Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator for taking the leadership on this issue so forcefully. If I could ask unanimous consent for just 2 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I was impressed with the Senator's comments as he reminds us of what Jiang has said concerning rights, that they are relative, that they are not absolute. And how do you deal, how do you negotiate, how can you trust a leader that has that concept of liberties, and how that contrasts in fact with our own Founding Fathers--the attitude that they seem to have that rights are like aspirins to be dispensed as needed by the government and to expand or to contract as the situation may require? The ideals of the American Revolution were not narrow. They were not culturally limited appeals without relevance beyond our shores. Our Founding Fathers recognized that when God gave rights, when the Creator gave rights, he didn't just give them to Americans; that he gave them to all human beings. And so the efforts of the Chinese leadership to depict Western democracy as being only a Western phenomenon, that it is a Western cultural thing like business suits or like eating with knives and forks is I think contrary to the reality that in fact rights are absolute and that civil liberties, that human rights transcend cultures and they transcend societies and they even transcend various forms of government. The young students in Beijing 8 years ago who defied the tanks, I say to the Senator, were not there making papier-mache models of Chairman Mao but of Miss Liberty. They didn't quote from Marx. They were quoting from Thomas Jefferson. And we may not be able to save the lives of every young, brave student in the world, but we should always make it clear that our prayers and our policies are on the side against the tanks of terror and that we should never sell out his cause of freedom for trade opportunities. I recall, as does the Senator, when the copyright issue came up with China and that China was violating American copyright laws. It was at that point that the administration threatened sanctions against China. When I was talking with Harry Wu, he replied as only Harry Wu could, that copyright equals sanctions, human rights equal no sanctions. And I think it really puts in perspective the attitude of the administration that profits seem to be more important and will bring greater repercussions and consequences with the Chinese Government than will the violation of human rights. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In closing, may I say it is my understanding that Jiang will be in Philadelphia, PA, today at the Liberty Bell, this great cradle of liberty, this great cradle of democracy in our country. I hope he reads well the words that are inscribed in the Liberty Bell because it is from the Scriptures. I think it is from the Book of Deuteronomy. It says, ``Proclaim liberty throughout the land.'' I hope he takes it to heart, that this is a concept he needs to bring back to China, and there is much he can do, starting with no longer jamming Radio Free Asia. If he believes in liberty, let the message of freedom come into his country. Among the dissidents I met with this week was an elderly Tibetan lady who had been arrested and spent 28 years in prison. She said that all of those who were arrested when she was arrested are now dead. And she said she has asked repeatedly, why only her? Why did she live? Why did she survive those 28 years in prison? And as we met right over here in the Foreign Relations Committee room, she looked around--there were 10 Senators there, and she looked at those Senators and said, ``That's why I survived, so I could tell my story.'' I thank Senator Ashcroft for helping tell her story to the American people. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. First, may I say I am glad that I am able to join my distinguished colleague from Missouri. When he speaks of ``statesmanship'' on the issue of foreign policy, I think he exemplifies that term. To answer the Senator's question, I think it is unfortunate that after the summit the whole issue of human rights has really taken a back seat to commercial interests and that the attention that has been given to human rights is primarily attributable to those who have been willing to protest the presence of Jiang Zemin in our country, coming to the United States with the kind of attention at a state dinner, with a 21-gun salute, and with the red carpet treatment he has been accorded. So I am glad for those who have pushed the issue of human rights. The President was praised yesterday for chiding Jiang for the human rights record in China. But I think the chiding at whatever level it may have occurred and to what extent it may have occurred is greatly undermined when it is accompanied by 21-gun salutes, red carpet treatment, and state dinners, that, in fact, the ultimate end result of this summit will be to give greater acceptance of the Chinese Communist Government and greater willingness to accept and condone the oppressive practices that have become characteristic of this regime. So instructive engagement has degenerated, I am afraid, into an exercise of appeasement. I think ``appeasement'' is a very strong word to use. But when we look at the last 4 years, I think it is not too strong a term to use to describe what the administration's policy has been. The logic behind constructive engagement, as my colleague well knows, has been that expanded trade would lead to political liberalization and that economic freedom frequently leads to political freedom. I have had meetings with a number of dissidents this week from China, the most famous of whom in this country is probably Harry Wu. When I raised this issue with Harry Wu, I said, ``Harry, when they talk about economic liberalization leading to political liberalization and that trade ultimately always leads to political liberty if we will just give it time, that greater trade opportunities, the higher standard of living, and what they experience with economic prosperity has to ultimately lead to political liberalization and greater freedom,'' his response was if the administration were sincere in that, if they were genuine in that conviction, why not use that in North Korea, why not use that in Cuba? If, in fact, trade ended totalitarianism, we would be practicing that in other places. I would be delighted to yield to my colleague.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is correct. I believe Mr. Wu spent a total of 19 years in Chinese prisons.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. His incarceration was because he was drawing attention to something that China is sensitive to, which is the slave labor camp system that exists within China, and most recently, of course, his drawing attention to the Chinese Government's policy of selling organs from those who have been executed within those prisons.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Simply for being willing to express a dissenting opinion.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. As the Senator knows, trade has consistently expanded. I might also add that our deficit in trade with China has expanded as well, so that this year it is anticipated we will have a $44 billion trade deficit. But I think at the time Harry Wu was first incarcerated, it was down in the single digits.