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. I think he was bragging a little bit, maybe, about his uncle who is 80 years old and running in a marathon. I just congratulate him. How great that our senior citizens, because of the advances of medicine, can do that. I have a friend retiring at the age of 65. He wanted to retire to spend more time playing golf with his dad. Another is an uncle who was 85 last year who got his first hole-in-one, Ray Sandey. I just wanted to put that into the Record and congratulate them on their achievements.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, which grants permanent normal trade relations--PNTR--to China. We should have passed this in early June, and I deeply regret the delay and hope we can expedite the House bill without amendments. I believe this is a no brainer. China negotiated a WTO accession agreement with the United States--an agreement in which China has committed to improve market access for most U.S. products and services to China. In exchange, the one thing we are required to grant them is PNTR--the same treatment all WTO members afford each other. The U.S.-China WTO agreement is a good one. China has made commitments in nearly every sector of our economy--agriculture, goods and services. Strong enforcement measures were included which allow us to not only continue use of our strong trade remedy laws, but China has agreed to allow us to use a tougher safeguard standard than our current ``201'' law and continued use of tougher antidumping laws. This will help us enforce the agreement and generally allow us to use very tough trade remedy laws to address dumping and import surges. U.S. competitiveness will also be protected since China has dropped its requirement that U.S. companies transfer technology in order to export or invest in China. Exports to China will no longer require Chinese components or performance requirements. China will allow competition through imports for the first time. U.S. exporters can sell directly rather than using a government distribution system. It has made commitments on intellectual property enforcement as well. For the first time, China will be subject to the multilateral trade disciplines of the WTO. Any WTO member can enter into the dispute settlement process with China if China does not live up to any of its bilateral commitments. We can still use our trade remedy laws against China if necessary, and the Administration has tripled resources to monitor and enforce the U.S.-China WTO accession agreement. Some may say this week that we can continue our annual Jackson-Vanik review of China and still receive the benefits of the U.S.-China agreement--or they will say the 1979 U.S.-China Bilateral Agreement will provide the same benefits as the 1999 agreement. They will claim we need the annual review to achieve progress on human rights, nuclear proliferation and other areas of differences we have with China. However, virtually none of the concessions achieved in the 1999 agreement are covered in the 1979 agreement. And we will not receive the benefits under the 1999 agreement if we do not grant China PNTR. The annual review is not responsible for the progress we have made in China--so it is time to end it. Let's examine what PNTR will mean to U.S. farmers and workers. A Goldman Sachs estimate indicates U.S. exports to China will increase by $14 billion per year by 2005. In 1998, U.S. exports to China exceeded $14 billion, which supported over 200,000 high-wage American jobs. Therefore, exports will more than quadruple by 2005--and the potential is enormous as China continues to grow in the future. USDA projects China will account for over one-third of the growth in U.S. ag exports in the next ten years. It will spend over $750 billion for new infrastructure projects. Since the benefits for Minnesota my home state are particularly important to me, I want to use that as a reference, but I think it represents other States and their opportunities as well. Minnesota's exports to China in 1998 tripled the 1996 volume. China is now Minnesota's 12th largest export destination, up from 22nd in 1993. We are now exporting 25 product groups compared to 21 in 1993. There are many farmers and workers who will benefit from the projected growth in agriculture and infrastructure project sales in China. Overall, America's farmers will prosper with an end to corn export subsidies, increased corn and wheat quotas, reduced tariffs from an average of 31 percent to 14 percent with greater decreases on soybeans, beef, pork, poultry, cheese, and ice cream. For example, my home State of Minnesota is the third largest soybean producer in the courtry, and China is the largest growth market for soybean products. Minnesota is the fourth largest feed corn producer, and the tariff-rate quota for corn will expand by 2004. China consumes more pork than any other country and will lower its pork tariffs and accept USDA certification. This is a huge boon for Minnesota pork producers. Cheese tariffs will be reduced from 50 percent to 12 percent, which will benefit Minnesota dairy farmers. Potato product tariffs will also be cut in half benefiting Minnesota's potato farmers and processors. Vegetable producers will see their tariffs drop up to 60 percent by 2004. And fertilizer and all ag products can now be distributed without going through a Chinese middleman. Tariff reductions will help other Minnesota workers export more in the areas of ag equipment, forest