[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5253-S5264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 822. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to provide for demonstration projects to test the feasibility of 
establishing kinship care as an alternative to foster care for a child 
who has adult relatives willing to provide safe and appropriate care 
for the child, and to require notice to adult relative caregivers; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                      THE KINSHIP CARE ACT OF 1997

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Kinship 
Care Act of 1997. Grandparents caring for grandchildren represent one 
of the most underappreciated and perhaps under-utilized natural 
resources in our Nation. Yet they hold tremendous potential for curing 
one of our society's most pressing problems--the care of children who 
have no parents, or whose parents simply aren't up to the task of 
providing children a stable, secure, and nurturing living environment.
  There is such a great reservoir of love and experience available to 
us, and more especially to the tens of thousands of American children 
who desperately need basic care giving. We provide public assistance 
for strangers to give this kind of care, but the folks available to do 
it are in short supply.
  Legislation I am introducing in the Senate today will give States the 
flexibility to provide the support these grandparents need, so that our 
seniors can fill the care gap. Last year, as part of welfare reform, 
Senator Coats and I were successful in passing legislation that would 
give preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when 
determining a placement for a child. My new legislation will continue 
the process of shifting the focus of our child welfare system from 
leaving children with strangers to leaving them in the loving arms of 
grandparents and other relatives.
  I am not noticing a new trend. States have been moving in this 
direction for over a decade. Over the past 10 years the number of 
children involved in extended family arrangements has increased by 40 
percent. Currently, more than four million children are being raised by 
their grandparents. In other words, 5 percent of all families in this 
country are headed by grandparents.
  My view is that it's time for the Federal Government to get with the 
program and start developing policies that make it easier, instead of 
more difficult, for families to come together to raise their children.
  My bill has several parts. First, it would allow States to obtain 
waivers to set up kinship care guardianship systems where grandparents 
and other relative providers can receive some financial assistance 
without having to turn over custody of the child to the State and 
without having to go through the paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles of 
the foster care system.
  Grandparents already face a number of hurdles when they suddenly find 
themselves caring for a grandchild. These may include living in 
seniors-only housing, not having clothes or

[[Page S5254]]

space for a grandchild, or living on a fixed income. We need to 
encourage States to start making their child protection systems 
grandparent- and relative-friendly.
  The second part of this bill requires states to give relative 
caregivers notice of and an opportunity to be heard in hearings or case 
reviews with respect to the child's safety and well-being. I have 
repeatedly heard the frustration of these grandparents and relative 
caregivers who say they never knew about or were not allowed to attend 
a hearing or case review affecting a child for whom they may be caring 
or have cared for years. Surely their voices should be heard in those 
circumstances where the well-being and safety of the child is being 
discussed.
  As we reevaluate the effectiveness of our country's child protection 
systems, it's time that we start developing some new ideas and new ways 
to use our resources more effectively to find loving environments for 
children who can't live with their natural parents.
  I applaud the efforts of my colleague in the House, Representative 
Connie Morella who has introduced the companion bill in the House, and 
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in 
giving states increased flexibility to make their foster care systems 
more grandparent friendly.
  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. 822

       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 ``Kinship Care Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. KINSHIP CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Part E of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 670-679) is amended by inserting after section 
     477 the following:

     ``SEC. 478. KINSHIP CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to allow and 
     encourage States to develop effective alternatives to foster 
     care for children who might be eligible for foster care but 
     who have adult relatives who can provide safe and appropriate 
     care for the child.
       ``(b) Demonstration Authority.--The Secretary may authorize 
     any State to conduct a demonstration project designed to 
     determine whether it is feasible to establish kinship care as 
     an alternative to foster care for a child who--
       ``(1) has been removed from home as a result of a judicial 
     determination that continuation in the home would be contrary 
     to the welfare of the child;
       ``(2) would otherwise be placed in foster care; and
       ``(3) has adult relatives willing to provide safe and 
     appropriate care for the child.
       ``(c) Kinship Care Defined.--As used in this section, the 
     term `kinship care' means safe and appropriate care 
     (including long-term care) of a child by 1 or more adult 
     relatives of the child who have legal custody of the child, 
     or physical custody of the child pending transfer to the 
     adult relative of legal custody of the child.
       ``(d) Project Requirements.--In any demonstration project 
     authorized to be conducted under this section, the State--
       ``(1) should examine the provision of alternative financial 
     and service supports to families providing kinship care; and
       ``(2) shall establish such procedures as may be necessary 
     to assure the safety of children who are placed in kinship 
     care.
       ``(e) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive compliance 
     with any requirement of this part which (if applied) would 
     prevent a State from carrying out a demonstration project 
     under this section or prevent the State from effectively 
     achieving the purpose of such a project, except that the 
     Secretary may not waive--
       ``(1) any provision of section 422(b)(10), section 479, or 
     this section; or
       ``(2) any provision of this part, to the extent that the 
     waiver would impair the entitlement of any qualified child or 
     family to benefits under a State plan approved under this 
     part.
       ``(f) Payments to States; Cost Neutrality.--In lieu of any 
     payment under section 473 for expenses incurred by a State 
     during a quarter with respect to a demonstration project 
     authorized to be conducted under this section, the Secretary 
     shall pay to the State an amount equal to the total amount 
     that would be paid to the State for the quarter under this 
     part, in the absence of the project, with respect to the 
     children and families participating in the project.
       ``(g) Use of Funds.--A State may use funds paid under this 
     section for any purpose related to the provision of services 
     and financial support for families participating in a 
     demonstration project under this section.
       ``(h) Duration of Project.--A demonstration project under 
     this section may be conducted for not more than 5 years.
       ``(i) Application.--Any State seeking to conduct a 
     demonstration project under this section shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application, in such form as the Secretary may 
     require, which includes--
       ``(1) a description of the proposed project, the geographic 
     area in which the proposed project would be conducted, the 
     children or families who would be served by the proposed 
     project, the procedures to be used to assure the safety of 
     such children, and the services which would be provided by 
     the proposed project (which shall provide, where appropriate, 
     for random assignment of children and families to groups 
     served under the project and to control groups);
       ``(2) a statement of the period during which the proposed 
     project would be conducted, and how, at the termination of 
     the project, the safety and stability of the children and 
     families who participated in the project will be protected;
       ``(3) a discussion of the benefits that are expected from 
     the proposed project (compared to a continuation of 
     activities under the State plan approved under this part);
       ``(4) an estimate of the savings to the State of the 
     proposed project;
       ``(5) a statement of program requirements for which waivers 
     would be needed to permit the proposed project to be 
     conducted;
       ``(6) a description of the proposed evaluation design; and
       ``(7) such additional information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(j) State Evaluations and Reports.--Each State authorized 
     to conduct a demonstration project under this section shall--
       ``(1) obtain an evaluation by an independent contractor of 
     the effectiveness of the project, using an evaluation design 
     approved by the Secretary which provides for--
       ``(A) comparison of outcomes for children and families (and 
     groups of children and families) under the project, and such 
     outcomes under the State plan approved under this part, for 
     purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the project in 
     achieving program goals; and
       ``(B) any other information that the Secretary may require;
       ``(2) obtain an evaluation by an independent contractor of 
     the effectiveness of the State in assuring the safety of the 
     children participating in the project; and
       ``(3) provide interim and final evaluation reports to the 
     Secretary, at such times and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may require.
       ``(k) Report to the Congress.--Not later than 4 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Congress a report that contains the 
     recommendations of the Secretary for changes in law with 
     respect to kinship care and placements.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended
       (1) in section 422(b)--
       (A) by striking the period at the end of the paragraph (9) 
     (as added by section 554(3) of the Improving America's 
     Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382; 108 Stat. 4057)) and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (9), as added by section 
     202(a)(3) of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-432, 108 Stat. 4453), as paragraph (10);
       (2) in sections 424(b), 425(a), and 472(d), by striking 
     ``422(b)(9)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``422(b)(10)''; and
       (3) in section 471(a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (17);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (18) (as 
     added by section 1808(a) of the Small Business Job Protection 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-188; 110 Stat. 1903)) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (18) (as added by section 
     505(3) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 
     2278)) as paragraph (19).