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe what underscores that even more is during the 8 years since Tiananmen Square and during the 4 years since we have adopted this so-called policy of instructive engagement, by every measure, human rights conditions in China have deteriorated, which seems to me to greatly undermine this approach that economic trade will lead to greater political liberty.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. So the administration's decision not even to consider human rights abuses when dealing with China has proven, I think, disastrous for the people of China and they have been removed from the threat of any repercussions; that is, the Chinese Communist government in their trade relationship with the United States and the Chinese Communist leaders have succeeded in jailing every last dissident in a country of over 1 billion people. So rather than seeing expanded liberties, we have seen those contracted by the jailing of every last dissident as our country has turned a blind eye to the atrocities that have escalated, and the oppressive government in China has strengthened its hold on fully what is one-fourth of the world's population. Since the United States formally delinked American trade with China from its human rights performance of abuse, much has changed, but nothing has changed for the better. I had in my office yesterday--I share this with the Senator from Missouri--a number of Chinese political dissidents, democracy dissidents, those who had raised their voices on the side of freedom. One was a former editor with the People's Daily, a Communist Chinese newspaper. He resigned that position because they would not allow him to speak the truth. But the one I remember the most and that made such an impression upon me was the young man who said that on the very day that President Clinton announced his policy of delinking in which he said no longer will we tie human rights abuses and violations to our attitude toward trade with Communist China, it was on that very day that they came and rounded him up and his incarceration and his prison term began. So the policy of constructive engagement has simply failed. It has produced more persecutions of Christians, more forced abortions, more sterilizations to the mentally handicapped, more incarcerations of political dissidents, and the near extinction of the expression of any opinions contrary to that of the Communist regime. I participated yesterday, I believe it was yesterday, in the ``Adopt a Prisoner of Conscience'' Program that began on the House side in which Members of the House and Senate were invited to adopt a particular individual who today is languishing in a Chinese Communist prison for no other reason--not because they robbed a bank or because they mugged somebody, or they robbed--for no other reason than they had expressed their own conscience contrary to that of the Communist government. The ``prisoner of conscious'' whom I adopted, and whose name I do not seek to say, was charged with this crime: Helping Christians. That was the charge. That is why he is incarcerated. The date of release is unknown. How long he will stay in prison we don't know. But his crime was simply helping Christians. So I suggest, as I yield to the Senator from Missouri, that this policy of constructive engagement has failed, and at some point, if time allows, I would like to talk about how this foreign policy contrasts so poorly with the very firm foreign policy that we had under Ronald Reagan.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of William E. Kennard to the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]. The telecommunications industry has seen incredible technological advances made over the last two decades. As a result, the responsibilities and scope of the FCC have increased dramatically. Today, it is more important than ever for FCC Commissioners to be able to respond and adapt to these changes in a timely manner. Recently, the FCC issued a regulation that will have a profound impact on the trucking industry nationwide. While ordinarily one would not think of an FCC action having an adverse impact on trucking companies, such is not the case in this situation. On October 9, the FCC issued a regulation implementing a provision of last year's Telecommunications Act, which directed the FCC to provide for adequate compensation of pay phone operators. The new FCC regulation ordered long-distance companies to pay payphone owners 28.4 cents per call for each call to a toll-free number unless the payphone owner and the long- distance company have a contract specifying a different rate. The charge applies to both customer toll-free numbers and to company access numbers, including those on prepaid calling cards. The charge became effective immediately. Long-distance carriers, in turn, are passing this charge along to their customers. The carriers are not limited to a set charge and as a result the amount being charged varies depending on the carrier. Pay phones are the life line between the Nation's 3.2 million truck drivers and their home offices. A driver will call in numerous times during the day and in most cases will talk no longer than 2 minutes. Nevertheless, under this new rule, the trucking company will be charged each time a driver calls in. Arkansas has been fortunate to have a significant trucking industry based in our State. Some of the largest trucking companies in the Nation are headquartered there. This new regulation will have a devastating effect on their business costs. For instance, in the case of J.B. Hunt Trucking, it is estimated that this new regulation will increase the company's phone bill by approximately $200,000 a month. This will equate to $2.1 million annually. Smaller trucking firms have also contacted me and said their phone bills are projected to double under this new rule. A small business is completely unable to absorb an increase of this magnitude. When it comes to using payphones, the trucking industry is virtually a captive consumer. There is no real alternative and no option to avoid paying what is, in effect, a very expensive tax. Mr. President, we need to explore alternatives to provide some relief to this industry. I will be contacting the FCC Commissioners to work with them on this problem and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I rise today, on the eve of Chinese President Jiang Zemin's official state visit to the United States. I rise today because I believe that, while it is important to continue relations with a country that contains one-fourth of the world's population, it is also important for us to remember that this one- fourth of the world's population--these 1.2 billion people--suffer today under an oppressive regime committed to a violent suppression of dissent, a regime which steadfastly refuses to recognize inalienable human rights, a regime which uses imprisonment, torture, and execution as tools to forge a society that is void of individual liberty. It is a regime that has a government program to market human organs and body parts, using the execution of prisoners as a profit method for the Government of China; a regime that systematically jams Radio Free Asia. While coming to the United States and professing their belief in liberty, they