[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 82 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5940-S5945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 1845. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
require written consent before using union dues and other mandatory 
employee fees for political activities; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


                    The Union Member Protection Act

 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Union Member 
Protection Act. As you may know, the unions are mounting an 
unprecedented campaign this year to defeat Republican Members of 
Congress. The main source of the money for this campaign comes from 
compulsory union dues levied upon rank-and-file union members, as well 
as nonunion members who work in union shops. This past March the AFL-
CIO, at a unique convention in Washington, DC, voted to levy a special 
assessment on every dues payer of 15 cents monthly per person to raise 
$25 million of the $35 million goal.
  In a recent survey of 1,000 rank-and-file union members, commissioned 
by Americans for a balanced budget and conducted by the Luntz Research 
Cos. 58 percent of the union members were not aware that the national 
labor unions were using mandatory monthly dues on a $35 million 
campaign to defeat Republican Members of Congress. When told of this, 
62 percent opposed the use of their union dues for this political 
effort. This is not surprising considering that nearly 40 percent of 
union members voted Republican in the 1994 elections.
  When discussing the pledge of $35 million from the unions for the 
purpose of unseating Republicans, Vice President Gore stated, ``One 
group with a conscience connected to working families can overpower 
hundreds of thousands of interests working against the interest of 
working families.'' Conscience? Washington union bosses are living 
extravagant lifestyles, financed from workers' paychecks and, yet, they 
would have people believe that Republicans are the ones out of touch 
with rank and file working families. Union bosses have spent $2.3 
million on the AFL-CIO's private airplane, $1.9 million to decorate the 
personal home and conference center of a union boss, $250,000 for a 
Washington, DC, condominium, and more than $100,000 for a union boss' 
funeral. These very same union bosses are responsible for President 
Clinton exempting the labor unions' health care plans from his proposed 
Government takeover of the Nation's health care system, revoking 
President Bush's executive order requiring unions to notify their rank-
and-file members of their right not to fund union political activities, 
and vetoing numerous bills opposed by the Washington union bosses, 
including a balanced budget, family tax cuts, and welfare reform. It's 
no wonder that 66 percent of union members prefer the leadership of 
their local chapters.
  My bill, the Union Member Protection Act, will allow no dues, fees, 
or other money required as a condition of employment to be collected 
from an individual for use in noncollective-bargaining activities 
unless the individual has given prior written consent. Noncollective-
bargaining activities would include: First, nonpartisan registration 
and get-out-the-vote campaigns and second; the establishment, 
administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate fund to 
be used for political purposes. The written consent could be revoked in 
writing at any time.
  Mr. President, when a meeting of union leaders in Washington, DC, can 
result in the bosses' effectively imposing a tax increase on the union 
workers across the country so that the union bosses can have millions 
of dollars at their disposal to pursue their personal political 
agendas, the collective-bargaining power that Congress granted the 
unions is being abused. When we know that nearly two-thirds of the 
union workers are not even aware they are being so taxed and disagree 
with the D.C. bosses' politicizing of their own dues in this manner, 
the abuse becomes so acute that it calls out for reform. My bill is a 
simple reform: It gives individual workers the direct right to say 
``yes'' or ``no'' whenever union bosses ask them to finance activities 
that fall outside the scope of collective bargaining. If the union 
bosses here in Washington are so confident their workers agree with 
their politics, they should have no problem with this bill. We'll soon 
see how confident they are.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1845

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Union Member Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. WRITTEN CONSENT REQUIRED TO USE UNION DUES AND OTHER 
                   MANDATORY EMPLOYEE FEES FOR POLITICAL 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8)(A) No dues, fees, or other moneys required as a 
     condition of membership in a labor organization or as a 
     condition of employment shall be collected from an individual 
     for use in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (C) of paragraph (2) unless the individual has given prior 
     written consent for such use.
       ``(B) Any consent granted by an individual under 
     subparagraph (A) shall remain in effect until revoked and may 
     be revoked in writing at any time.
       ``(C) This paragraph shall apply to activities described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) only if the communications involved 
     expressly advocate the election or defeat of any clearly 
     identified candidate for elective public office.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts collected more than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 1846. A bill to permit duty free treatment for certain articles 
provided by the Max Planck Institute for Radioastronomy and the Arcetri 
Astrophysical Observatory; to the Committee on Finance.


