Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to Senator Wellstone for a unanimous consent request. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am grateful to our leadership for affording us this time this morning to debate and to vote on Senate Resolution 45. Some would say this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution so this isn't important and that this is filling time, or whatever. I suggest that there are a couple of things that have happened just recently which underscore the value and the importance of the time we are spending on the Senate floor this morning and the vote on this resolution. Mr. President, just this morning the Associated Press reported that two more members of the Chinese Democracy Party were detained. They were taken from their homes for trying to set up a human rights meeting in Wuhan. That was reported just this morning. It has become all too frequent, and almost daily, that there are news reports of the continued crackdown on human rights in China. These today were detained only for being members of the Chinese Democracy Party, the fledgling opposition party advocating democracy and human rights in China. I think this incident, just reported this morning, underscores the value and the importance of what we are doing and what we are about today. Then it is reported this morning as well that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, said the administration is still deciding the most effective way for the United States to persuade China to improve its human rights record. The fact that the Secretary of State admitted before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that the administration has not yet decided what they are going to do, that they have not yet determined what course of action they will take to try to persuade the Chinese to improve their human rights record, I believe, underscores the importance and the value of the resolution that is before us, one that is incredibly important. One of my colleagues yesterday, in seeing the agenda for today, said, ``Well, Tim, there you are slamming the Chinese again.'' Let me say that I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Chinese people. In fact, I cannot think of any group that I have higher admiration for than those Chinese citizens today who are fighting courageously and standing up for human rights within their own country and fighting for the democracy movement in China. This resolution today has nothing to do with the Chinese people, but it has everything to do with the intolerable practices of the Chinese Government in which they continue to abuse the basic fundamental human rights of the Chinese people. This resolution is important because the administration has all but said they are looking for a signal from Capitol Hill. They are looking for direction from the Congress as to whether or not they should sponsor a resolution in Geneva this summer calling the world's attention to those abuses that are ongoing in China today. We need to send them that signal. This resolution affords us that opportunity. If there is one thing the Chinese Government does take seriously, it is international opinion. To the extent that by this resolution and by our Government offering a resolution in Geneva this summer we can marshal the international community in protest to the ongoing human rights crackdown in China, we will have done something very significant and very worthwhile. Mr. President, the resolution before us today urges the administration to sponsor a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Commission critical of China's human rights abuses. The Commission will meet in March and April in Geneva, Switzerland. By passing this resolution, which enjoys very strong bipartisan support, we give Secretary Albright a clear message to bring with her to China when she travels there in the beginning of March. That message is that the United States will not accept China's wholesale violation of internationally accepted human rights standards. It is an important signal. I have had discussions with the administration and with the Department of State, and I know they are looking for the sentiment of the Senate and the Congress on this issue. The Communist Government of China has long committed a litany of human rights abuses. Thousands of political prisoners remain in prison, many of them sentenced after unfair trials, others today languishing in prison without any trial at all. At least 200 of these prisoners are still suffering because of their participation in or their support of the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Religious persecution runs rampant in China. People who dare to worship outside the aegis of officially sponsored religious organizations face fines, they face detention, arrest, imprisonment and, too often, torture as well. And the human rights movement in China, the democracy movement in China, and the house church movement are very much intertwined. And many of these home churches have become, in fact, bases of the democracy movement and human rights efforts within China today. Thousands of peaceful monks and nuns have been detained and tortured in Tibet where the Chinese Government is imposing a harsh patriotic so- called education campaign. Mr. President, under China's one-family-one-child policy, couples face punitive fines and loss of employment for having unapproved children. But it does not stop with monetary penalties. Local authorities, with or without the approval of the Communist Party cadre, forcibly perform abortions or sterilizations on women who are pregnant with their second child. Relatives are held hostage until couples submit to this coercion. Furthermore, incredibly, prisoners are executed in China after grossly unfair trials, and then their organs are sold on the black market. The pattern of abuse is clear. And in the eyes of the Chinese Communist Government human life seems to bear no value at all. What has been this administration's response to these abuses? Under President Clinton's policy of so-called constructive engagement, the administration effectively disengaged human rights practices from trade practices in 1994, while promising that efforts to pass a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission would be increased. However, Mr. President, last year, President Clinton further unhinged his policy by deciding not to pursue a resolution at the Commission in Geneva, Switzerland, which was critical of China. We historically had done that. Year after year, we offered that resolution, but last year supposedly the administration said in a good-faith gesture we withheld offering that resolution. That commitment was given to China in exchange for their promise to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR, a covenant which affirms free speech and free assembly. It is highly ironic that the ICCPR itself is a product of U.N. Human Rights Commission meetings. China did sign the ICCPR in October, only to turn around and violate its every principle since they put their signature to that document. Since the President's trip to Beijing in July 1998, the Communist Government of China has renewed its crackdown on all who would dare to oppose the Communist Party. Some 100 members of the fledgling Chinese Democracy Party, the CDP, have been detained, excluding the two that were announced this morning. Some have been released, others await trial, and the most unfortunate have been sentenced to very long prison sentences. Three visible leaders of the CDP, Xu Wenli, Qin Yongmin, and Wang Youcai were sentenced to 13, 12 and 11 years in prison, respectively, on charges of subversion and endangering state security, after highly dubious trials. In reality, these democracy activists exercised their legal rights under Chinese law to create and to form a political party. Their true crime, in the eyes of the Communist Party, was simply their love for democracy. But the crackdown does not end there. In fact, incidents of harassment and imprisonment are almost too numerous to list. I will highlight just a few examples. The Communist Government sentenced businessman Lin Hai to prison for 2 years for--listen to this crime--providing e-mail addresses to a prodemocracy Internet magazine. Zhang Shanguang is in prison now for 10 years for this crime: Providing Radio Free Asia with information about farmer protests in Hunan Province. The Government sentenced poet and writer Ma Zhe to 7 years in prison on charges of subversion for publishing an independent literary journal. In addition, the Communist Government is cracking down on film directors, artists, computer software developers and the press, and continues to harass and detain religious activists. The list goes on. In 1998, police imprisoned 70 worshipers from house churches in Hunan Province. And the pattern of human rights violations is undeniable. Rather than improving since the good-faith gestures of the American Government and our rewarding of the Chinese Government with favorable trade status, we have seen not a favorable response on the part of the Chinese Government but an exacerbated attack upon those who would simply advocate freedom and democracy. I see that my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, has come to the floor to speak on this resolution. I appreciate his outstanding leadership on this issue. He was the lead sponsor of a similar resolution last year. And if Senator Mack is prepared to speak at this time, I will yield to Senator Mack. Is the Senator ready to speak now?