     SEC. 3. NOTICE TO RELATIVE CAREGIVERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 471(a)(19) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(19), as redesignated by section 
     1(b)(3)(C), is amended to read as follows:
       ``(19) provides that the State shall, with respect to an 
     adult relative caregiver for a child--
       ``(A) provide that relative caregiver with notice of, and 
     an opportunity to be heard in, any dispositional hearing or 
     administrative review held with respect to the child; and
       ``(B) give preference to that relative caregiver over a 
     non-related caregiver when determining a placement for a 
     child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all 
     relevant State child protection standards, and that placement 
     with the relative caregiver would be consistent with the 
     safety needs of the child.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on October 1, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 825. A bill to provide for violent and repeat juvenile offender 
accountability, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                 the protect children from violence act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, yesterday's Washington Post reported a 
decrease in crime nationwide. The Post

[[Page S5255]]

also reported that Attorney General Reno and President Clinton quickly 
stepped up to take credit for this news.
  But in this same article James Alan Fox, dean of Northeastern 
University's college of criminal justice, suggested that the decreasing 
crime numbers were more a function of demographics. According to Dean 
Fox, ``The aging of a large segment of the population has played a key 
role in the decline. Adults tend to be less violent than juveniles.'' 
But if crime statistics are, indeed, a function of demographics, then 
the demographics suggest that the juvenile crime rates will continue to 
rise. As Dean Fox indicated, the juvenile population will grow over the 
next decade.
  The available numbers confirm that the rate of violent juvenile 
crimes is increasing. The Washington Post also mentioned that between 
1985 and 1995, the number of murders committed by juveniles increased 
145 percent. And criminologist suggest that the baby boom of the 1980's 
will bring tidalwave of vicious violent youth onto our streets.
  Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to protect our 
children from people who would lead them astray and from those who are 
dangerous in our midst.
  The dangerous environment in which our children live today dictates 
that we make several fundamental changes in the way we treat dangerous, 
violent juveniles and those people--juveniles and adults, alike--who 
lure our children into drugs and gangs. We must come down harder on 
juveniles who commit serious violent crimes--incarcerating them and 
trying them as adults--and we must improve our recordkeeping capability 
for these dangerous juveniles so that courts, police officers, and 
schools know when they have a potential killer in their midst. 
Furthermore, we must punish severely those adults who seek to corrupt 
our kids by luring them into gangs, drugs, and a life of crime.
  This bill, the Protect Children from Violence Act, will update our 
current juvenile justice laws to reflect the new vicious nature of 
today's teen criminals.
  The act has several components, but first and foremost it would 
require Federal prosecutors and States, in order to qualify for $750 
million in new incentive grants, to try as adults those juveniles 14 
and older who commit serious violent offenses, such as rape or murder. 
There is nothing juvenile about these crimes, and the perpetrators must 
be treated and tried as adults.
  Some of the laws on the books inadvertently pervert the direction of 
the law enforcement system, offering more protections to the 
perpetrators, than to the public. This must cease. Strengthening our 
juvenile justice laws is the first line of defense in protecting the 
public and providing greater protection for innocent children than for 
violent criminals.
  In order to do this, we must also ensure that our law enforcement 
officials, courts and schools have clear lines of communications and 
access to the records of violent juvenile offenders. This bill does 
this by requiring the fingerprinting and photographing of juveniles 
found guilty of crimes that would be felonies if committed by an adult. 
The bill would also ensure that those records are made available to 
Federal and State law enforcement officials and school officials, so 
they will know who they are dealing with when they confront a dangerous 
juvenile offender.

  Typically, State statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge 
those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. Today's young criminal 
predators understand that when they reach their 18th birthday, they can 
begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished 
record. The time has come to discard anachronistic idea that crimes 
committed by juveniles must be kept confidential, no matter how heinous 
the crime.
  Our law enforcement agencies, courts, and school officials need 
improved access to juvenile records so that they have the tools to deal 
with the exponential increase in the severity and frequency of juvenile 
crimes.
  For too long, law enforcement officers have operated in the dark. Our 
police departments need to have access to the prior juvenile criminal 
records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and 
apprehension.
  According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is immediate past 
president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law 
enforcement officials are in desperate need of access to juvenile 
criminal records. The police chief has said, ``Current juvenile 
records--both arrest and adjudication--are inconsistent across the 
States, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who 
work with youthful offenders.''
  Chief Walchak also notes that ``If we [in law enforcement] don't know 
who the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.''
  Chief Walchak is not the only one saying this. Law enforcement 
officers in my home State have told me that when they arrest juveniles 
they have no idea with whom they are dealing because the records are 
kept confidential.
  School officials, as well as courts and law enforcement officials, 
need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing 
for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies.
  The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to 
a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous 
students ahead of protecting the innocent--those that go to school to 
learn, not to rape, maim, and murder.
  While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, MO, a teacher told 
me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic 
monitoring ankle bracelet. Can you imagine being that teacher and 
having to turn around--back to the class--to write on the chalk board 
not knowing whether that student was a rapist, or even a murderer?
  School officials need access to juvenile criminal records so that 
they can keep a close eye on potentially dangerous predators and take 
preventive measures. Judicial and law enforcement authorities need this 
information because it is vital to the protection of public safety.
  In addition to requiring that Federal and State prosecutors try 
violent juvenile offenders as adults and increasing recordkeeping and 
sharing capability, this bill also enhances the Federal criminal 
penalties for those adults who seek to lure juveniles into criminal 
activity or drug use.