                      TARIFF EXEMPTION LEGISLATION

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to 
permit duty-free treatment for certain structures, parts, and 
components provided by the Max Planck Institute to University of 
Arizona's submillimeter telescope and provided by the Arcetri 
Astrophysical Observatory for the University of Arizona's large 
binocular telescope [LBT]. This legislation will help ensure the 
continued progress of astronomy in the United States and in Arizona.
  To advance the potential of submillimeter astronomy, the Steward 
Observatory of the University of Arizona and the Max Planck Institute 
in Germany are collaborating on the construction and operation of a 
dedicated submillimeter telescope in Arizona. The University of Arizona 
has unique capabilities in large glass optics, instrumentation, and 
mountaintop sites; the Max Planck Institute in development of large, 
precise radio astronomy telescopes.
  The SMT is the highest accuracy radio telescope ever built. And the 
SMT project has fostered an effective collaboration between an American 
University, a German national research laboratory and high-technology 
industries in both Germany and America.
  The Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 provided a waiver of tariffs for 
equipment and materials provided by the Max Planck Institute. An 
extension of the waiver is necessary to further develop custom 
instrumentation not available from any U.S. producer. An extension of 
the waiver is also necessary to allow the calibration and repair of the 
equipment required by the project.
  In addition, the University of Arizona has collaborated with Arcetri 
Astrophysical Observatory in Florence, Italy, to build the large 
binocular telescope. The scientific goals of the LBT include studies of 
the early universe and the formation of galaxies more than 10 billion 
years ago. The very high sensitivity and spatial resolution for the LBT 
will make it the most powerful instrument in the world for this kind of 
astronomical research.
  This legislation will also provide duty-free treatment for components

[[Page S5941]]

that cannot be obtained in the United States for construction of the 
University of Arizona's large binocular telescope.
  At a time when Federal budget constraints have made belt-tightening 
necessary, these tariff exemptions are important to the continued 
success of scientific research.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr, Inouye, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 1848. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage the production and use of clean-fuel vehicles and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                   The Clean Fuel Vehicle Act of 1996

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I want to talk about choices in 
transportation. Most Americans who travel to work get there by car, 
some perhaps by bus or commuter rail. Some even fly by jet airplane. 
These are all choices in transportation modes, but they all have one 
thing in common: oil.
  As we enter the 21st century, we must expand our choices in how we 
power transportation in this country. The percentage of total energy 
use devoted to transportation is now at its highest level ever. 
Transportation accounts for two-thirds of the country's total petroleum 
use, and transportation is 97 percent dependent on petroleum.
  Americans are traveling by car more and more. The total number of 
vehicle miles traveled in California has increased by 10 percent since 
1991. Meanwhile, fuel economy has decreased for the second year in a 
row.
  This dependence on petroleum puts our economy foolishly at risk. The 
arteries of our economy run on oil; and as we have seen with the latest 
gasoline price hikes, clogged arteries can cause heart problems in this 
economy.
  The cost of our oil addiction is paid not just at the pump but at our 
hospitals and doctors' offices.
  According to the Coalition for Clean Air, diesel exhaust alone has 
been associated with up to 30,000 lung cancer deaths in California. 
Think about this: thirty thousand painful, premature deaths from one 
source in one State.
  In order to develop transportation choices that improve our health 
and wean us from the oil pump, we must develop real incentives for 
buyers to consider alternatively fueled vehicles.
  We began to do that in a real meaningful way in Congress in 1992 with 
the Energy Policy Act. The modest incentives in that law helped to 
almost double the number of alternatively fueled vehicles on the road. 
To continue this trend, we need to build on our current incentives and 
really spur the market for clean-fuel vehicles.
  That is why I am introducing, with Senators Inouye, Feinstein, and 
Kennedy, the Clean Fuel Vehicle Act of 1996. This bill provides a set 
of temporary, targeted tax incentives designed to spur the market for 
clean-fuel vehicles by making them cost competitive with fossil-fueled 
vehicles.
  Increased use of zero-emission or low-emission vehicles will reduce 
the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, reduce harmful transportation 
emissions, and stimulate market demand for high-technology vehicles and 
components.
  First, my bill exempts electric vehicles [EV's] and other clean-fuel 
vehicles from the luxury tax and from the depreciation on luxury 
automobiles. This corrects a ludicrous inconsistency in current tax 
law. The law now provides a 10 percent tax credit of up to $4,000 on 
the purchase of an EV. At the same time, however, a luxury tax is 
imposed if the total price of the car exceeds $32,000. In effect, our 
current stimulus program puts a tax break into one pocket and takes it 
out of the other.
  Second, my bill will allow the entire cost of an EV to be depreciated 
over a 5-year span. Under current law, only the first $3,000 or so of 
the purchase price may be depreciated over 5 years; the remaining cost 
must be recovered over a much longer period.
  Third, the Boxer bill lifts the Government use restriction on tax 
incentives, giving a private business that leases EV's to a Government 
agency the same tax incentives it gets for leasing to a private 
interest. Because of their great size and visibility, Government fleets 
are the initial target market for clean-fuel vehicles.
  Fourth, my bill eliminates an oversight in the 1992 Energy Act that 
allows an electric-powered bus to take advantage of only the existing 
$4,000 tax credit. The bill would make electric buses also eligible for 
the $50,000 tax deduction available to other clean-fuel buses. This tax 
deduction would be greater than the $4,000 tax credit, especially for 
urban transit buses.
  Finally, my bill overturns a 1995 IRS decision to tax liquified 
natural gas [LNG] as a liquid fuel similar to diesel.
  LNG holds the most promise as an alternative fuel for heavy-duty 
transportation such as trucks and locomotives. It is abundant and 
cheaper than oil, and it contains more energy per pound than gasoline 
or diesel fuel. LNG is cooled to an extreme temperature whereas its 
chemical cousin, compressed natural gas [CNG] is pressurized for 
storage. Both perform the same in a vehicle's engine. The advantage for 
LNG is less volume needed for on-board storage, which is important for 
heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses. Lowering the tax on LNG 
is an important step for putting clean-fuel trucks and buses on 
California highways.