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask Senator Mack, how much time would you desire?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Florida. He has truly been a champion for human rights around the world, not just in China but around the world. I thank him for his leadership on this issue and his willingness to urge the administration to take this very appropriate action in Geneva this summer. And I thank him for his very eloquent statement. Mr. President, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Wellstone for his commitment to the issue of human rights. When Paul Wellstone comes to the floor and I come to the floor and we work own human rights issues together, we both want to make it clear that we can agree very rarely. There are few political issues that we are going to be united on, and our votes will more often than not cancel each other out on the issues coming before the U.S. Senate. But I admire and respect Paul Wellstone for his deep commitment to democracy and to human rights around the world, and for his involvement in this issue. I am glad to be able to work with him on this. I think it is a very important resolution. I reiterate that this resolution is important, and it is important for several reasons. It is important because it will be a message to the administration. It is very timely, and I appreciate our majority leader for ensuring that this vote occur this week because our Secretary of State will be traveling to China next week. It is important for this vote to occur. It is important for it to be a strong bipartisan vote and for our Secretary of State to have that message as she goes to China. So I think it is important from that standpoint. It is also a very, very important message to our European allies. Many of our allies in Europe are looking for our leadership. Germany has had a change in government. They are much more sympathetic to the cause of human rights, in my estimation. The French press reported that this vote in the U.S. Senate was going to occur today. They are looking for a message and a signal from political leaders in the United States. So it is important from that standpoint as well. It is a message to the Chinese Government, not just through our Secretary of State, but that we as the elected Representatives of the people--the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives--as we speak out on this issue, it conveys a strong message to the Chinese Government, and they are concerned about what this country thinks. I think one of the great failings of this administration has been that it has rewarded human rights abuses and crackdowns in China, whether it is religious freedom crackdowns, press crackdowns, Internet crackdowns, or any host of human rights abuses; they have, in effect, rewarded that by increasing economic opportunities through trade with the United States--most recently, their plan to bring China into the World Trade Organization, almost as a reward for the very terrible abuses that have occurred during the last several months. And then, may I say that this resolution is critically important because of the message it sends--as my colleague from Minnesota said, the message that it sends to the Chinese activists for democracy and human rights within China today, which is that when we take the floor of the U.S. Senate and speak on this issue, they are listening--Radio Free Asia--through the Internet and through other means by which our activities and the news of our activities gets into China. They are listening and they are interested and it is an encouragement to them to know that there are those who stand with them in the cause of freedom in our country and our Government. Mr. President, in my opinion, it is wholly appropriate for the United States to advance a resolution at the Commission in Geneva critical of China's ongoing human rights abuses. The Commission is a multilateral forum authorized to deal with the very abuses perpetrated by the Chinese Government today--a resolution that the Commission will pierce any notions that China's violations of human rights will be quietly accepted by the world community. There are some in the administration--and I think it is reflected in Secretary Albright's statement yesterday--that are undecided on how they are going to proceed, and whether or not they are going to offer this resolution. There are some within the administration who argue that a resolution critical of China at the Human Rights Commission should not be pursued and is in effect pointless because, as they put it, it is certain to fail. I think Senator Mack said, ``Well, I don't believe it is certain to fail''; but whether it was certain to fail or not, it should be offered on the basis of principle, on the basis of the encouragement and the emboldenment it will provide for those within China. But the very sentiment that the administration expresses when they say it is certain to fail becomes a self-fulfilling sentiment, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more halfhearted the administration is in its attempts to advance such a resolution, the less chance that such a resolution will have to pass. The longer the administration refrains from exercising leadership in the international community on this matter of human rights, the less likely it is that the resolution will be successful. Bringing forth a resolution at the Commission is, as Senator Mack so accurately put it, a matter of principle. Success will be measured by the statements of truth that flow from the debate at the Commission. A resolution at the Commission this summer will proclaim boldly that the human rights abuses in China are an affront to the international community and its values. Mr. President, these values are not uniquely American values. There are those who have argued in the past that it is wrong for us to speak of these values and to try to, as they put it, force these values upon the Chinese Government. But I would assert--and I believe that this country is built on this belief --that these values are not uniquely American values, that they transcend any national boundary, that they are fundamental human values and human rights. Thus, it is highly appropriate that we pursue such a resolution. The U.S. must take steps to protect internationally recognized human rights, or we will take a back seat to those who openly and blatantly abuse them. As Senator Wellstone said, last year, this body passed a resolution very similar to the one before us today by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 95-5. I hope we can send an equally strong signal to the administration again this year. In light of the affront to the administration's policy that the Chinese Government has committed in the recent crackdown of the last 2 to 3 months, I think it is a very timely resolution and an appropriate time for the administration to reverse field, to reverse its decision last summer in not pursuing such a resolution and, in fact, to say the abuses, the crackdowns, have been so flagrant that now the administration will pursue with a new aggressiveness a human rights resolution in Geneva, Switzerland.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining that I control?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am also glad to join in this effort, one that we will continue to fight and one on which we will ultimately prevail, I believe. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bunning be added as a cosponsor to this resolution.