  For example, any adult who distributes drugs to a minor, traffics in 
drugs in or near a school, or uses minors to distribute drugs would 
face a minimum 3-year jail sentence--as compared to the 1-year minimum 
under current law.
  This bill also doubles the maximum jail time and fines for adults who 
use minors in crimes of violence. The second time the adult hides 
behind the juvenile status of a child by using him to commit a crime, 
the adult faces a tripling of the maximum sentence, and fine.
  Furthermore, the Protect Children from Violence Act elevates a 
Federal crime the recruiting of minors to participate in gang activity. 
Under this legislation, those gangsters who lure our children into 
gangs will face a Federal prosecutor and a Federal penitentiary.
  A 1993 survey reported an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang 
members in the United States. Those figures are disturbing enough. But 
a second study, conducted just 2 years later, found that the number of 
gangs had increased more than fourfold, with 23,388 gangs claiming over 
650,000 members. We need legislation to stem this rising tide.
  Let me quickly recap the highlights of this legislation. In order to 
qualify for incentive grants, States would be required to try juveniles 
as adults if they commit certain violent crimes such as rape and 
murder. States also would have to fingerprint and keep records on 
juveniles who commit crimes that would be felonies if committed by 
adults, and States must allow public access to juvenile criminal 
records of repeat juvenile offenders. These same provisions would apply 
to Federal law enforcement officials. To protect our children from 
adults who prey on them, this bill doubles and triples the jail time 
for those convicted of using a juvenile to commit a violent crime or to 
distribute drugs. Anyone caught dealing drugs to minors or near a 
school will face three times the penalty under current law.
  This bill is a reasonable and prudent response to the threat that 
violent

[[Page S5256]]

youths, and the adults that lead them into life of crime, pose to our 
children. The moneys authorized will be used to deter and incarcerate 
violent juvenile criminals, not just to provide for more midnight 
basketball and prevention programs--the situation, and our future, 
demands more that that. We need to take into account the needs of the 
innocent children--not sacrifice their protection in the name of 
privacy of violent juvenile perpetrators.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 826. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to protect the 
public from health hazards caused by exposure to environmental tobacco 
smoke, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