  The IRS ruling put LNG at a tremendous cost disadvantage, which might 
well doom the emerging market for this clean-burning fuel. The IRS 
ruled that since LNG was not specifically mentioned in the 1993 
legislation which set the tax rate for CNG, it must be an other liquid 
fuel used in motor vehicle transportation under IRC section 4041(a), 
even though LNG is exactly the same as CNG when it enters an engine. 
The tax on gas is levied on 1 million cubic feet rate. If you do the 
math that provides the per gallon equivalence, it reveals that the IRS 
ruling places an effective tax rate of 31.5 cents per gallon, diesel, 
equivalent on LNG, a disparity of 25.6 cents when compared to the tax 
on CNG. In fact, this tax rate places LNG 7.1 cents above the tax on 
diesel, the very fuel for which LNG is the clean-burning alternative.
  As you can see, the provisions in the Boxer Clean Fuel Vehicle Act 
are based on common sense:
  Don't give clean-fuel vehicles a small tax break and then turn around 
and tax them as luxury vehicles;
  Give electric buses the same tax deduction provided other clean-fuel 
buses; and
  Make the taxes on natural gas fair and consistent and let LNG be a 
real competitor to diesel.
  Finally, this bill says: Let's get serious and provide a significant 
tax credit for those who buy electric vehicles. And let's encourage 
leasing arrangements with local governments by allowing private 
companies to obtain the tax breaks and pass them to the governments 
through lower costs.
  As anyone who has been gouged at the gas pump recently can tell you, 
it is high time to break oil's stranglehold on American consumers. To 
do that, we must help provide them with choices.
  The Boxer bill provides a jump-start for clean-fuel vehicles, not a 
permanent subsidy. All of the tax incentives in my bill will expire at 
the end of the year 2004. By then, the clean-fuel vehicle market will 
be on its own, and we can enjoy a cleaner, healthier 21st century.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1848

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean-Fuel 
     Vehicle Act of 1996''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF ELECTRIC AND OTHER CLEAN-FUEL MOTOR 
                   VEHICLES FROM LUXURY AUTOMOBILE CLASSIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 4001 (relating 
     to imposition of tax) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the 1st 
     retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 
     percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such 
     price exceeds the applicable amount.
       ``(2) Applicable amount.--

[[Page S5942]]

       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the applicable amount is $30,000.
       ``(B) Qualified clean-fuel vehicle property.--In the case 
     of a passenger vehicle which is propelled by a fuel which is 
     not a clean-burning fuel to which is installed qualified 
     clean-fuel vehicle property (as defined in section 
     179A(c)(1)(A)) for purposes of permitting such vehicle to be 
     propelled by a clean-burning fuel, the applicable amount is 
     equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) $30,000, plus
       ``(ii) the increase in the price for which the passenger 
     vehicle was sold (within the meaning of section 4002) due to 
     the installation of such property.
       ``(C) Purpose built passenger vehicle.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a purpose built passenger 
     vehicle, the applicable amount is equal to 150 percent of 
     $30,000.
       ``(ii) Purpose built passenger vehicle.--For purposes of 
     clause (i), the term `purpose built passenger vehicle' means 
     a passenger vehicle produced by an original equipment 
     manufacturer and designed so that the vehicle may be 
     propelled primarily by electricity.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (e) of section 4001 (relating to inflation 
     adjustment) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The $30,000 amount in subparagraphs (A), 
     (B)(i), and (C)(i) of subsection (a)(2) shall be increased by 
     an amount equal to--
       ``(A) $30,000, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment under section 1(f)(3) 
     for the calendar year in which the vehicle is sold, 
     determined by substituting `calendar year 1990' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
     (1) is not a multiple of $2,000, such amount shall be rounded 
     to the next lowest multiple of $2,000.''
       (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 4003(a)(2) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) the appropriate applicable amount as determined under 
     section 4001(a)(2).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales and installations occurring and property 
     placed in service on or after July 1, 1996.