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think we have covered many of the reasons why this is important. We have reiterated them. I do believe we will have a strong vote today. One of the individuals whose name has been mentioned several times by Senator Mack, by myself, Senator Wellstone, is Wei Jingsheng, truly one of the courageous heroes of our generation. And I, too, am glad to be able to call Wei Jingsheng a friend. Wei Jingsheng has been in my office on numerous occasions, and he will be at our press conference tomorrow. As I am able to conclude our presentation of this resolution today, I want to just mention a little bit about Wei Jingsheng. I see Senator Feinstein has come to the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have a little problem in that Senator Wellstone has yielded his time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Absolutely. Certainly.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her very significant statement. I know we have not always agreed on China, but I think that was a very candid and very honest statement. I appreciate her making it. I want to publicly thank, on behalf of Senator Wellstone and myself, our staffs: On Senator Wellstone's staff, Charlotte Oldham Moore and John Bradshaw, for their very persistent and hard work on this issue; on my staff, Samuel Chang, for his hard work and continued interest in the human rights issues in China. As I said, one of my heroes, and I think one that has been mentioned repeatedly, one that will be with us at the press conference tomorrow, is Wei Jingsheng, who spent about 20 years in solitary confinement in China back in the 1970s, arrested for his involvement at the Democracy Wall effort. At that time he was sentenced to spend 14\1/2\ years in solitary confinement, went out and was involved in Tiananmen Square. He was truly a friend and truly a hero. I thought, when I visited with him in my office, while I was going on annual vacations, while I was rearing three boys and seeing them grow up and going out and playing basketball with them and coaching their soccer games, this man, who is about my age, was languishing in a Chinese prison. I recently read the book ``China Live'' by Mike Chinoy. Mike was the CNN correspondent and before that, the NBC correspondent--in Beijing, then Hong Kong. He went to China as a young man in the seventies, very idealistic, believing the Chinese regime was going to bring human rights and democracy and freedom to the people of China. He left disillusioned to a great extent, but he tells about the trial of Wei Jingsheng. I want to read this as I conclude. He talked about Wei Jingsheng, on October 9, 1979, going on trial. Pictures from the proceedings were broadcast on Chinese TV. They showed a youthful-looking Wei, dressed in prison garb, his head shaved and bowed, listening to the verdict before a panel of stony-faced judges and a carefully selected audience of five hundred people. I had read his essays and seen for myself the hope generated by Democracy Wall. Now, working late at the NBC bureau in Hong Kong on the day Wei was sentenced to fifteen years in jail for ``counterrevolutionary incitement'', I was angry and upset. Although intellectually I recognized that profound changes were still under way in China--holding out, over the long term, the possibility of a more humane society--it was hard to be neutral and dispassionate watching such a travesty of justice. My feelings became even stronger when I acquired a copy of the transcript of Wei's trial, which had been surreptitiously tape-recorded and distributed by other activists not yet under detention. Standing before his accusers, Wei refused to admit to any crime. Instead he forcefully defended his ideas of democracy. His courage in the face of a certain guilty verdict and long prison term was astonishing. I wished I could do something to help. He said, ``I wished I could do something to help.'' Twenty years after that trial, things are not better in China, and we see a new round of the same kind of show trials, phony trials and repression. Mike Chinoy said, ``I wished I could do something to help.'' Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we have a chance today to do a little something to help. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. This is an incredibly important year in China and for the democracy movement in China. We can take an important step and cast an important vote with overwhelming bipartisan support for this resolution today. I ask my colleagues to call upon the administration to sponsor this resolution in Geneva this summer, condemning the human rights abuses ongoing in China today. Mr. President, at this time I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I want to applaud my colleagues who have been in the Chamber speaking of education reform, and my colleagues on the Republican side I think have come forward with a very progressive and innovative reform program for education. I know Senator Voinovich from Ohio led the way in education reform in that State. But Ed-Flex, providing those waivers for State educational establishments to be able to avoid the kind of heavy-handed bureaucratic mandates that are imposed upon them; the Dollars to the Classroom Bill, which I am sponsoring, which would consolidate 31 of those hundreds of education programs and allow new flexibility to State governments in ensuring that 95 cents of every dollar get to the classroom as opposed to the 65 cents that currently get there; and the proposal to increase funding for disabilities programs, mandates that we placed on local schools but have not funded, I think are all very important ingredients to our education reform package which will truly lead to improvement in education in this country. (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of the legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution which is very much related to the educational crisis in our country. This resolution will designate March 24 as National School Violence Victims' Memorial Day and encourage the citizens of our Nation to honor and remember the victims of school violence on that day. The resolution also will encourage our school administrators to conduct programs on that day designed to prevent any further occurrences of school violence. I am deeply saddened that the introduction of such a resolution is even necessary. No words can ever adequately express the incredible shock, horror, and grief that struck me when I heard the news reports of the tragedy which left 5 dead and 11 wounded at the Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, AR. No words will ever be able to completely convey the cruel and senseless loss that the families and friends of Natalie Brooks, Paige Ann Herring, Stephanie Johnson, Brittheny Varner, and Shannon Wright experienced on March 24, 1998. And no words will ever be able to sufficiently honor Shannon Wright's memory and her heroic sacrifice. I know that the actions she took to protect her students at the cost of her own life will forever be remembered. Her actions were motivated out of love for her students and touched the lives of thousands of Arkansans, one of whom, Ms. Jennifer Morris, a student in Harrisburg, AR, was so inspired by Ms. Wright's loving and courageous sacrifice that she wrote and asked me to introduce legislation which would create a National Shannon Wright Day. Tragically, other communities, other families, and other friends know the pain of such senseless losses as well. Paducah, KY, Pearl, MS, Richmond, VA, Springfield, OR, Edinboro, PA, are just a few of the communities that will forever remember the tragic results of school violence. According to the Departments of Education and Justice, over the course of the 1996-1997 school year 10 percent of all public schools reported at least one serious violent crime to a law enforcement agency; and in 1996, 225,000 of our students between the ages of 12 and 18 were victims of nonfatal violent crime in our schools. Between 1992 and 1994, 76 students and 29 nonstudents lost their lives in murders or suicides committed in American schools. Finally, Mr. President, the percentage of our students who are afraid that they will be attacked or harmed at school is rising dramatically. I am not here today to discuss the causes and solutions to school violence. Rather, I am simply here to honor and remember the victims of school violence. Many of my colleagues who cosponsored this resolution have differing approaches on what we do to solve the problem. Many have different ideas on what the causes and solutions to school violence are. However, we all agree that we must end this violence in our classrooms and restore the peace that our children once had in their hearts and are entitled to enjoy once again. Accordingly, I now introduce this resolution to create National School Violence Victims' Memorial Day to ensure that we remember and that we honor those who have been victims of school violence and do all that we can to remove violence from our schools and restore peace in the hearts of our students.