                 THE SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT ACT OF 1997

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Smoke-Free 
Environment Act of 1997. This bill will help decrease the death rates 
from a toxic pollutant that exists in the air of our Nation's 
factories, office buildings, retail stores, and Government facilities. 
I am speaking of secondhand smoke from cigarettes and other tobacco 
products, which kills tens of thousands of Americans each year.
  A recent study put an end to the tobacco industry's distortions and 
misinformation on this issue. A Harvard University study which tracked 
32,000 nonsmoking women for 10 years found that regular exposure at 
home or at work to secondhand smoke nearly doubled their risk of heart 
disease.
  Mr. President, we have been aware of the risk of lung cancer from 
secondhand smoke for several years now, but this study confirms what 
many have suspected about the link between secondhand smoke and heart 
disease. The results of this study means that approximately 50,000 
fatal heart attacks each year are caused by exposure to tobacco smoke.
  My bill would require that every building--both Government and 
private--protect Americans from exposure to secondhand smoke. It can be 
accomplished in one of two ways. The building could either ban smoking 
altogether or set up smoking rooms that are separately ventilated from 
the rest of the building.
  Mr. President, the bill also would finish a job I started with 
Senator Durbin 10 years ago. In 1987, we banned smoking on domestic 
airline flights of 2 hours or less. In 1989, we extended that ban to 
flights of 6 hours or less.
  The smoking ban has been a tremendous success. Passengers have been 
so pleased by a smokefree environment in the air that many airlines 
have voluntarily extended the ban to all domestic flights and 
international flights. However, some airlines have not, and many 
passengers and flight attendants are still subjected to dangerous 
secondhand smoke on airplanes.
  Mr. President, the Smoke-Free Environment Act will also ban smoking 
on any flight that originates in the United States, and lands in a 
foreign country. Americans should be able to travel abroad with the 
peace of mind that they will not be locked into a poisonous cabin for 
10 or 15 hours, and flight attendants will not have to worry that they 
will increase their risk of heart disease almost twofold by simply 
performing their job.
  Mr. President, yesterday, a trial opened in Miami, in which flight 
attendants sued the tobacco industry over health injuries caused by 
exposure to secondhand smoke before the passage of my law banning 
smoking on domestic flights. These flight attendants have a legitimate 
case, and it is time to prevent similar litigation in the future by 
cleaning all the air in the skies, in Government offices, in stores, 
and in all of our places of work.
  Mr. President, nonsmokers never choose to be exposed to tobacco 
smoke. The smoke of a cigarette is not only harming the smoker, but 
also severely injuring others with secondhand smoke.
  Multiple studies have shown that regular exposure to secondhand smoke 
results in the following for nonsmokers: Damage to the arteries, 
reduction of oxygen supply in the body, and increases in the tendency 
of blood platelet to stick together and clot.
  Mr. President, how can we speak about the importance of children's 
health while our kids are being exposed to this deadly smoke. It is 
time for Congress to get serious about the health crisis caused by 
secondhand smoke, and pass the Smoke-Free Environment Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
inserted into the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a New York 
Times article on the Harvard study be inserted into the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 826

       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 ``Smoke-Free Environment Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT POLICY.

       The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
                ``TITLE XXVIII--SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS

     ``SEC. 2801. SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT POLICY.

       ``(a) Policy Required.--In order to protect children and 
     adults from cancer, respiratory disease, heart disease, and 
     other adverse health effects from breathing environmental 
     tobacco smoke, the responsible entity for each public 
     facility shall adopt and implement at such facility a smoke-
     free environment policy which meets the requirements of 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Elements of Policy.--Each smoke-free environment 
     policy for a public facility shall--
       ``(1) prohibit the smoking of cigarettes, cigars, and 
     pipes, and any other combustion of tobacco, within the 
     facility and on facility property within the immediate 
     vicinity of the entrance to the facility; and
       ``(2) post a clear and prominent notice of the smoking 
     prohibition in appropriate and visible locations at the 
     public facility.

     The policy may provide an exception to the prohibition 
     specified in paragraph (1) for one or more specially 
     designated smoking areas within a public facility if such 
     area or areas meet the requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(c) Specially Designated Smoking Areas.--A specially 
     designated smoking area meets the requirements of this 
     subsection if it satisfies each of the following conditions:
       ``(1) The area is ventilated in accordance with 
     specifications promulgated by the Administrator that ensure 
     that air from the area is directly exhausted to the outside 
     and does not recirculate or drift to other areas within the 
     public facility.
       ``(2) Nonsmoking individuals do not have to enter the area 
     for any purpose.
       ``(3) Children under the age of 15 are prohibited from 
     entering the area.

     ``SEC. 2802. CITIZEN ACTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--An action may be brought to enforce the 
     requirements of this title by any aggrieved person, any State 
     or local government agency, or the Administrator.
       ``(b) Venue.--Any action to enforce this title may be 
     brought in any United States district court for the district 
     in which the defendant resides or is doing business to enjoin 
     any violation of this title or to impose a civil penalty for 
     any such violation in the amount of not more than $5,000 per 
     day of violation. The district courts shall have 
     jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or 
     the citizenship of the parties, to enforce this title and to 
     impose civil penalties under this title.
       ``(c) Notice.--An aggrieved person shall give any alleged 
     violator notice of at least 60 days prior to commencing an 
     action under this section. No action may be commenced by an 
     aggrieved person under this section if such alleged violator 
     complies with the requirements of this title within such 60-
     day period and thereafter.
       ``(d) Costs.--The court, in issuing any final order in any 
     action brought pursuant to this section, may award costs of 
     litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness 
     fees) to any prevailing party, whenever the court determines 
     such award is appropriate.
       ``(e) Penalties.--The court in any action under this 
     section to apply civil penalties shall have discretion to 
     order that such civil penalties be used for projects that 
     further the policies of this title. The court shall obtain 
     the view of the Administrator in exercising such discretion 
     and selecting any such projects.
       ``(f) Damages.--No damages of any kind, whether 
     compensatory or punitive, shall be awarded in actions brought 
     pursuant to this title.
       ``(g) Isolated Incidents.--Violations of the prohibition 
     specified in section 2801(b)(1) by an individual within a 
     public facility or on facility property shall not be 
     considered violations of this title on the part of the 
     responsible entity if such violations--
       ``(1) are isolated incidents that are not part of a pattern 
     of violations of such prohibition; and
       ``(2) are not authorized by the responsible entity.