     SEC. 3. GOVERNMENTAL USE RESTRICTION MODIFIED FOR ELECTRIC 
                   VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 30(d) (relating 
     to special rules) is amended by inserting ``(without regard 
     to paragraph (4)(A)(i) thereof)'' after ``section 50(b)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (5) of section 179A(e) 
     (relating to other definitions and special rules) is amended 
     by inserting ``(without regard to paragraph (4)(A)(i) thereof 
     in the case of a qualified electric vehicle described in 
     subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii) of this 
     section)'' after ``section 50(b)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. LARGE ELECTRIC TRUCKS, VANS, AND BUSES ELIGIBLE FOR 
                   DEDUCTION FOR CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 179A(c) (defining 
     qualified clean-fuel vehicle property) is amended by 
     inserting ``, other than any vehicle described in subclause 
     (I) or (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii)'' after ``section 
     30(c))''.
       (b) Denial of Credit.--Subsection (c) of section 30 
     (relating to credit for qualified electric vehicles) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Denial of credit for vehicles for which deduction 
     allowable.--The term `qualified electric vehicle' shall not 
     include any vehicle described in subclause (I) or (II) of 
     section 179A(b)(1)(A)(iii).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CREDIT AMOUNT AND APPLICATION 
                   AGAINST ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 30 (relating to 
     credit for qualified electric vehicles) is amended by 
     striking ``10 percent of''.
       (b) Application Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--Section 
     30(b) (relating to limitations) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.

     SEC. 6. RATE OF TAX ON LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TO BE EQUIVALENT 
                   TO RATE OF TAX ON COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 4041(a) (relating 
     to diesel fuel and special motor fuels) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) Imposition of tax.--
       ``(i) In general.--There is hereby imposed a tax on 
     compressed or liquefied natural gas--

       ``(I) sold by any person to an owner, lessee, or other 
     operator of a motor vehicle or motorboat for use as a fuel in 
     such motor vehicle or motorboat, or
       ``(II) used by any person as a fuel in a motor vehicle or 
     motorboat unless there was a taxable sale of such gas under 
     subclause (I).

       ``(ii) Rate of tax.--The rate of tax imposed by this 
     paragraph shall be--

       ``(I) in the case of compressed natural gas, 48.54 cents 
     per MCF (determined at standard temperature and pressure), 
     and
       ``(II) in the case of liquefied natural gas, 4.3 cents per 
     gallon.'', and

       (2) by inserting ``or liquefied'' after ``Compressed'' in 
     the heading.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (2) of section 4041(a)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``other than a Kerosene'' and inserting ``other than 
     liquefied natural gas, kerosene''.
       (2) The heading for section 9503(f)(2)(D) is amended by 
     inserting ``or liquefied'' after ``compressed''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Burns, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Graham, Mr. Heflin, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lott, 
        Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Pell, Mr. Pressler, Mr. 
        Robb, Mr. Simon, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1850. A bill to provide for the recognition and designation of the 
official society to administer and coordinate the United States of 
America activities to commemorate and celebrate the achievements of the 
second millennium, and promote even greater achievements in the 
millennium to come by endowing an international cross-cultural 
scholarship fund to further the development and education of the 
world's future leaders; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