products, medical equipment, scientific, and measuring instruments, computers, pumps, machinery of all kinds and environmental technology equipment. PNTR will open markets for our banking, insurance, telecommunications and software services. In fact, the Coalition of Service Industries states: It will enable U.S. service industries to begin to operate in one of the world's most important--and until now, most restricted--markets in the world. Minnesota's largest exports to China now are industrial machinery, computers, and food products. And exports from small- and medium-sized businesses will expand. Right now Minnesota exports 55 percent of its total exports to China from small and medium businesses. Crystal Fresh, American Medical Systems, Inc., Image Sensing Systems, Inc., Minnesota Wire & Cable, ADC Telecommunications, Brustuen International, and Auto Tech International are among Minnesota's smaller companies with success stories to tell. Their China markets are expanding, and the 1999 agreement will only increase their potential. Of course we have long- time exporters such as Honeywell, 3M, Cargill, Pillsbury, Land O'Lakes, and many others who will be able to expand their exports to China as well. You have heard that the 1999 agreement will not produce overnight results, but I believe it will produce some short-term positive results. And the best benefit will be the longer term prospects. It is important to continue building commercial relationships for the future in order to reap those longer-term benefits. If we are not there early on, we may miss out on important future gains. As China develops and more of its citizens improve their earning power, they will demand more food products, goods and services. PNTR will allow U.S. firms the opportunity to compete for their business. I would now like to address some of the concerns of our labor union friends who believe PNTR will result in huge job losses in the U.S. That is curious to me since the U.S.-China WTO accession agreement is one sided. Union leaders cite an Economic Policy Institute--EPI--study alleging at least 872,091 jobs will be lost between 1999 and 2010, but the EPI study assumes every Chinese import displaces domestic production. However, a CATO analysis shows most of our imports from China substitute for imports from other countries or are inputs used in the U.S. to produce final U.S. products. If a rising trade deficit causes job losses, why are our unemployment rates the lowest they have been in 30 years? The Institute for International Economics also indicates that most of the growth of the U.S.-China trade imbalance is due to China taking market share from other East Asian economies rather than from U.S. producers. The bilateral agreement includes greater protections against unfair imports than we currently have and it will eliminate many Chinese practices that have helped it stimulate its own exports as well as forcing many U.S. companies to invest in China. Any ``giant sucking sound'' we may have seen in the past will be reversed under the U.S.- China WTO agreement. China will be forced to abandon many of its policies which did force or encourage U.S. companies to invest there. The agreement will grow U.S. jobs by allowing us to export more of our products from the U.S. rather than selling through U.S. investments in China. Union leaders also speculate that U.S. companies want to shift production to China to take advantage of labor rates ``as low as 13 cents an hour.'' The average production worker wage at U.S. companies in China is $4 an hour and $9.25 for higher skilled workers. The World Bank indicates average Chinese wages grew by 343 percent between 1987 and 1997, mainly due to China's engagement with other countries. I believe approving PNTR and allowing more trade with China would continue the trend toward higher wages for Chinese workers. A group of 12 academicians recently commented on China's low wages and stated that PNTR would help improve China's labor standards. They discussed China's poverty as the main reason for low wages and often poor working conditions. They concluded child labor often is necessary to help families survive. They believe China's entry into the WTO will help it enforce and improve its own laws, and that opposing PNTR undermines China's efforts to improve its labor rights. They concluded by stating: Whoever may benefit from a sanctions approach to trade with China, it will certainly not be Chinese workers or their children. You will also hear claims that the U.S. is being flooded with products made by Chinese forced labor. Both our trade laws and the WTO prohibit forced-labor imports, and the U.S. Customs Service vigorously enforces our law. Union leaders also talk about PNTR as a reward to China, yet it is hard to see how the bilateral agreements negotiated by China to enter the WTO are a reward. Many, many concessions were made, and those commitments are binding and will be vigorously enforced bilaterally and through the WTO. I hope union members, who will benefit from the U.S.