     ``SEC. 2803. PREEMPTION.

       ``Nothing in this title shall preempt or otherwise affect 
     any other Federal, State or local law which provides 
     protection from health hazards from environmental tobacco 
     smoke.

[[Page S5257]]

     ``SEC. 2804. REGULATIONS.

       ``The Administrator is authorized to promulgate such 
     regulations as the Administrator deems necessary to carry out 
     this title.

     ``SEC. 2805. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       ``The requirements of this title shall take effect on the 
     date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 
     Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1997.

     ``SEC. 2806. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(2) Public facility.--The term `public facility' means 
     any building regularly entered by 10 or more individuals at 
     least one day per week, including any such building owned by 
     or leased to a Federal, State, or local government entity. 
     Such term shall not include any building or portion thereof 
     regularly used for residential purposes.
       ``(3) Responsible entity.--The term `responsible entity' 
     means, with respect to any public facility, the owner of such 
     facility, except that in the case of any such facility or 
     portion thereof which is leased, such term means the 
     lessee.''.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SMOKING ON SCHEDULED FLIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 41706 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 41706. Prohibitions against smoking on scheduled 
       flights

       ``(a) Smoking Prohibition in Intrastate and Interstate Air 
     Transportation.--An individual may not smoke in an aircraft 
     on a scheduled airline flight segment in interstate air 
     transportation or intrastate air transportation.
       ``(b) Smoking Prohibition in Foreign Air Transportation.--
     The Secretary of Transportation shall require all air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers to prohibit, on and after 
     the 120th day following the date of the enactment of the 
     Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1997, smoking in any aircraft 
     on a scheduled airline flight segment within the United 
     States or between a place in the United States and a place 
     outside the United States.
       ``(c) Limitation on Applicability.--With respect to an 
     aircraft operated by a foreign air carrier, the smoking 
     prohibitions contained in subsections (a) and (b) shall apply 
     only to the passenger cabin and lavatory of the aircraft.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the 60th day following the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                                                    ____


          [From the New York Times News Service, May 20, 1997]

           Study Finds Secondhand Smoke Doubles Heart Disease

                           (By Denise Grady)