                       the millennium act of 1996

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
Millennium Act of 1996 along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Dodd, 
Bennett, Boxer, Breaux, Burns, Chafee, Coats, D'Amato, Graham, Heflin, 
Hutchison, Jeffords, Kerry, Lieberman, Lott, Moseley-Braun, Murkowski, 
Pell, Pressler, Robb, Simon, Snowe, Bryan, and Cochran.
  This bill is a bipartisan effort to focus the Nation's attention on 
what may become one of the most anticipated events in history--the 
beginning of the new millennium. As the new millennium nears, this bill 
hopes to focus our attention on the achievements of the past 1,000 
years and helps to foster educational opportunities for those who may 
take on leadership responsibilities in the next 1,000 years.
  Since its founding in 1979 by a group of college students from around 
the world, The Millennium Society has worked to organize a global 
celebration and commemoration of humankind's achievements during this 
millennium and to endow a cross-cultural scholarship program to help 
educate future leaders. I believe it is the oldest organization in the 
country formed for the specific purpose of celebrating and 
commemorating the historical significance of the Millennium. The 
Society was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, charitable 
organization in 1984 for the purpose of establishing and administering 
the Millennium Society Scholarship Program.
  The Millennium Society plans to organize and telecast ``Countdown 
2000'' celebrations here and around the world to enable the 
international community to both view and participate in this historic 
moment. The Society hopes that the ``Countdown 2000'' events will raise 
at least $100 million to permanently endow its Millennium Scholars 
Program.
  Unlike the Bicentennial Commission which required Federal funding, 
this bill asks for no Federal funds. Title I of this bill provides the 
Society with the official authorization and designation to administer 
Millennium activities both here and abroad and ensures that charitable 
proceeds go to the Millennium Scholars Program. The organizers hope 
that this designation can operate much like the U.S. Olympic Committee 
trademark. Mr. President, to the best of my knowledge, there are no 
other organizations that are competing for this designation nor have 
any indicated any specific interest in doing so.
  The second title authorizes the minting of commemorative coins. This 
bill incorporates some of the language from the House Commemorative 
Coin reform legislative package, H.R. 2614. Specifically, the 
Millennium Society agrees not to derive any proceeds until all the

[[Page S5943]]

numismatic operation and program costs allowable to the program have 
been recovered by the U.S. Mint. Moreover, it embodies some of the key 
criteria and recommendations of the Citizens Commemorative Coin 
Advisory Commission. The minting of the Millennium coins would not 
begin until July of 1999. Further, through its own fund raising 
efforts, the Millennium Society will match the funds received through 
commemorative coin sales for its scholarship program.
  The third title of the bill expresses the sense of Congress that the 
U.S. Postal Service should consider the issuance of stamps to 
commemorate the close of the second millennium and the advent of the 
third millennium.
  The Millennium Society was established as an international charitable 
organization dedicated to giving students from around the world a 
chance to go on to college and to promote international fellowship and 
understanding among the world's peoples on an unofficial and 
nongovernmental basis.
  I hope other Senators will join us in supporting this legislation to 
both commemorate the coming millennium and help provide scholastic 
funding for its future leaders.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Mack, and Mr. 
        Smith):
  S.J. Res. 56. A joint resolution disapproving the extension of 
nondiscriminatory treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the 
products of the People's Republic of China; to the Committee on 
Finance.