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator. I look forward to that.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I thank you for affording me this opportunity to speak on behalf of what I think is very needed legislation. I also applaud his efforts to begin the process of addressing in the committee our readiness needs, and in doing so in the most expeditious way beginning with our work in early January. I rise in enthusiastic support of the bill of which I am glad to be a cosponsor. I have only been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for a short period of time, but it has not taken long to become alarmed by the numerous readiness problems weakening our Armed Forces. On January 5, during my first hearing as a member of the Committee, the Air Force's Chief of Staff, General Ryan, testified that by fiscal year 2002, the Air Force would be short over 2,000 pilots. Overall readiness rates for the Air Force have fallen 18 percent since 1996, 4 percent in the last quarter alone. At the same hearing, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Johnson, testified that the Navy had fallen 22,000 sailors short of its fiscal year 1998 recruiting goal. The Navy's recruiting woes were vividly illustrated in a recent New York Times article. The article described the maiden voyage of the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman, the Navy's newest aircraft carrier. The Truman should have left port with a complement of 2,933 sailors. Instead, the Navy was only able to muster 2,543. That is a full 13 percent below what is needed. The Navy and Air Forces are not the only services experiencing recruiting shortfalls. The Washington Times reported in January that the Army had already fallen 2,300 soldiers short of its recruiting goals for the first 3 months of this fiscal year, 10,000 soldiers short of its congressionally authorized end-strength. The Army is so concerned about this recruiting shortfall that it is considering lowering its standards, admitting more high school dropouts, and I think this portends serious threats to the future of our readiness capability. Are Americans being well served when they pay billions of dollars for the finest weapons systems in the world if there aren't enough highly motivated, highly trained soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in uniform to operate that fine equipment and fine weapons systems? How did we arrive at this point? Recruitment and retention shortfalls are squarely to blame, and there are a number of factors that have contributed to today's circumstances. The military-civilian pay gap, I believe, is a major cause. That gap now stands at an estimated 14 percent. That is a huge handicap the military must bear when it competes with the civilian sector for high school graduates. While America is fortunate to have a robust civilian economy, when it asks its sons and daughters to risk their lives in defense of our Nation, it must be willing to pay a fair wage. S. 4 will go a long way towards paying fair wages, thus eliminating this civilian-military pay gap. S. 4's 4.8-percent across-the-board pay raise will help in the area of enlisted retention. The targeted pay raises of up to 10.3 percent will help the military retain its midcareer noncommissioned officers and officers who are leaving the services in alarming numbers. But this bill, Mr. President, isn't just about throwing money at a problem; it is also about fixing the mistakes of the past. S. 4 would restore a 50-percent basic pay retirement benefit at 20 years of service. That benefit, as we all know, was cut to 40 percent in 1986 as part of an effort to actually improve retention. You see, in the 1980's, too many service men and women were electing to retire right after the 20-year mark, enjoying that 50-percent pension while they were young enough to begin a second career. In what seemed to be a smart move at the time, the Congress instituted the REDUX system, lowering the retirement benefit for 20 years of service to 40 percent. Unfortunately, the legislation, as too often is the case in what we do, has had the opposite effect; the REDUX system's smaller pension has encouraged people to leave the services even earlier. How ironic that in 1999 the Department of Defense would be thrilled if service men and women left military service after only 20 years. That would mean they had served more than the 12 or 13 years so many of our junior officers are now serving before leaving today. But this bill does more than just fix some of yesterday's mistakes; it addresses some of today's concerns. For our men and women in uniform, S. 4 is about creating a brighter tomorrow as well. The Montgomery GI bill enhancements contained in this bill, while controversial, will do for military families what the original GI bill did for our soldiers. Increasing the monthly GI plan allowance and allowing service members to transfer their benefits to members of their immediate family will dramatically increase the accessibility of higher education in this country. Extending Montgomery GI bill benefits will also go a long way towards recognizing the important contributions made by military families. I have spoken to enough husbands and wives, sons and daughters, of service members to know that a military career punctuated by overseas deployments affects more than just the person wearing the uniform. Families of service members are truly part of a larger team, and they deserve more than just a pat on the back and saying thanks. Then I would add also that opening the Thrift Savings Plan to service members is another very important feature of S. 4. Allowing members to invest up to 5 percent of their income in the same program open to civilians will allow service members greater retirement security. As we have seen, the looming Social Security crisis threatens retirement for many individuals, and we know that individuals must take greater responsibility for those retirement savings. So as you can see, Mr. President, S. 4, while not a panacea for the readiness shortfalls affecting today's military, will fix some of yesterday's mistakes, help us to address some of the crises we are facing today, and provide a brighter tomorrow for our men and women in the armed services. So I urge my colleagues to join the members of the Armed Services Committee to pass this much needed legislation. I once again thank and compliment the chairman of the committee for the outstanding work he has done in moving this legislation forward so expeditiously in this Congress. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President. I would like to express my strong support for Senator Jefford's bill, the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation which would allow the VA to establish a Medicare subvention demonstration project. At ten sites across the country, Medicare would reimburse the VA for Medicare-covered services provided to eligible veterans. As a former member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and a current member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have been and remain a strong advocate of the Medicare subvention concept. As a member of the House, I was cosponsor of Representative Joel Hefley's bill to create a demonstration project of Medicare subvention. During the 105th Congress, I was a cosponsor of Senator Jefford's bill, S. 2054. The last four years of flat-lined Administration budgets have demonstrated the critical need for this legislation. To treat new veteran patients, the VA must be creative in finding new revenue sources. The perpetual volatility of the health care marketplace has made it more and more difficult for VA to collect under the standard fee for service arrangements. Currently, 85% of all insured Americans are under some form of managed care, and many of these plans do not recognize the VA as a network provider eligible for reimbursement. In order for the VA to be able to collect the millions that it needs to adequately serve veterans and to survive under the budget proposed by the Administration for FY 2000, there must be a new revenue source. Medicare subvention legislation would be a step in the right direction. Historically, higher income veterans have been locked out of the VA health care system because of a severe