-China WTO agreement, will listen to their elder statesman Leonard Woodcock, who stated recently: I have been startled by organized labor's vociferous negative reaction to this agreement . . . in this instance, I think our labor leaders have got it wrong. . . . American labor has a tremendous interest in China's trading on fair terms with the U.S. The agreement we signed with China this past November marks the largest single step ever taken toward achieving that goal. In my State of Minnesota, Governor Jesse Ventura, in his March testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, also sent union leaders a message. The Governor said: They (unions) better modernize themselves and realize that opening up China to our trade is going to create more jobs here. . . . I have spoken to union members and others who are also concerned about labor and environmental practices in China. While China, as a developing country, has a way to go on these issues, they certainly have made some progress as well. And I am proud that American companies investing in China have created better jobs, higher wages and better working conditions and have begun to serve as a model for their Chinese counterparts. Many U.S. companies have ``best practices'' of environmental, health, and safety standards which provide good job opportunities for many Chinese citizens. Housing, meals, insurance, and medical care are often included in their employment. Here is what a Chinese employee of one American company in Shanghai stated: I, a common girl, with no power and no money, could hardly imagine all these things could be done several years ago . . . don't let the friendship become cool (U.S.-China). Many of the Chinese people are longing for knowledge, techniques and culture from western countries, especially U.S. An employee of another American firm in China stated: . . . when our local company merged two years ago, my salary was increased five or six times . . . Another worker said: After I joined the company, my family's life and living standard improved, I have some deposit in the bank and bought a new apartment which is big enough for my family. You will hear a lot during this debate about how we are pandering to U.S. companies who want to trade with China, ignoring all of our concerns with China. However, as noted previously, there are many examples of how American companies are helping Chinese citizens improve their lives, and as China privatizes more of its state-owned industries, the new owners will look to our companies as an example of how to succeed. I strongly believe American companies care about their employees and that they do not invest abroad to exploit local workers and ruin the environment. I believe American companies help bring about positive changes in China and other nations, and the exposure to Western ideals and values they bring to China includes a better work experience for those they hire. In fact, American companies are taking their responsibility seriously by setting up programs in their Chinese subsidiaries addressing issues from fair labor practices and environmental standards to community involvement. For those concerned about human rights, I again ask why they believe human rights would be aided by isolating ourselves from China. Maintaining relationships with the Chinese people through trade and other contact I believe is the best way to help the Chinese people help themselves. They are the ones who will promote changes from within that will improve their lives. Even Martin Lee, the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, who has long fought for human rights in China, recently stated: The participation of China in the WTO would not only have economic and political benefits, but would also serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the rule of law. The Dalai Lama, also long critical of China's human rights practices, especially in Tibet, states: Joining the World Trade Organization, I think, is one way (for China) to change in the right direction . . . I think it is a positive development. Some believe granting PNTR will help promote hardliners in China's leadership. However, a Washington Post story earlier this year noted that China analysts have found hardliners, including PLA officials, worrying that WTO membership will privatize more of China's economy and import more western ideas about management and civil society which they see as a threat to those who want to ensure the longevity of the one- party Communist state. The U.S. should be part of this, through the granting of PNTR. While China will become a member of the WTO with or without us, I would certainly prefer the U.S. have a part in using our improved trade relationship as a way to make progress on our differences with China. Many human rights activists support China PNTR. Former political prisoner Fu Shenqi says: I unquestionably support the (view that NTR and the human rights question be separated because) the annual argument over NTR renewal exerts no genuine pressure on the Chinese communists and performs absolutely no role in compelling them to improve the human rights situation . . . The China Democracy Party, founded two years ago, issued a statement including: . . . We declare hereby to support the Unconditional PNTR to China by the U.S. government. Zhou Yang, Executive director of the China Democracy and Freedom Alliance, states: Granting PNTR to China is a positive force in promoting China's recognition of world human rights and in improving the human rights situation of the Chinese people. Noted Chinese human rights activist Bao Tong was more direct, saying: ``Pass permanent normal trade relations with China . . .'' and adding, ``But in the U.S., the `Seattle coalition . . . have combined their lobbying firepower to oppose the move (PNTR). From here in China, their intellectual counterparts are looking on in dismay . . . it doesn't make sense to use