systematically jam the expression of freedom that this country subsidizes, underscoring its importance by broadcasting throughout Asia. Yet, with all of these facts, all of this evidence, the United States rolls out the red carpet for President Jiang Zemin of China, the same leader who was named General Secretary of the Communist Party 3 weeks after the protests were quelled with violence and bloodshed in Tiananmen Square. This is the same leader who is the hand-chosen successor to Deng Xiaoping, the so-called Butcher of Beijing. He is the same Communist leader who, in a 1990 interview, only a few weeks after the Tiananmen Square massacre, in an interview with Barbara Walters described the Tiananmen killings as, and I am quoting President Jiang Zemin, ``much ado about nothing.'' This is the Communist leader who, in an interview published in the Washington Post just last Sunday, continued to defend the Tiananmen Square massacre and suggested the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators was the price of allowing economic reform in China. Madam President, this is the Communist leader who is traveling throughout the country like a king. Nothing underscores the differences we have with President Zemin more than his recent comments on the subject of human rights. Earlier this month, as he prepared to come to the United States, President Zemin said, ``Both democracy and human rights are relative concepts and not absolute and general.'' That bears repeating. President Jiang Zemin said about democracy and human rights, they are not absolutes, they are not something that is essential, something that is God given, something that is basic to being human beings. But, he says, they are relative concepts. As citizens of the United States, the great foundation on which our country was built is the undeniable and unchanging principle that all mankind is created equal, and that we are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights. Those rights attend to us as human beings, whether we live in China or whether we live in the United States. Nothing is more central to our understanding of the role of government. President Zemin and the Chinese leadership flagrantly reject this and over 1 billion Chinese know oppression and fear and violence as part and parcel of their daily lives. I would say to President Zemin that human rights are not the possession of governments, to be dispensed at the will or the discretion of those who wield power. Human rights is not, as he has insisted, a relative concept. It is a transcending value that crosses cultures, societies, and forms of government. Liberty is not the province of America, and to my colleagues and to this administration I would say that our defense of freedom must not stop at our own shores. The values which we cherish as Americans we must defend for people everywhere. We always have. The Great Wall that separates our governments today is the great wall of human rights violations. I hope the President and the leadership of Congress in their meetings with President Zemin this week will, frankly and forcefully, communicate the deep sense of anger and the deep sense of outrage that is stirred in this country by the ongoing human rights abuses in China. It is time for straight talk with the Chinese leadership. It is time for an American foreign policy guided by a commitment to the cause of freedom. I urge the President to remember the words that he spoke in December 1991 as he campaigned for the office which he now occupies. Candidate Clinton in 1991 said, in reference to the Bush administration: The administration continues to coddle China, despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reforms, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsible export of nuclear and missile technology, and its abusive trade practices. He accused the Bush administration of coddling China because of these circumstances within China--brutal subjugation of Tibet, irresponsible export of nuclear missile technology, and crackdown on Democratic reforms. He said, because of that, the Bush administration is doing too little. They are coddling China. I ask the President, what has changed? The only thing that has changed is the condition of the Chinese people and the oppression under which they live every day. Conditions are worse by every measure and by every standard. Things have gotten worse in China. Yet the administration has totally changed its position. The position of the President has changed. The condition of the Chinese people has changed also, but only for the worse. I believe that China's flagrant disregard for human rights should be enough. But, since our policies toward China have not changed, the human rights abuses continue to take a back seat to a foreign policy that seems to be driven by profit projections. The administration now, instead of sanctioning China, wants to sign an all-encompassing new nuclear pact with China; in effect, to reward them. The logic in all of this new policy, called constructive engagement, is that if we will engage China and we will trade with China and we will see economic expansion in China--and their economy is growing in double digits every year--that human rights conditions will improve, that the rights of the Chinese people will be enhanced. Such has not been the case. And if such a policy were one that we consistently enforced around the world, it would result in the lifting of sanctions on Cuba, the lifting of sanctions on North Korea, because if we believe that increased trade is going to bring the downfall of totalitarianism, it ought to work not only in China but North Korea and Cuba, too. But we hear no mention we ought to change our trade policies toward North Korea or Cuba; all the time saying if we just continue to trade with China, things will get better there. Now, in the midst of all of this, the administration admits to signing an all-encompassing nuclear pact with China. Lets look at the facts, because I think they speak for themselves. In December 1992, the Government of the People's Republic of China violated the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act of 1979 with the transfer by the Ministry of Aerospace Industry of approximately 24 M-11 missiles to Pakistan. Let's look at the facts. From September 1994 to June 1996, the Government of the People's Republic of China again violated the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act of 1996, with the transfer by the Ministry of Aerospace Industry of as many as 30 M-11 ballistic missiles to Pakistan. In August 1996, the Government of the Peoples Republic of China again violated the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act of 1979, and the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, with the transfer by the China Precision Engineering Institute to Iran's defense industries of gyroscopes, accelerometers, and test equipment for the construction and test of ballistic missile guidance systems. While looking at the facts, it was reported in August of this year that the United States Central Intelligence Agency discovered a shipment by the People's Republic of China to the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center, a Syria Government agency that oversees missile development, of guidance equipment for M-11 ballistic missiles. This alleged system