lack of resources. Under subvention legislation, the VA would potentially be able to open its doors to millions of veterans 65 years and older who want to choose VA as their primary care giver. Our legislation will be the first in truly saving the Private Ryan's of WWII and the Korean conflict. Now more than ever, the VA needs to be able to collect and compete in the health care marketplace as an equal partner with other health plans. Medicare subvention will allow it that opportunity. I am proud to again be a cosponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President. I would like to express my strong support for Senator Jefford's bill, the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation which would allow the VA to establish a Medicare subvention demonstration project. At ten sites across the country, Medicare would reimburse the VA for Medicare-covered services provided to eligible veterans. As a former member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and a current member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have been and remain a strong advocate of the Medicare subvention concept. As a member of the House, I was cosponsor of Representative Joel Hefley's bill to create a demonstration project of Medicare subvention. During the 105th Congress, I was a cosponsor of Senator Jefford's bill, S. 2054. The last four years of flat-lined Administration budgets have demonstrated the critical need for this legislation. To treat new veteran patients, the VA must be creative in finding new revenue sources. The perpetual volatility of the health care marketplace has made it more and more difficult for VA to collect under the standard fee for service arrangements. Currently, 85% of all insured Americans are under some form of managed care, and many of these plans do not recognize the VA as a network provider eligible for reimbursement. In order for the VA to be able to collect the millions that it needs to adequately serve veterans and to survive under the budget proposed by the Administration for FY 2000, there must be a new revenue source. Medicare subvention legislation would be a step in the right direction. Historically, higher income veterans have been locked out of the VA health care system because of a severe lack of resources. Under subvention legislation, the VA would potentially be able to open its doors to millions of veterans 65 years and older who want to choose VA as their primary care giver. Our legislation will be the first in truly saving the Private Ryan's of WWII and the Korean conflict. Now more than ever, the VA needs to be able to collect and compete in the health care marketplace as an equal partner with other health plans. Medicare subvention will allow it that opportunity. I am proud to again be a cosponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We are nearing one of the most important votes most of us will ever cast. As an Arkansan, the impeachment process has been long and difficult. President Clinton is a dominating political influence in Arkansas and still immensely popular in my home state, so I am acutely aware of the political implications of this vote for me. As an Arkansan, I share pride in one of our own having achieved so much and having attained the highest elective office in the land. Arkansas has produced more than its share of political leaders--the Joe. T. Robinsons, the Hattie Caraways, the John McClellans, and J.W. Fulbrights. But never before has an Arkansan reached the Presidency. I, with all of Arkansas, was proud. We knew William Jefferson Clinton's intellect, his grasp of policy issues. We knew his personality, his charisma. We had seen for years his remarkable political skills, his uncanny ability to connect with people. I believe I'm like most Arkansans--deeply conflicted-- pride mixed with embarrassment, and most of all pain. This trial is not about private conduct. It is not about the President's personal behavior. We are all sinners. We are all flawed human beings. The President's personal life is his personal life. It's his business, not mine. The facts that are relevant are those relating to law. This trial is not about process. It seems to me that throughout this long drama, many have sought to put Ken Starr on trial or the House managers on trial. Was Ken Starr on a vendetta or was he just doing an unpleasant job? Whichever, we have to deal with the facts and the evidence. Did the House managers, as we have heard from the President's counsel so often, ``want to win too much?'' Frankly, both sides wanted to win, both sides were fervent in their presentations, and I'm glad we didn't hear half-hearted arguments. A vigorous prosecution and defense is the basis of a successful adversarial system. What we are doing is important. I'm glad they believe in what they are doing, but in the end it's the facts, the evidence, with which we must grapple. The process with all its flaws is secondary. The reality is, we are faced with a body of evidence. This trial is not about punishment. It's not about getting our pound of flesh from the Democrats. It's not about getting our retribution on the President. It's not political vengeance. It's not about polls. If polls had prevailed, Andrew Johnson would have been removed, and that would have been wrong. To argue that a popular President should not be removed regardless of his actions, merely because he is popular, is to lower our Constitutional Republic to a meaningless level. To say popularity should be a factor in our decision is to say that bad poll numbers and unpopularity is an argument for removal of a President. How contrary to our constitutional system. The popularity of this President should never been mentioned, in my opinion. Nor should political consequences of our votes be the basis for our decision of whether to remove this President. What I had to weigh was the evidence. Voting to remove a President-- the very thought sobers and humbles me. But the facts are so inescapable, the evidence so powerful. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that when the President testified before the federal grand jury and said that he had been truthful to his aides in what he had said about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky--that he committed perjury and obstructed justice. When he told Sidney Blumenthal that Ms. Lewinsky was a stalker and he was a victim, he was not being truthful. He was trying to destroy her reputation and he would have, had it not been for the dress. He lied, and he lied about his lie to the grand jury. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that when the President led Betty Currie through a false rendition of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that he was tampering with a witness and obstructing justice. He did this not once, but twice. His explanation that he was refreshing his memory offends all common sense. When he denied this coaching before the grand jury, he obstructed justice and committed perjury. Of course, there is much more to this case, but how much do we need? If this trial was only about one man's actions, it might be easier. But this trial is about so much more--the office of the Presidency, the precedent of lowering the bar on the importance of our nation's rule of law. It's about the oath Bill Clinton took when he was sworn in as our President, to uphold our nation's laws. And it's about the oath the President took when he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before the grand jury. The sanctity of the oath is the basis of our judicial system. To lessen the significance of violating the oath is in fact an attack on our legal system and the rule of law. There are men and women across America who languish behind bars today because they committed the crime of perjury, lying under oath. How can we tell America that our President, the highest government official in the land, is treated differently? While I was growing up in Gravette, Arkansas, life seemed much more simple than it is today. It was a simpler time. But then and now, the bedrock of our society is still truth and justice. This hasn't changed. On August 25, 1825, Daniel Webster said, ``Whatever government is not a government of laws, is a despotism, let it be called what it may.'' Today is a somber day for our country. This trial has been a sad chapter of American history, and I have a heavy heart. As difficult as these votes will be, I know that I could not serve the people of Arkansas with a clear conscience unless I do what I believe is right and uphold the law. I will vote guilty on both articles of