trade as a lever. It just doesn't work.'' There are many others with similar advice. Included in the definition of human rights is religious persecution. While religious leaders remain concerned about the recent report from the U.S. International Religious Freedom Commission, which points out China has a long way to go toward religious freedom, they point to progress as well. A letter signed by 13 religious organizations concluded: Change will not occur overnight in China. Nor can it be imposed from outside. Rather, change will occur gradually, and it will be inspired and shaped by the aspirations, culture and history of the Chinese people. We on the outside can help advance religious freedom and human rights best through policies of normal trade, exchange and engagement for the mutual benefit of peoples of faith, scholars, workers and businesses. Enacting permanent normal trade relations with China is the next, most important legislative step that Congress can take to help in this process. As you know, the House has attached a Commission on China to PNTR, which would monitor human rights progress with an annual report. It would set a U.S. objective to work to create a WTO mechanism to measure compliance, and requires an annual USTR report on the PRC's compliance with the 1999 agreement and also authorizes additional staff to monitor China's compliance. It also includes sense-of-the-Congress language that China and Taiwan should enter the WTO at the same time. The bottom line is PNTR is easy. China had to do all the heavy lifting. We gave up noting in these negotiations, and PNTR doesn't force us to give up anything. I urge my colleagues to oppose all amendments offered in an attempt to either slow down or kill PNTR. While the amendments point out problem areas we have with China, these matters should be, and are, addressed separately in high-level contact between our two countries. I address them as well in contact I have with Chinese officials. Particularly, I urge you to oppose the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. While I will have a much longer statement once that amendment is offered, I will only say now that this amendment in any form will drive a wedge through our efforts to improve our relationship with China. It will foster a relationship of mistrust that will not help us improve China's proliferation record or its record on any other differences. The amendment is counterproductive. The amendment will not accomplish its goal of reducing proliferation, and it will create hostility between our countries. As Henry Kissinger stated: If hostility to China were to become a permanent aspect of our foreign policy, we would find no allies. Nationalism would accelerate throughout the region. Just as American prestige grew with the opening to China, most Asian nations would blame America for generating an unwanted cold war with Beijing. This amendment will force us on the path of a cold war most of us never want to see again. Also, there have been so many drafts of this amendment, I am not sure any of us will really know what we are voting on. An amendment as controversial as this one deserves to go through the usual congressional committee process, and not be offered in a highly politicized matter on the Senate floor. There has been progress with China and proliferation, human rights and other issues. Let's work with China toward further progress--and use the laws we already have, if necessary, to address lack of progress. Above all, let's not use trade as a weapon. Let's pass PNTR to provide our workers and farmers the benefits of the U.S.-China WTO agreement. This should be one of the easiest trade votes we will ever take. Let's vote on H.R. 4444 without amendment now--this week--not 2 weeks from now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to today announce my support for S. 353, the Class Action Fairness Act, just reported by the Judiciary Committee, and announced my intention to complement this legislation by introducing legislation soon that will require lawyers representing plaintiffs in class actions to make preliminary disclosures estimating the anticipated attorneys' fee, and an explanation of the relative recoveries that both the attorney and class action clients can expect to receive if the claim is settled or decided favorably. My cosponsorship of the Class Action Fairness Act and intention to introduce my own legislation is prompted by some high profile class action case settlements that have generated a great deal of controversy. Labeled ``coupon'' settlements, these agreements have involved the class action claimants receiving coupons for discounts on later purchases of goods or services while the attorneys representing the class walk away with literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, in fees. Often these coupons are for discounts on the same item rejected by the claimants in the class action. For instance, several years ago many of the nation's airlines were sued based upon a claim that they had fixed prices. A database that the airlines were using to communicate fares to the travel industry was suspected of being used to compare and fix fares, and a Justice Department antitrust investigation thus ensued. The Justice Department subsequently filed a civil antitrust suit in 1992 and settled the case in 1994. But firms specializing in class action cases also brought their own civil suits against the airlines on behalf of air travelers. In fact, 37 firms