would be a violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. This alleged shipment would have taken place after the limited sanctions imposed by the United States on China for shipments of M-11 missiles and components to Pakistan had been lifted following the assurances by China that it would comply with the Missile Technology Control Regime. So we see these ongoing violations. After each of these violations, and there are many more, our administration either failed to take appropriate actions to deter future violations of such acts, took the least onerous action against the Government of the People's Republic of China that was possible under such acts, or rescinded previous actions, thereby diluting or eliminating the deterrent effect of sanctions under such acts with respect to China. This inaction has forced three important results. First, this Congress renewed MFN to China. Second, we are now honoring the Communist leader in our country. Third, the public has been convinced that through such nearsighted ill-advised strategies like constructive engagement, China would change. Yes, Madam President, China has changed--for the worse. And this Congress and this President, I believe, has done too little. If you will, we have stood idly by. We have said too little. We have done virtually nothing. What is truly unprecedented is the administration's recent campaign to draw a bright and attractive picture of Communist China. I ask the President and I ask this Congress, and I have turned to this before and I will turn to it again, have you not read the 1996 United States State Department's China Country Report on Human Rights Practices? Because I have read it. The information in it is horrific. Once again, allow me to quote from this report: China has continued to commit widespread and well- documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the abuse of laws protecting basic freedoms. Abuses include torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, and arbitrary and lengthy incommunicado detention. The government continued severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, religion, privacy and workers' rights. That's from our own State Department 1996 country report on China. In 1989 we watched with amazement as courageous Chinese students marched in Tiananmen Square. Today, they are all gone. They are all gone. During their struggle they defied the tanks, they looked to the United States for inspiration, they quoted our Declaration of Independence, they built replicas of our Statue of Liberty, and throughout it all United States policymakers have answered that economic engagement would stop China's abuses of human rights. As far as I can tell, not only are profit projections driving our foreign policy, not only is our current policy with China appeasement rather than engagement, not only does this Congress continue to turn a blind eye to the oppressed in the interests of trade opportunities, but, President Jiang Zemin's visit is a clear sign to the world, our enemies, and our friends that not only did the United States tacitly approve of everything that was going on, I think, from forced sterilization to the breaking of ballistic missile treaties, but even more important it's a clear message that we can and will tolerate anything and everything without repercussion and without a price. I am reminded of President Ronald Reagan. I think few have served our country more nobly. And I am reminded of my good friend Senator John Ashcroft who has spoken so forcefully on the issue of China, especially even during this last month. In President Ronald Reagan's second inaugural address, he spoke of the danger of simple-minded appeasement. He spoke of accommodating countries at their lowest and least. This is what former President Reagan said: History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. There have been no repercussions to the egregious human rights abuses ongoing in China. There have been no repercussions. There has been no price to pay for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that the Government of China has carried out. There have been no repercussions for the incomprehensible toleration by the Chinese Government of laogai camps, the slave labor camps that exist in which there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, incarcerated. Madam President, President Jiang Zemin's visit proves that China believes that the price of aggression and the price of these abuses is cheap. It proves that we in this country accept this, and I can remember when we did not. It proves that, just as President Clinton stated last Friday that China is at a crossroads, well, Madam President, we in the United States are at a crossroads as well. President Jiang Zemin and his enjoyment of a state visit, a visit that has been elevated to the highest level, the red carpet treatment that he has been accorded, the 21-gun salute, I believe this is truly a slap in the face to every Chinese political dissident that languishes today in a Chinese prison. It is time that we as public policymakers, those concerned about the welfare of our fellow human beings wherever they may live in this world, who are the recipients by their creator, as we Americans are, of certain unchangeable, undeniable human rights, it is time that we, once again, not only spoke out, but move from debate and discussion and outrage to action. During the course of this state visit, while I disagree with much that has been planned and the royal treatment that he is being given, it is an opportunity for us as Americans to show President Zemin what freedom really is. It is an opportunity for us, through our protests, through our debates, through our congressional oversight hearings that are going on, through every means possible, to raise these most serious issues to the attention of President Zemin and to show him not only what free expression really is, but to show him the true intensity of the feeling of the American people, if not our Government, the American people at what has been tolerated and what continues to go on in China today. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of S. 1299 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. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to talk about an issue which literally means life and breath to 30 million Americans. It appears that in an effort to clean up the environment, some heavy-handed bureaucrats are willing to reduce the quality of life for those Americans--children, adults, and senior citizens--who are dependent upon inhalers like this inhaler that I have with me today. As I rode the elevator up to the Chamber, I mentioned to the elevator operator what I was going to be doing. She said, ``Well, please do it because it means life to me. I have to have this to breathe.'' I have a nephew, John Paul, who is an asthmatic, who has been dependent upon these inhalers that would be outlawed unless we act as the Senate. Because of this, I am offering the Asthma Inhaler Regulatory Relief Act, AIRR, which would block the Food and Drug Administration from banning certain metered dose inhalers, MDI's. I am glad today that Senator Shelby, Senator Bond, and Senator DeWine have all joined as original cosponsors on this legislation. Senator DeWine has a special interest in this, with four of his