impeachment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Wellstone, Mack, and Feingold, submit a simple sense of the Senate resolution. This resolution urges the Administration to take the necessary steps to introduce and pass a resolution criticizing the People's Republic of China for its human rights abuses in China and Tibet at this year's meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. With this resolution, we send a clear signal to the Administration that the U.S. must not be silent on the human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of the People's Republic of China. The U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, will take place in March and April this year. The Commission is the most valuable multilateral forum for monitoring and investigating human rights abuses around the world. Resolutions offered at the Commission both highlight human rights abuses and pressure governments to correct them. The U.S. has appropriately supported resolutions critical of China eight times in recent years. The Communist government of China has long committed a litany of human rights abuses. Thousands of political prisoners remain in prison, many sentenced after unfair trials, others without any trial. At least two hundred of these prisoners are still suffering because of their participation in or support of the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Religious persecution runs rampant in China. People who dare to worship outside the aegis of officially sponsored religious organizations face fines, detention, arrest, imprisonment, and torture. Thousands of peaceful monks and nuns have been detained and tortured in Tibet, where the Chinese government is imposing a harsh patriotic education campaign. Under China's one family, one child policy, couples face punitive fines and loss of employment for having unapproved children. But it doesn't stop with monetary penalties. Local authorities, with or without the approval of the Communist Party cadre, forcibly perform abortions or sterilizations on women who are pregnant with their second child. Relatives are held hostage until couples submit to this coercion. Furthermore, prisoners are executed after grossly unfair trials, their organs sold on the black market. What do these people all have in common? They oppose the Chinese Communist government or its policies. Opposition bears a high price. What has been the Administration's response? Last year, President Clinton decided not to pursue a resolution critical of China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland, citing China's commitment to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as other avenues for change. In July, President Clinton granted the Communist government undeserved legitimacy by making a state visit to China. China did sign the ICCPR, a covenant which affirms free speech and free assembly, in October, only to turn around and violate its every principle. Since July 1998, the Communist government of China has renewed its crackdown on all who would dare to oppose the Communist Party. Some 100 members of the fledgling Chinese Democracy Party (CDP) have been detained. Some have been released, others await trial, and the most unfortunate have been sentenced to long prison sentences. Three visible leaders of the CDP, Xu Wenli, Qin Yongmin, and Wang Youncai were sentenced to 13, 12 and 11 years in prison, respectively, on charges of subversion and endangering state security, after dubious trials. In reality, these democracy activists exercised their legal rights under Chinese law to form a political party. There true crime, in the eyes of the Communist Party, was their love of democracy. But the crackdown does not end there. In fact, incidents of harassment and imprisonment are almost too numerous to list here. I will highlight a few examples. The Communist government sentenced businessman Lin Hai to prison for two years for providing email addresses to a pro-democracy internet magazine based in the U.S. Zhang Shanguang is in prison for ten years for providing Radio Free Asia with information about farmer protests in Hunan province. The government sentenced poet and writer, Ma Zhe, to seven years in prison on charges of subversion for publishing an independent literary journal. In addition, the Communist government has cracked down on film directors, artists, computer software developers, and the press, and continues to harass and detain religious activists. In November 1998, police imprisoned 70 worshipers from house churches in Henan province. The pattern of human rights violations is undeniable. It must be stopped. In light of these abuses, it is critical that the U.S. push for a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission highlighting these abuses. Last year, the Administration chose not to pursue a resolution, despite clear signals from Congress. In this body, we passed a resolution similar to the one before us today by a 95 to 5 vote. We cannot afford to stand by idly as the Chinese Communist government thumbs its nose at internationally accepted norms--norns to which it claims to subscribe. There are some in the Administration who argue that a resolution critical of China at the Human Rights Commission is pointless because it is certain to fail. This very sentiment is self-fulfilling. The more half-hearted the Administration is in its attempts to advance such a resolution, the less chance it has to pass. The longer the Administration refrains from exercising leadership in the international community on this matter, the less likely it is that the resolution will be successful. Bringing forth a resolution at the Commission is a matter of principle. Success will be measured by the statements of truth that flow from debate at the Commission. A resolution at the Commission will proclaim boldly that the human rights abuses in China are an affront to the international community. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan sense of the Senate resolution. I further ask unanimous consent that any statements by Senators Wellstone, Mack, or Feingold regarding this resolution be inserted at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to a fellow Arkansan, Scott Bates, who was struck and killed by a car on Friday. He will be severely missed by all of us. Scott was born in Pine Bluff, AR, where he was active in church and the Boy Scouts, achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. He developed a love of politics, which he followed to Washington, D.C. For twenty-six years, he performed dedicated service to the Senate, the last eight as the Senate's Legislative Clerk, working tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the smooth operation of this institution. Scott was perhaps most visible, or audible, in that role because of his deep, resonant voice, calling the roll or reading legislation. But Scott was much more than a dignifying voice to the Senate. He was a husband, a father, a colleague, and a friend to many. I spent a lot of time in the last two years with him, learning the ways of the Senate. Scott and I would reminisce about our common Arkansas roots and our mutual love for the Razorbacks. He was a man of honor and humility, an encouragement to both staffers and Senators. We pray for his wife Ricki. May the Lord grant her a swift recovery from her surgery. We pray for his three children, Lori, Lisa, and Paul, and for his family in Arkansas. May the Lord bring healing to them in their time of loss. We grieve and we mourn his passing, for we know that the Senate and the world will be a better place because of his life.