  the china most-favored-nation treatment disapproval joint resolution

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, inasmuch as I believe Senators ought to 
take a position on the very significant question of a most-favored-
nation designation of China by the United States, I, today, along with 
Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, and others, offer a resolution of 
disapproval of President Clinton's renewal of most-favored-nation 
treatment for China.
  As I indicated earlier, Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, Senator Smith 
of New Hampshire are principal cosponsors of this resolution of 
disapproval.
  Now then, if there is somehow a valid reason for the United States--
the world's leader in freedom--to offer the same trading terms to China 
that the United States offers to other nations that do honor their 
citizens' human rights and that do respect the rule of law, I cannot 
think of such a reason. None come to mind.
  Mr. President, this is President Clinton's fourth renewal of MFN 
status for China. The President has covered the waterfront on this 
issue. He has been all over the lot. He has had his customary array of 
positions on MFN, as with countless other issues, and it is almost 
impossible to follow the President's ever-changing position without, as 
the saying goes, a printed program. As a candidate running for the 
Presidency in 1992, Mr. Clinton condemned the Bush administration for 
what candidate Clinton alleged was ``coddling dictators.'' But when Mr. 
Clinton took office in 1993, he decided, no, it was all right with him 
to support MFN to China--provided that China ``made progress'' in 
respecting human rights. The following year, 1994, when the President 
was forced to acknowledge that there had been no progress by China in 
human rights, President Clinton decided that human rights should not 
even be a factor in the annual MFN renewal.
  Instead, the President said that he would advance human rights 
through a set of principles for United States businesses, enhanced 
international broadcasting to China, and what the President described 
as ``increased support for nongovernmental organizations working on 
human rights in China.''
  That was 2 years ago, and we are still waiting for any evidence 
whatsoever that any of the Clinton initiatives have gone anywhere or 
accomplished anything. The business principles announced by the White 
House did not even mention China or its flagrant labor abuses.
  We are still waiting for Radio Free Asia, which the administration 
has apparently renamed and is now calling it the Asia Pacific Network, 
or some such thing, because apparently somebody in the Clinton 
administration perhaps decided that the name Radio Free Asia may be a 
little bit confrontational insofar as the Communist Chinese are 
concerned. Well, as for the aid to nongovernmental groups supporting 
human rights in China, perhaps the administration would be willing at 
least to give us a hint as to what, if anything, has been done. They 
certainly have made no report on the matter one way or the other. I do 
not believe one thing has been accomplished.
  This year, when the President announced his intention to renew MFN, 
he said the MFN decision ``isn't a referendum on all China's 
policies.'' I say, the heck it is not. Whether Mr. Clinton likes it or 
not, when the United States extends MFN to China, we are treating China 
like virtually all of our other trading partners. There are, of course, 
many other countries that deserve a stern line from the United States, 
but China is in a class by itself when it comes to the violations of 
human rights.
  The fact is, Mr. President, that China's record on human rights, 
since the most recent MFN renewal, has continued to be disgraceful. 
Even the State Department's latest annual report on human rights stated 
that the Chinese regime ``continued to commit widespread and well-
documented human rights abuses,'' abuse, I might add, which affect 
every kind of fundamental human rights imaginable.
  According to many observers, religious persecution in particular 
intensified with the Government moving against independent Christian 
churches and Muslim groups. Challenges to the regime were not 
tolerated. Quoting the State Department, ``By year's end, almost all 
public dissent against the central authorities was silenced by 
intimidation, exile or imposition of prison terms or administrative 
detention.''
  The annual MFN debate has become more than a mere referendum on 
China's policies; it is now a referendum on the Clinton 
administration's policies, and President Clinton made it so. In the 
future, in addition to requiring report on China's human rights record, 
perhaps we should consider an annual report on the Clinton 
administration's China policy.
  During the past year alone, the Clinton administration decided to 
look the other way while China sent nuclear material to Pakistan 
because, the administration says, the Chinese leadership didn't know 
anything about it. Now come reports that China is seeking to acquire 
components of SS-18 missiles from Russia and the Ukraine. And I 
discussed that subject on this floor this past Tuesday.
  China has fired missiles over the Taiwan Strait in a reckless and 
bellicose attempt to intimidate Taiwan's people as they established the 
first Chinese democracy. Despite explicit commitments to preserve Hong 
Kong's institutions and autonomy after 1997, the Chinese Government has 
announced it will abolish the elected legislature and made threats 
against the independent judiciary and civil servant of Hong Kong.
  On Trade, it is the same story. Last year, the administration agreed 
to let China have a year to crack down on dozens of pirate compact disk 
factories. In April, the administration let it be known in news reports 
that President would be hard pressed to renew MFN if Beijing didn't 
follow through on its promise to end the pirating of copyrighted 
material. The regime has not followed through and the President renewed 
MFN anyway. Now we are waiting to see if the administration imposes $2 
billion in sanctions against Chinese products, imported with United 
States.
  Despite all of these egregious examples of Chinese misbehavior, we 
still pay China's bills. Our trade with China is one-way. The United 
States buys 40 of China's exports, but China severely limits United 
States access of United States exports to their markets. Last year, our 
exports to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and even Belgium were greater than our 
exports to China, even though those countries have a tiny fraction of 
China's population.
  Still some businessmen contend that we need to trade with China. It 
will open up their society, they say. But what is going on in China is 
not free trade. The regime is turning over enterprises to the military 
so it can make money for itself and acquire technology from foreign 
businesses.

[[Page S5944]]

There is no rule of law to protect Chinese or foreign investors. 
Official corruption is widespread. A disagreement with a business 
partner who has official connections can land you in jail.
  Renewing MFN again this year will be a sign to Beijing that the 
United States will do business as usual with China no matter what the 
consequences. I trust that Senators will bear this in mind as the days 
go by.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, the Senator from North Carolina, for his 
leadership on the MFN issue and for the bipartisan effort which is 
needed because we have a bipartisan problem on the other side of this 
issue.
  Mr. President, on May 31, President Clinton announced his intention 
to extend for another year most-favored-nation trading status to China, 
a decision I regret as objectionable and truly perplexing. Our previous 
President, former President Bush, took that position, and regrettably 
the majority leader who obviously seeks to be President, also takes the 
same position. So we have a very serious problem with a past 
administration, a current administration, and potentially another 
administration all turning away from this issue of whether or not China 
deserves most-favored-nation status. I think that is objectionable 
because it reaffirms an erroneous and even illogical choice made by the 
administration in 1994: that trade rights and human rights are not 
interrelated and, yet, that through ``constructive engagement,'' 
including easy trade terms, human rights will improve. The chairman of 
the committee and I argued then that this approach was naive and 
predicted that the dismal human rights situation in China would remain 
unchanged. Unfortunately and sadly, I and others concerned with the 
Beijing regime's callous disregard for the basic rights of any 
individual, have been proven right. De-linking MFN to improvement in 
human rights has resulted only in despair, prison, and abuse for those 
struggling in China to guarantee basic freedoms. The President' 
decision is perplexing because it seems so very clear to me and other, 
more expert, observers that the Chinese covet and need trade with the 
United States and that the only pressure they apparently respect is the 
prospect of economic sanctions. Words and exhortations to improve, to 
act decently and in conformity with international norms, are pocketed 
and ignored. It is not working. In fact, things have gotten worse.