children, it is my understanding, being asthmatics and being dependent upon these inhalers. These inhalers are used by nearly 30 million Americans who suffer from respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cystic fibrosis. These people have come to rely on their inhalers as a lifeline for daily living. Yet, the FDA at this time, in its very questionable wisdom, has decided that inhalers severely damage the environment and must be banned. One of only a few avenues to the outside world, the FDA would seal this avenue and ban these inhalers. The FDA initially published an advanced notice of a proposed rulemaking to eliminate the use of MDI's that use chlorofluorocarbons on March 6, 1997. About this time, I received several letters which initially sparked my interest in the issue. I have come to find out that the FDA, in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed this rule as part of the EPA's desire to eliminate all uses of chlorofluorocarbons as soon as possible. Most metered dose inhalers use CFC's as the propellant to deliver the medicine from the inhaler to the lungs of the patient. Under the 1987 Montreal protocol CFC's are to be phased out globally by the year 2005. However, certain uses of CFC's, including this inhaler, were explicitly recognized by signatories of the protocol as vital to human health while posing relatively little harm to the environment. This exception has allowed the continued manufacture and use of inhalers which use CFC's as their propellants. This exception, however, is being threatened by the Food and Drug Administration despite the objections of many, including the American Academy of Family Physicians. In their May 5, 1997 letter to Michael Friedman, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, the physicians wrote: The Academy believes that the proposed rule might negatively affect our patients' health care and urges the FDA to continue to deem MDI's as ``essential'' under the Montreal Protocol. These are the doctors who deal with our children day in and day out. They reiterated twice in their letter that they support eliminating CFC's from the environment but feel that this shortened timetable is not necessary and may be detrimental, very detrimental to their patients' health. Carol Browner, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has come to the Congress on numerous occasions to lobby on behalf of EPA's proposed clean air standards. I serve on the clean air subcommittee. We have had Administrator Browner before us numerous times as an advocate for children. One of the most compelling arguments she has made on behalf of these new air standards is that she is saving the children and the elderly from unnecessary respiratory illness. I respect Ms. Browner for her zeal to protect children and the elderly, but I find it ironic and amazing and I have to wonder how she can support taking the medication away from those whom she claims to be trying to protect. I wonder how she can look these children in the eye and tell them she is taking away the one thing that allows them to play outside and enjoy the high-energy activities of running, climbing and participating in sports. Ms. Browner's actions will literally rob them of their childhood and force them to sit on the sidelines. Of course, the EPA has an answer. First, the EPA and the FDA will tell us there are other MDI's available that will provide the necessary protection for these children. The truth is there is only one that is currently available. Many are in the research and development stages, but that pales in comparison to the hundreds of these inhalers that are available currently. Doctors will tell you that different patients react differently to different medications. There are many inhalers that are virtually identical in composition yet have dramatically different effects on various patients. Again, quoting the American Academy of Family Physicians: We are concerned that the proposed rule will severely limit the number of therapies available to our patients. We know that a drug that works for one patient may not work for another. We would like our members to have the flexibility to try different therapies to find the one that is most effective for their patients. Simply put, 1 inhaler is not enough and 10 is not enough. Doctors must have the ability to choose the medication that best suits their patients. In the case of respiratory treatment, one size definitely does not fit all. Another concern I have with allowing one inhaler to dominate the market is the cost to the consumer. Obviously, where there are hundreds as currently exist, including many generic brands, there will be lower prices for the consumer. If we allow the FDA and the EPA to ban CFC inhalers, many may not be able to afford the treatment. The majority of patients who suffer from these symptoms live in the inner-city where the cost of living is very high and their income very low. These families rely on inhalers which can cost eight times less than newer name brand products without CFC's. If these children from low-income inner-city families lose the most accessible inhaler, they are less likely to continue adequate treatment which is so important to a normal life. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology has told both the FDA and the EPA that because of these increased costs, their proposal will unfairly punish poor children and the elderly who have the highest risks of asthma-related sickness and death. A certain consequence of a decrease in the use of inhalers as part of a schedule to keep asthma in control is an increase in hospital admissions and an increase in deaths. According to a panel of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, between 1980 and 1993 failure to comply with treatment explains a 300 percent increase in asthma-related deaths among children. This proposal put forth by the EPA and the FDA will increase costs and can only worsen this statistic. Another common argument the EPA will use is that by banning CFC's, we are making the air more safe for children and the elderly. While certainly there are studies that show these gases are harmful and increase the probability that an asthmatic will have an attack, if you look at the statistics, you will find that inhalers, such as this one, account for at most 1.5 percent of all CFC's produced in the world. The EPA supports taking away nearly 30 million people's inhalers to eliminate approximately 1.5 percent of the CFC's produced. That hardly seems like a logical target for reducing CFC's and preserving and maintaining the health of the American people. In the October edition of Insight Magazine, Robert Goldbert, senior research fellow at George Washington Center For Neuroscience, determines that banning MDI's that only account for 1.5 percent of CFC emissions is another cynical exploitation of kids for the sake of environmental correctness. I do not believe that this proposal is part of a strategy to save the ozone layer. I believe it is a strategy to use children as a political tool for an end that I frankly do not understand. We cannot allow the FDA and the EPA to require children and senior citizens to foot the bill for reductions in CFC's that will do no good, while hurting the most vulnerable. These actions, if allowed to proceed, will literally rob these children of their childhood and significantly reduce the quality of life of all those dependent on inhalers. I urge the Presiding Officer and all of my colleagues who may be listening today to join in cosponsorship of what I think is commonsense legislation and that is going to be to the benefit of 30 million Americans including children and the elderly and those who are most vulnerable in our society. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. We will be recessed for the weekly policy luncheons. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1173, the ISTEA reauthorization bill. Members are encouraged to participate in debating this important legislation during today's session. In addition, the Senate may turn to any appropriations conference reports that become available. Therefore, rollcall votes are expected throughout today's session.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to talk about an issue which literally means life and breath to 30 million Americans. It appears that in an effort to clean up the environment, some heavy-handed bureaucrats are willing to reduce the quality of life for those Americans--children, adults, and senior citizens--who are dependent upon inhalers like this inhaler that I have with me today. As I rode the elevator up to the Chamber, I mentioned to the elevator operator what I was going to be doing. She said, ``Well, please do it because it means life to me. I have to have this to breathe.'' I have a nephew, John Paul, who is an asthmatic, who has been dependent upon these inhalers that would be outlawed unless we act as the Senate. Because of this, I am offering the Asthma Inhaler Regulatory Relief Act, AIRR, which would block the Food and Drug Administration from banning certain metered dose inhalers, MDI's. I am glad today that Senator Shelby, Senator Bond, and Senator DeWine have all joined as original cosponsors on this legislation. Senator DeWine has a special interest in this, with four of his children, it is my understanding, being asthmatics and being dependent upon these inhalers. These inhalers are used by nearly 30 million Americans who suffer from respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cystic fibrosis. These people have come to rely on their inhalers as a lifeline for daily living. Yet, the FDA at this time, in its very questionable wisdom, has decided that inhalers severely damage the environment and must be banned. One of only a few avenues to the outside world, the FDA would seal this avenue and ban these inhalers. The FDA initially published an advanced notice of a proposed rulemaking to eliminate the use of MDI's that use chlorofluorocarbons on March 6, 1997. About this time, I received several letters which initially sparked my interest in the issue. I have come to find out that the FDA, in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed this rule as part of the EPA's desire to eliminate all uses of chlorofluorocarbons as soon as possible. Most metered dose inhalers use CFC's as the propellant to deliver the medicine from the inhaler to the lungs of the patient. Under the 1987 Montreal protocol CFC's are to be phased out globally by the year 2005. However, certain uses of CFC's, including this inhaler, were explicitly recognized by signatories of the protocol as vital to human health while posing relatively little harm to the environment. This exception has allowed the continued manufacture and use of inhalers which use CFC's as their propellants. This exception, however, is being threatened by the Food and Drug Administration despite the objections of many, including the American Academy of Family Physicians. In their May 5, 1997 letter to Michael Friedman, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, the physicians wrote: The Academy believes that the proposed rule might negatively affect our patients' health care and urges the FDA to continue to deem MDI's as ``essential'' under the Montreal Protocol. These are the doctors who deal with our children day in and day out. They reiterated twice in their letter that they support eliminating CFC's from the environment but feel that this shortened timetable is not necessary and may be detrimental, very detrimental to their patients' health. Carol Browner, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has come to the Congress on numerous occasions to lobby on behalf of EPA's proposed clean air standards. I serve on the clean air subcommittee. We have had Administrator Browner before us numerous times as an advocate for children. One of the most compelling arguments she has made on behalf of these new air standards is that she is saving the children and the elderly from unnecessary respiratory illness. I respect Ms. Browner for her zeal to protect children and the elderly, but I find it ironic and amazing and I have to wonder how she can support taking the medication away from those whom she claims to be trying to protect. I wonder how she can look these children in the eye and tell them she is taking away the one thing that allows them to play outside and enjoy the high-energy activities of running, climbing and participating in sports. Ms. Browner's actions will literally rob them of their childhood and force them to sit on the sidelines. Of course, the EPA has an answer. First, the EPA and the FDA will tell us there are other MDI's available that will provide the necessary protection for these children. The truth is there is only one that is currently available. Many are in the research and development stages, but that pales in comparison to the hundreds of these inhalers that are available currently. Doctors will tell you that different patients react differently to different medications. There are many inhalers that are virtually identical in composition yet have dramatically different effects on various patients. Again, quoting the American Academy of Family Physicians: We are concerned that the proposed rule will severely limit the number of therapies available to our patients. We know that a drug that works for one patient may not work for another. We would like our members to have the flexibility to try different therapies to find the one that is most effective for their patients. Simply put, 1 inhaler is not enough and 10 is not enough. Doctors must have the ability to choose the medication that best suits their patients. In the case of respiratory treatment, one size definitely does not fit all. Another concern I have with allowing one inhaler to dominate the market is the cost to the consumer. Obviously, where there are hundreds as currently exist, including many generic brands, there will be lower prices for the consumer. If we allow the FDA and the EPA to ban CFC inhalers, many may not be able to afford the treatment. The majority of patients who suffer from these symptoms live in the inner-city where the cost of living is very high and their income very low. These families rely on inhalers which can cost eight times less than newer name brand products without CFC's. If these children from low-income inner-city families lose the most accessible inhaler, they are less likely to continue adequate treatment which is so important to a normal life. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology has told both the FDA and the EPA that because of these increased costs, their proposal will unfairly punish poor children and the elderly who have the highest risks of asthma-related sickness and death. A certain consequence of a decrease in the use of inhalers as part of a schedule to keep asthma in control is an increase in hospital admissions and an increase in deaths. According to a panel of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, between 1980 and 1993 failure to comply with treatment explains a 300 percent increase in asthma-related deaths among children. This proposal put forth by the EPA and the FDA will increase costs and can only worsen this statistic. Another common argument the EPA will use is that by banning CFC's, we are making the air more safe for children and the elderly. While certainly there are studies that show these gases are harmful and increase the probability that an asthmatic will have an attack, if you look at the statistics, you will find that inhalers, such as this one, account for at most 1.5 percent of all CFC's produced in the world. The EPA supports taking away nearly 30 million people's inhalers to eliminate approximately 1.5 percent of the CFC's produced. That hardly seems like a logical target for reducing CFC's and preserving and maintaining the health of the American people. In the October edition of Insight Magazine, Robert Goldbert, senior research fellow at George Washington Center For Neuroscience, determines that banning MDI's that only account for 1.5 percent of CFC emissions is another cynical exploitation of kids for the sake of environmental correctness. I do not believe that this proposal is part of a strategy to save the ozone layer. I believe it is a strategy to use children as a political tool for an end that I frankly do not understand. We cannot allow the FDA and the EPA to require children and senior citizens to foot the bill for reductions in CFC's that will do no good, while hurting the most vulnerable. These actions, if allowed to proceed, will literally rob these children of their childhood and significantly reduce the quality of life of all those dependent on inhalers. I urge the Presiding Officer and all of my colleagues who may be listening today to join in cosponsorship of what I think is commonsense legislation and that is going to be to the benefit of 30 million Americans including children and the elderly and those who are most vulnerable in our society. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding time. Yesterday I voted to invoke cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill. Today I will oppose that effort. I voted for cloture because I want campaign finance reform. I want an opportunity to amend McCain-Feingold, which I believe is a seriously flawed bill. I want a chance to vote on a reform bill and I want to ban or limit soft money. But it is now clear that there is no consensus in support of McCain-Feingold, and if we are to have serious and meaningful reform, we will and must take a different direction. I absolutely do not support the current version of McCain-Feingold. In my opinion, and I have expressed it both publicly and privately, McCain-Feingold contains provisions that threaten free speech and pose serious constitutional problems, especially in the area of issue advocacy. These groups, which play such an important part in the political process, regardless of their affiliation, deserve to play that important role. And we must not in any way place a chill on their right of free expression and their ability to criticize their public officials. There have been abuses, no doubt about that. But it is far better for us to err on the side of freedom and to err on the side of liberty and to err on the side of the Constitution than to take a chance of passing a misguided, though popular right now, reform bill that would in fact begin that erosion of those liberties and freedoms and the right of free expression that we cherish as Americans and that we always should. It is clear there is no consensus on McCain-Feingold and will not be. It is equally clear that repeated cloture votes on McCain-Feingold is a part of a political strategy to portray opponents of McCain-Feingold as opponents of reform. As unfortunate as it is for the American people, the McCain-Feingold bill has become so politicized that even supporters of campaign finance reform, like myself, are disgusted with the political tactics that have been used in this debate. You have to question the sincerity of a strategy that disrupts Senate business and distracts the Senate from other important business such as ISTEA, the transportation funding bill, fast track, appropriation conference reports and judicial nominations, all of these vitally important things, pressing business of the American people, and to set that aside so we can hold press conferences to portray opponents of McCain- Feingold as opponents of reform, which is not true and is not fair. If supporters of McCain-Feingold truly wanted to put forth a serious effort to enact reform, they would take a different approach by working to find consensus, by working to find agreement, rather than attempting to score political points. I will not be a part of these partisan guerrilla warfare tactics. I fully and completely support campaign finance reform. I think we have need to address it. I think we need to reform the system and particularly deal with that area in which there has been abuse, in the area of soft money. But I will not again vote to invoke cloture on S. 25 and be a part of a political game that is more concerned about portraying political opponents in a certain bad light than enacting meaningful and real and significant reform. I thank again the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership and for his genuine deep convictions in defense of the first amendment and the right of free expression. I yield the floor. (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the chair.)

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in the strongest support of the District of Columbia student opportunity scholarship amendment offered by Senators Coats and Lieberman to the D.C. appropriations bill. I have long been convinced of the value of school choice programs. I think the debate this afternoon has been very healthy for our country. Earlier this year, the Washington Post ran a five-part series on the D.C. schools, detailing the mounting problems of the physical deterioration of its school buildings, violence in the classrooms, and the falling academic success among students. Eighty-five percent of D.C. public school students who go on to college at the University of the District of Columbia [UDC] need 2 years of remedial education before beginning course work toward a degree at all. While this statistic is alarming and should not be tolerated, it is a prime example of how the D.C. public schools are failing the very children that they are supposed to be serving. It is the children who are the losers. Some argue, as my colleague just argued, that if only more money were available to mend the crumbling school buildings, or to better train the teachers or to hire more teachers, then everything would be fine. Mr. President, more money is not really the answer. Despite spending more than $7,300 per student in 1996, which is among the Nation's highest spending rates, 65 percent of all D.C. public schoolchildren, two-thirds of them, test below their grade levels; 72 percent of fourth graders in the D.C. public schools tested below basic proficiency on the NAEP test--worse than any other school system in the Nation. More money is not the answer. What about the increased violence? The National Education Goals Panel reported last year that both students and teachers in D.C. schools are subjected to levels of violence that are twice the national average. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, isn't this bill the perfect place to give us the opportunity to show what vouchers can do? They do help real families. Some of my staff members are privileged to work with one D.C. family who was fortunate to have received $4,000 of scholarship money this fall to enroll six of their children in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic School here in the District of Columbia. I had the honor of meeting one of those children, Shannon, when she visited my office in the spring to interview me as part of a school project on Arkansas. It was little Shannon who, 1 year ago, told her tutor that she wanted to go to a Catholic school. When asked why, she emphatically answered, ``because I want to learn much.'' Mr. President, even though Shannon had never been to a Catholic school, nor did she know anybody enrolled in a Catholic school, she knew that if she went to a Catholic school, she would learn. She wanted to learn much. Shannon's mother knew that, for her children to progress in their studies and graduate from high school, she desperately needed to get them out of the failing D.C. schools and into a place where the teachers would spend time with her children and teach them. Under this amendment, nearly 2,000 of the District of Columbia's poorest children--not the wealthy kids, those from the rich side of town whose parents can afford to send them to elite schools--but the poorest children would receive scholarships for tuition costs at a private school in the District of Columbia, or in adjacent counties in Maryland and Virginia. Mothers like Shannon's are eyewitnesses to their children's improvement when their children are enrolled in a safe, stable, and thriving school environment. The Coats-Lieberman plan is a lifeline of hope for thousands of D.C. parents, like Shannon's mom, who have waited and are still waiting for an opportunity to give their children a solid education and a chance to succeed. This amendment makes so much common sense. The question is, will vouchers work? Let's give vouchers a chance right here in one of the worst school districts in the Nation. Let's not continue to put good money after bad by simply pouring it into a system that is broken. Let's give the children of this city hope. Let's give the parents of the poorest children in this city an opportunity to give their children the best educational opportunity. I commend the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, and Senator Lieberman for their leadership and for the opportunity to conduct this debate and to cast this important vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. As the sponsor of the amendment that became section 809 of S. 830, I concur with the distinguished ranking minority member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee that this legislation would ensure patient access to individualized drug therapy, and prevent unnecessary FDA regulation of health professional practice. This legislation would exempt pharmacy compounding from several regulatory requirements but would not exempt drug manufacturing from the act's requirements. The legislation also sets forth a number of conditions that would have to be met in order to qualify for the exemption from the act's requirements. I would note that the conditions established by section 809 should be used by the State boards of pharmacy and medicine for proper regulation of pharmacy compounding in addition to State- specific regulations. When a State board determines that certain compounding activities are outside the parameters established in section 809, that State board should refer the practitioners in question to the FDA for review.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I think it has been a good debate. I think some of the suggestions made and some of the points are very valid. We have tried to respond to those. I want to assure my distinguished colleague from New York that I believe the Hudson River's possibilities and its chances of being designated as an American Heritage will be enhanced by the adoption of this amendment. One of the provisions is prioritization, which would be in accord with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. That will help the Hudson River. We don't designate the rivers in Congress. Congress doesn't designate them, but we would like to have the right of approval. I think that is proper and appropriate. The amendment does not undermine the Clinton Executive order. Instead, it assures that the rights of property owners will be upheld through the notification and comment process. It further assures that the true interests of those residing near, owning property, or conducting business in the area of the river will be heard, and that their interests will not be muted by powerful outside lobbyists or interest groups who desire to force their will on a selected community. It should be understood that this initiative has never been authorized, money has never been appropriated. It sweeps money from eight Cabinet departments, four governmental agencies, allowing the Federal bureaucracy to dominate what should be a community-directed initiative. My friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, made the analogy of the Scenic Highways Program in the State of Arkansas, in which highways are called scenic highways, and signs are put up, and how that helps tourism. I remind my good friend that the scenic highways in Arkansas are approved by the State legislature. So I think if we are going to carry that analogy, Congress should assert itself in its proper role in approving these designations. That is what it is all about. We don't know the cost of this initiative, the magnitude of it. Congress needs to be involved in it. We want congressional approval. Executive orders are being overutilized by this administration. Congress needs to reassert itself as an equal branch of Government. We want the property owners to be protected. I have shown my good faith in trying to make that workable. It is a workable amendment. We want those rivers to be prioritized in compliance with existing law, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is a good amendment, it is a simple amendment, in contrast with the lengthy Executive order the President has issued. This is a very simple amendment that provides very basic protections and ensures congressional input on these decisions in this program that will be made. I will close with this. I ask my colleagues this question: If you owned property along one of these rivers, wouldn't you want to be consulted? I think the answer to that is ``yes,'' and if the answer to that question is ``yes,'' then you need to vote against this motion to table and support the Hutchinson amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I call up amendment number 1196.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.