were involved on the plaintiff side of the litigation. A settlement was eventually reached that provided $438 million worth of coupons to an unknown number of passengers, while the legal fees to plaintiffs' attorneys amounted to $16 million. In other words, the passengers got coupons, and the lawyers got cash. You may be thinking that $438 million in coupons sounds like a pretty generous amount of discounts for the passengers, but the details indicate otherwise. Each coupon was good for only a 10 percent maximum discount off an air fare. 4.2 million air travelers recovered between $73 and $140 in coupons, but, again, any one coupon was only good for 10 percent of the actual fare. One particularly revealing fact about this settlement was that one airline that had not been named as a defendant actually asked to be joined in the suit as a defendant because they saw the promotional value of all these coupons going to air travelers. So what ostensibly was a high stakes civil action degenerated into a promotional tool for the airlines, a negligible recovery for the class members, and a financial boon for the plaintiffs' attorneys. It's not difficult to foresee the possibility of collusion between plaintiffs' and defendants' attorneys when the plaintiff attorneys can get huge fees and defendants can eliminate the risk of a large judgment. It obviously is an attractive option to a defendant to settle a case and pay large fees to a small number of people--specifically the attorneys--and avoid the risk of protracted litigation and lawyers seeking a jackpot recovery. Attorneys have a fiduciary duty to represent the best interests of their clients, but it's clear that in the cases of coupon settlement usually the primary interest served is their own. So we now have a problem of plaintiff attorneys searching for causes for which they can bring suit, and then representing anonymous clients that they don't know and to which they have no accountability. In fact, many members of a class in a class action don't even know they are being represented. The windfall profits to attorneys has prompted a deluge of these type of suits, and recent studies indicate that in the last 36 months, some companies have faced a 300 to 1000% increase in the number of class actions filed against them. And you know the problem has gotten bad when the president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America comes out against coupon settlements. The problem of coupon settlements has been manifested primarily in state courts. Federal court judges generally, to their credit, have been more vigilant in policing such ``sweetheart settlements.'' The problem of the proliferation of this type of litigation in state courts prompted Congress to seek a legislative remedy. The Judiciary recently marked up the Class Action Fairness Act, which moves many of these large, multi-state claims to the federal courts where they belong. Many of the class action trial lawyers have worked the system to keep their claims in state court, where they know there is not the expertise nor staff to handle the issues, and which provides them advantages over the defendant. The bill also requires the Judicial Conference of the United States to recommend best practices the courts can use to ensure settlements are fair to the class members, that attorneys fees are appropriate, and that the class members are the primary beneficiaries of the settlement. I believe that these are important reforms, and I want to take the reforms a step further by requiring attorneys in class action cases to make an up-front disclosure about the prospects for success and also give information about attorneys' fees and individual class member recovery in the event of a successful conclusion to the suit. If potential class members are likely to receive only a small fraction of what their attorney would receive, or perhaps a coupon which they may or may not end up using, then they need to be appraised of that fact from the start. These types of disclosures will at least put the potential class members on notice that perhaps the attorneys don't have some noble pursuit of justice in mind as much as they do getting a quick settlement that will net them huge profits, while the clients they ostensibly are trying to assist receive little or nothing. Again, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of S. 343, and look forward to introducing my own legislation to combat this abuse of our legal system.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., on S. 1941--Fire Act.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 25, for purposes of conducting a full committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 25, at 9:30 a.m., hearing room (SD-406), to receive testimony on the disposal of low activity radioactive waste.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., and 3 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on public safety officers' collective bargaining during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 25, 2000 at 10:00 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 2 p.m., in SD226.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, for a public hearing on fatherhood initiatives.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, for a public hearing on Federal income tax issues relating to proposals to encourage the creation of public open spaces in urban areas and the preservation of farm and other rural lands for conservation purposes.