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity to introduce legislation addressing one of the most important issues Americans are concerned about today--education. The Dollars to the Classroom Act will redirect approximately 3.5 billion dollars in funding for elementary and secondary education back to the states and into our classrooms. This year Congress will be focusing its efforts on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is time for us to take a good look at the status of education in America and to recognize the lack of improvement we have seen in our elementary and secondary schools. The percentage of 12th grade students who meet standards in reading has actually decreased during this decade. When limited Federal funding is spread so thinly over such a wide area, the result is ineffective programs that fail to provide students with the basic skills they need to succeed. I am committed to improving educational opportunities for our children, and this can happen best at the local level. Those who best know our children--parents and teachers--should be responsible for deciding what programs are most important, not bureaucrats in Washington. It is time to stop the one-size-fits-all approach, and start letting those at the local level decide what is best for them. Right now, state and local educational agencies are implementing reforms to better prepare their students for the future. Even the president recently stated in his budget proposal that ``we have long known the ingredients for successful schools; the challenge is to give parents and teachers and superintendents the tools to put them in place and stimulate real change right now.'' Many states have already implemented class-size reduction programs, and nineteen states currently have programs to turn around their poorest-performing school. The problem is not that states and local school districts do not have ideas about how to improve their schools, it is that Washington is telling them how to do it through competitive grants. Many schools never see these grants, either. Schools in rural areas and that have low funding levels often cannot afford to hire grant writers to apply for the numerous federal programs. These schools should not have to spend money on administration just to receive funding, when they could receive the funding directly and decide what their needs are. Currently, states have to bear the burden of abiding by federal regulations to receive education dollars. The system we have in place now is inefficient and does not allow the best use of each taxpayer dollar that is spent. According to the Crossroads Project--the Congressional fact-finding education initiative--only 65 percent of Department of Education elementary and secondary dollars reach classrooms. Instead of paying for administration and paperwork, we must give control back to parents and teachers, who can decide what is best for our children. Who do you trust to spend our taxpayer dollars best-- bureaucrats, or those involved in our local schools? That is why I am introducing the Dollars to the Classroom Act. This legislation has been included in S. 277, the Republican education package, and similar legislation will be introduced soon in the House of Representatives. In fact, the House of Representatives passed its version of the Dollars to the Classroom Act last fall. This legislation redirects $3.5 billion of K-12 education dollars to the States, requiring only that 95% of that money actually reach our children's classrooms. This money can be used for whatever the local education officials deem necessary and important to our children's education. School districts may buy new books, hire more teachers, build new schools, or buy new computers. We must begin to prioritize the way we spend our education dollars, and we must put children first, not bureaucracy. Let those on the State and local levels decide if more books are needed to help our children read, or more teachers are needed to reduce class size. We cannot afford to allow a stagnant system to continue. We owe it to our children to allow schools to address the real needs they are facing today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity to introduce today an important piece of legislation which will provide thousands of businesses in my home state of Arkansas and across the nation with a defense against an unscrupulous practice which is literally crippling them. The Truth in Employment will protect these businesses and curtail the destructive abuse of the union tactic known as salting. ``Salting abuse'' is the calculated practice of placing trained union professional organizers and agents in the non-union workplace whose sole purpose is to harass or disrupt company operation, apply economic pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately put a company out of business. The objectives of these union agents are accomplished through filing frivolous and unfair labor practice complaints or discrimination charges against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Salting campaigns have been used successfully to cause economic harm to construction companies and are quickly expanding into other industries across the country. It can cost employers anywhere from $5,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend him or herself against this practice. Salting is not merely a union organizing tool. It has become an instrument of economic destruction aimed at non-union companies. Union send their agents into non-union workplaces under the guise of seeking employment. Hiding behind the shield of the National Labor Relations Act, these ``salts'' use its provisions offensively to bring hardship on their employers. They deliberately increase the operating costs of their employers through actions such as sabotage and frivolous discrimination complaints. In the 1995 Town & Country decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that paid union organizers are ``employees'' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Because of their broad interpretation of this Act, employers who refuse to hire paid union employees or their agents violate the Act if they are shown to have discriminated against the union salts. This leaves employers in a precarious position. If employers refuse to hire union salts, they will file frivolous charges and accuse the employer of discrimination. Yet, if salts are employed, they will create internal disruption through a pattern of dissension and harassment. They are not there to work--only to disrupt. In a classic example of salting abuse, John Gaylor of Gaylor Electric had to fire one employee after this refusal to wear his hard hat on his head. This employee would strap the hard hat to his knee and then dare Gaylor to fire him because he said the employee manual stated only that he had to wear the hard hat, it didn't state where he had to wear it. As a result of the salting abuse, whenever many small businesses make hiring decisions, the future of the company, and its very existence, may be at stake. A wrong decision can mean frivolous charges, legal fees, and lost time, which may threaten the very existence of their business. I have received many accounts from across the nation of how salting abuse is affecting small businesses. The following examples were received as testimony in Congressional hearings. In my home state of Arkansas, Little Rock Electrical Contractors, Inc. incurred in excess of $80,000 in legal fees over the course of one year to fight 72 unfair labor practice charges, of which 20 were dismissed, 45 were set for trial, and 7 were appealed. In Cape Elizabeth, Maine, over a period of four years, Bay Electric incurred $100,000 in legal fees plus lost time to defend itself against 14 unfair labor practices, all of which were dismissed. In Delano, Minnesota, Wright Electric incurred $150,000 in legal fees and lost between $200,000 and $300,000 in lost time to win the dismissal of 14 of 15 unfair labor practices charges. And, in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, R.D. Goss incurred $75,000 battling approximately 20 unfair labor practices; while all but one of the charges were dismissed, the company was forced to close its doors after doing business for thirty-eight years. Finally, in Union, Missouri, it cost the Companies $150,000 to win the dismissal of 47 unfair labor practices charges and to achieve one settlement for $200. Another common salting abuse is for salts to actually create Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations and then report those violations to OSHA. When the employer terminates these individuals, they file frivolous unfair labor practices against the employer. This results in wasted time and money, as well as bad publicity for the company. These are just a few of the many examples of how devastating salting abuse can be to small businesses. What makes this practice even more appalling is how organized labor openly advocates its use. According to the group, the ``Coalition For Fairness For Small Businesses And Employees,'' the labor unions are even advocating this practice in their manuals. The Union Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers explains why salts are used. Their purpose is to gather information that will ``. . . shape the strategy the organizer will use later in the campaign to threaten or actually apply the economic pressure necessary to cause the employer to . . . raise his prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business, leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, and so on. . .'' Thomas J. Cook, a former ``salt,'' explained the ultimate goal of salting abuse. Mr. Cook said, ``Salting has become a method to stifle competition in the marketplace, steal away employees, and to inflict financial harm on the competition.'' Mr. Cook concluded by stating that ``[i]n a country where free enterprise and independence is so highly valued, I find these activities nothing more than legalized extortion.'' The balance of rights must be restored between employers, employees and labor organizations. The Truth in Employment Act seeks to do this by inserting a provision in the National Labor Relations Act establishing that an employer is not required to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee applicant, in that such person is seeking employment for the primary purpose of furthering interests unrelated to those of that employer. Furthermore, this legislation will continue to allow employees to organize and engage in activities designed to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act. This measure is not intended to undermine those legitimate rights or protections. Employers will gain no ability to discriminate against union membership or activities. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive results of salting abuse. Salting abuse must be curtailed if we are to protect the small business owners and employees of this nation. This legislation will insure these protections are possible. It is for these reasons that I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act. I ask that my colleagues support this bill and restore fairness to the American workplace.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity to introduce today an important piece of legislation which will provide thousands of businesses in my home state of Arkansas and across the nation with a defense against an unscrupulous practice which is literally crippling them. The Truth in Employment will protect these businesses and curtail the destructive abuse of the union tactic known as salting. ``Salting abuse'' is the calculated practice of placing trained union professional organizers and agents in the non-union workplace whose sole purpose is to harass or disrupt company operation, apply economic pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately put a company out of business. The objectives of these union agents are accomplished through filing frivolous and unfair labor practice complaints or discrimination charges against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Salting campaigns have been used successfully to cause economic harm to construction companies and are quickly expanding into other industries across the country. It can cost employers anywhere from $5,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend him or herself against this practice. Salting is not merely a union organizing tool. It has become an instrument of economic destruction aimed at non-union companies. Union send their agents into non-union workplaces under the guise of seeking employment. Hiding behind the shield of the National Labor Relations Act, these ``salts'' use its provisions offensively to bring hardship on their employers. They deliberately increase the operating costs of their employers through actions such as sabotage and frivolous discrimination complaints. In the 1995 Town & Country decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that paid union organizers are ``employees'' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Because of their broad interpretation of this Act, employers who refuse to hire paid union employees or their agents violate the Act if they are shown to have discriminated against the union salts. This leaves employers in a precarious position. If employers refuse to hire union salts, they will file frivolous charges and accuse the employer of discrimination. Yet, if salts are employed, they will create internal disruption through a pattern of dissension and harassment. They are not there to work--only to disrupt. In a classic example of salting abuse, John Gaylor of Gaylor Electric had to fire one employee after this refusal to wear his hard hat on his head. This employee would strap the hard hat to his knee and then dare Gaylor to fire him because he said the employee manual stated only that he had to wear the hard hat, it didn't state where he had to wear it. As a result of the salting abuse, whenever many small businesses make hiring decisions, the future of the company, and its very existence, may be at stake. A wrong decision can mean frivolous charges, legal fees, and lost time, which may threaten the very existence of their business. I have received many accounts from across the nation of how salting abuse is affecting small businesses. The following examples were received as testimony in Congressional hearings. In my home state of Arkansas, Little Rock Electrical Contractors, Inc. incurred in excess of $80,000 in legal fees over the course of one year to fight 72 unfair labor practice charges, of which 20 were dismissed, 45 were set for trial, and 7 were appealed. In Cape Elizabeth, Maine, over a period of four years, Bay Electric incurred $100,000 in legal fees plus lost time to defend itself against 14 unfair labor practices, all of which were dismissed. In Delano, Minnesota, Wright Electric incurred $150,000 in legal fees and lost between $200,000 and $300,000 in lost time to win the dismissal of 14 of 15 unfair labor practices charges. And, in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, R.D. Goss incurred $75,000 battling approximately 20 unfair labor practices; while all but one of the charges were dismissed, the company was forced to close its doors after doing business for thirty-eight years. Finally, in Union, Missouri, it cost the Companies $150,000 to win the dismissal of 47 unfair labor practices charges and to achieve one settlement for $200. Another common salting abuse is for salts to actually create Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations and then report those violations to OSHA. When the employer terminates these individuals, they file frivolous unfair labor practices against the employer. This results in wasted time and money, as well as bad publicity for the company. These are just a few of the many examples of how devastating salting abuse can be to small businesses. What makes this practice even more appalling is how organized labor openly advocates its use. According to the group, the ``Coalition For Fairness For Small Businesses And Employees,'' the labor unions are even advocating this practice in their manuals. The Union Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers explains why salts are used. Their purpose is to gather information that will ``. . . shape the strategy the organizer will use later in the campaign to threaten or actually apply the economic pressure necessary to cause the employer to . . . raise his prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business, leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, and so on. . .'' Thomas J. Cook, a former ``salt,'' explained the ultimate goal of salting abuse. Mr. Cook said, ``Salting has become a method to stifle competition in the marketplace, steal away employees, and to inflict financial harm on the competition.'' Mr. Cook concluded by stating that ``[i]n a country where free enterprise and independence is so highly valued, I find these activities nothing more than legalized extortion.'' The balance of rights must be restored between employers, employees and labor organizations. The Truth in Employment Act seeks to do this by inserting a provision in the National Labor Relations Act establishing that an employer is not required to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee applicant, in that such person is seeking employment for the primary purpose of furthering interests unrelated to those of that employer. Furthermore, this legislation will continue to allow employees to organize and engage in activities designed to be protected by the National Labor Relations Act. This measure is not intended to undermine those legitimate rights or protections. Employers will gain no ability to discriminate against union membership or activities. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive results of salting abuse. Salting abuse must be curtailed if we are to protect the small business owners and employees of this nation. This legislation will insure these protections are possible. It is for these reasons that I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act. I ask that my colleagues support this bill and restore fairness to the American workplace.