  So I rise today, Mr. President, to join in offering a resolution of 
disapproval of the President's action, an option available to the 
Congress under the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment. I recognize that this 
resolution will draw strong opposition. I know that the leadership in 
both Houses has already indicated its support for the President's 
announcement and we will soon be witness to a heavy lobbying effort by 
the administration and its allies in business and in the Congress to 
prevent our resolution from prevailing. So the odds are difficult. Of 
course, the odds are even more difficult for overriding a Presidential 
veto should we succeed. Nevertheless, I believe denying MFN-status to 
China is the right thing to do and should be pursued, not just for 
those suffering at the hands of the Chinese regime, but because it is 
in our national interest on many fronts: political, economic, and 
moral.

  Let me turn first, Mr. President, to the state of human rights in 
China which the Senator from North Carolina has discussed in some 
detail. Two years after the administration's de-linking decision, the 
State Department's annual report on human rights described an abysmal 
situation, marked by increased repression. I quote here verbatim:

       Abuses included arbitary and lengthy incommunicado 
     detention, forced confession, torture and mistreatment of 
     prisoners. Prison conditions remained harsh. The government 
     continues severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the 
     press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, movement and 
     workers rights. The report continued that by the end of 1995 
     almost all public dissent had been silenced by intimidation, 
     exile or imposition of prison terms or administrative 
     detention.

  In December 1995 we were witness to a concrete example of how little 
constructive engagement has accomplished. Wei Jingsheng, a prominent 
dissident who has dedicated his life to speaking out against the 
Chinese Government's repression of its own people, was hauled before a 
show court on charges of subversion. Wei Jingsheng had already spent 16 
years looking at the inside of Chinese prison walls, but when he was 
finally released in 1993 he immediately and courageously took up again 
the cause of freedom. For his bravery and unstinting devotion to human 
rights Wei Jingsheng--after a 6-hour court proceeding--was sentenced to 
another 14 years. The administration issued a condemnation, of course, 
and an appeal for clemency. It is any surprise, Mr. President, that the 
Chinese took this statement for what it was--mere words--and that Wei 
Jingsheng languishes today in an abusive prison system?

  The impunity with which the Chinese Government acts--and knows it can 
act--has a debilitating effect on dissent. We know from our own 
contacts that prominent intellectuals and common citizens temper their 
statements, carefully refraining from pronouncing on political topics.
  I anticipate that administration apologists will point to recent 
reforms in the Chinese legal system as evidence that engagement is 
reaping benefits. But in a way that is like a Trojan Horse. Many of the 
reforms are meant to facilitate foreign investment by making clear the 
rules of the game and providing legal recourse for settling disputes. I 
imagine, however, that Wei Jingsheng and others take cold comfort in 
China's version of the Uniform Commercial Code. To be sure, reform of 
prison procedures and criminal laws are welcome developments. Perhaps 
they do point to an evolution in the rule of law in China. But unless 
they are put into practice--and they clearly are not if, as is the case 
in China, officials can detain individuals without charge or even 
acknowledgment of detention--the reforms are merely paper promises.
  The list of human rights horrors goes on. In the past year, we have 
been witness to a well-documented report by Human Rights Watch/Asia 
detailing fatal neglect and abuse in Chinese orphanages. Tibetan 
religious sensitivities were trampled on when Chinese authorities 
usurped and gave to themselves the right to choose the Panchen Lama, 
second only to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan Buddhism, continuing a nearly 
50-year pattern of persecution and repression of the Tibetan people. In 
fact, the Chinese admitted only on June 1--and here we have truly the 
phenomena of a wolf in sheep's clothing--that they were holding under 
house arrest ``for his own protection'' the 7-year-old boy designated 
by Tibetan Buddhists as the true Panchen Lama.
  Chinese contempt for construction engagement is evident in other 
fora: thee bald-faced attempted intimidation of Taiwan in March, sales 
of nuclear equipment to Pakistan, the utter disregard for agreements to 
end violation of U.S. intellectual property rights.

  Is it possible to come to anything but this self-evident conclusion: 
``constructive engagement'' has failed so far to improve Chinese human 
rights behavior. I would say the evidence justifies the exact opposite 
conclusion: human rights have deteriorated and the regime emboldened to 
act recklessly in other areas vital to U.S. national interest.
  In announcing his intent to extend MFN, President Clinton said that 
the decision, as the chairman has pointed out, ``was not a referendum 
on China's policies.'' That is what the President indicated. And, of 
course, I believe firmly that the President abhors the daily repression 
and abuse in China. That is not the issue. What is the issue is how a 
tortured United States policy is perceived in Beijing. Recently, the 
administration announced it was taking the Chinese regime at its word 
that it had no idea that a Chinese firm--operated by the military--was 
selling ring magnets to Pakistan for use in that country's nuclear 
weapons program. This announcement--coming on the heels of tough talk 
of sanctions for what seems to me to be a clear violation of China's 
1992 pledge to abide by the obligations of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty--must have evoked self-satisfied smiles in Beijing.
  Why? Because the threat of sanctions for ignoring our policies on 
nonproliferation--at least in this instance--went by the boards, just 
as our insistence that China respect human

[[Page S5945]]

rights in return for normal trade relations were jettisoned in 1994. 
Looming on the horizon is the ballyhooed trade war over our threat to 
impose higher tariffs on some Chinese goods, in retaliation for China's 
blatant continuing violation of United States intellectual property 
rights, IPR. We have been down this road before. It was only in 
February 1995, when threatened with higher tariffs on $1 billion of its 
goods, that China signed an agreement to curb IPR piracy. In the 15 
months since, by the estimate of the Motion Picture Industry 
Association, the harm to U.S. copyrighters has actually increased.
  Let us see if we can briefly discern a pattern here. In 1992, the 
administration promises to link trade preferences to improvement in 
human rights. Two years later, that policy is abandoned. In 1995, our 
intelligence agencies discover Chinese violations of nonproliferation 
obligations. Sanctions are threatened and then abandoned in the face of 
promises to do better. Also, in 1995, the Chinese promise to do better 
on IPR and the problem worsens. Our response: more tough talk, and this 
time ``we mean it.'' If I were sitting in Beijing, I would come to the 
conclusion that the threats are empty, the rhetoric hollow.
  Constructive engagement has failed to alter Chinese behavior to the 
good. So let us drop the pretense and cut to the quick. We trade with 
China and extend to it normal trading privileges because our Government 
believes it benefits American business, the United States economy, and, 
therefore, the national interest. We look the other way, in practice if 
not in word, on Chinese violations of human rights, nonproliferation--
perhaps in the end even on IPR--because it is good for business. As I 
said at the outset, I find this rationale perplexing.
  Our trading relationship with China is really quite one-sided. 
Writing in the New York Times, May 16, Alan Tonelson, a research fellow 
at the U.S. Business and Industrial Association, argued that our $34 
billion trade deficit with China depresses job creation, wages and 
growth of the United States economy. This tremendous deficit--which has 
helped China amass more than $70 billion in foreign reserves, a war 
chest useful to riding out any trade war--is not the result of fair-
trading practices. China is a protectionist nation, Mr. Tonelson notes, 
with some of the highest tariffs in the world. It dumps artificially 
low-priced goods--products manufactured by children and convicts--on 
American markets, hurting U.S. competitors. According to Mr. Tonelson, 
China extorts know how and high-skill jobs from American companies, 
such as Boeing, seeking to set up shop in China. Certainly China is a 
vast market, with tremendous potential. But our 1995 exports to China 
of $11.7 billion--only 0.12 percent of our GNP--were less than what we 
send to Belgium or Hong Kong.
  On the other hand, we buy up to 40 percent of China's exports and 
that allows China to finance its industrial and military modernization 
program. We have the leverage to make them play by the rules of the 
game. Does it not make sense to use that leverage now, from a relative 
position of strength, than try to make the Chinese play fair 10, 20, or 
30 years from now when by many projections it will be a legitimate 
superpower? As Mr. Tonelson notes, even the higher tariffs imposed on 
China under a non-MFN scheme would still be lower than China's tariffs 
on our products.
  Mr. President, if mortal outrage at blatant abuse of human rights is 
not reason enough for taking a tough stance with China--and I believe 
it is and that the American people do as well--then let us do so on 
grounds of self-interest.
  United States credibility is at stake; a firm stance which refuses 
China the privilege--not the right--of MFN will enhance United States 
stature and, in the long run, benefit United States business, the 
American consumer, and, we can hope, ultimately leads to an improvement 
in China's economic and political behavior.

                          ____________________