       Secondhand cigarette smoke is more dangerous than 
     previously thought, Harvard researchers are reporting on 
     Tuesday in a study with broad implications for public health 
     policy and probable direct impact on at least one major 
     lawsuit.
       The 10-year study, which tracked more than 32,000 healthy 
     women who never smoked, has found that regular exposure to 
     other peoples' smoking at home or work almost doubled the 
     risk of heart disease.
       Many earlier studies have linked secondhand smoke to heart 
     disease, but the new findings show the biggest increase in 
     risk ever reported, and the researchers say that it applies 
     equally to men and women.
       The women in the study, who ranged in age from 36 to 61 
     when the study began, suffered 152 heart attacks, 25 of them 
     fatal. The results mean that ``there may be up to 50,000 
     Americans dying of heart attacks from passive smoking each 
     year,'' said Dr. Ichiro Kawachi, an assistant professor of 
     health and social behavior at the Harvard School of Public 
     Health and the lead author of the study, which was published 
     in the journal Circulation.
       By contrast, lung cancer deaths from passive smoking are 
     estimated to be far fewer, at 3,000 to 4,000 a year. Because 
     heart disease is much more common than lung cancer, even a 
     small increase in risk can cause many deaths.
       Before this study, it was known that passive smoking caused 
     increased risk for several ailments, including asthma and 
     bronchitis, as well as middle-ear infections in young 
     children. But the increased risk for heath disease had been 
     estimated at about 30 percent.
       ``This is a very important study,' said Dr. Stanton Glantz, 
     a professor of medicine at the University of California at 
     San Francisco, who has done extensive research on passive 
     smoking but who was not involved in the Harvard study. ``It's 
     exceptionally strong and from a very solid group.'' Glantz 
     also praised the Harvard team for what he called its careful 
     analysis of workplace exposure to smoke, which had rarely 
     been done before.
       :`That's important because of the effort to create laws 
     controlling smoking in the workplace,'' he said.
       Although the federal Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration has proposed nationwide workplace rules, they 
     are not yet in effect. Regulations vary by state or city.
       ``This study will be of enormous help to legislative 
     bodies, statewide and locally, who are trying to get limits 
     on smoking, especially in controversial areas like 
     restaurants and bars, where the tobacco industry has worked 
     closely with restaurant associations to block legislation to 
     make these places go smoke free,'' said Edward Sweda, a 
     senior lawyer with the Tobacco Control Resource Center at 
     Northeastern University in Boston.
       The study may be particularly pertinent for one lawsuit.
       ``From our standpoint, that's a wonderful study,'' said 
     Stanley Rosenblatt, a Miami lawyer representing flight 
     attendants in a class-action suit against tobacco companies 
     that will go to trial on June 2.
       That suit is the first class-action suit based on the 
     effects of secondhand smoke. The case could ultimately 
     involve 60,000 former and current flight attendants, who will 
     be seeking billions in damages, Rosenblatt said. The 
     attendants contend they were harmed by smoke in airplane 
     cabins when smoking was legal on most flights. Most of the 
     plaintiffs have had lung cancer or respiratory ailments.
       The Philip Morris Cos., which is named in the flight 
     attendants' suit, declined to comment on the study. The 
     Tobacco Institute, an industry group, said it could not 
     comment on the study because it has not seen a copy of it.
       The data being reported on Tuesday are from the Nurses' 
     Health Study, a project that began in 1976 with 121,700 
     female nurses filling out detailed surveys every two years 
     about their health and habits. To measure the effects of 
     passive smoking, the researchers asked the women in 1982 
     about their exposure, and then monitored new cases of heart 
     disease for the next decade. The analysis did not include all 
     the study participants, but only the 32,046 who had never 
     smoked and who at the onset did not have heart disease or 
     cancer.
       The women who reported being exposed regularly to cigarette 
     smoke at home or work had a 91 percent higher risk of heart 
     attack than those with no exposure. Even though the women 
     worked in hospitals some were exposed to smoke on the job 
     because at the time of the study many hospitals allowed 
     smoking in certain areas. The study was set up to make sure 
     that other risk factors like diabetes and high blood pressure 
     did not account for the difference between the two groups.
       Laboratory studies of the effects of passive smoke on the 
     body support the survey findings, Glantz said.
       In studies of both people and animals. Glantz and other 
     researchers have identified several ways in which the 
     chemicals in secondhand smoke can contribute to heart 
     disease. Besides reducing a person's oxygen supply, the 
     substances damage arteries, lower levels of the beneficial 
     form of cholesterol known as HDL and increase the tendency of 
     blood platelets to stick to one another and form clots that 
     can trigger a heart attack. A study last year of healthy 
     teen-agers and adults exposed to passive smoking for an hour 
     or more a day detected artery damage. The higher the exposure 
     was, the greater the damage.
       But once the exposure ceases, the damage may quickly heal.
       ``In active smokers, the risk of heart disease drops 
     immediately,'' half of the way to that of a nonsmoker within 
     a year, Glantz said. ``It never gets quite back to the 
     nonsmoker's level, but it comes close,'' he said. ``One would 
     expect the same to be true for passive smoking.''
       The Harvard study may supply ammunition for more lawsuit 
     against the tobacco industry.
       ``I think it could have very profound implications 
     legally,'' said John Banzhaf, a law professor at George 
     Washington University and executive director of Action on 
     Smoking and Health, an antismoking group. ``We now have proof 
     which will meet the legal threshold requirement. In an 
     ordinary civil suit, you have to prove something by what we 
     call a preponderance of evidence, which means it's more 
     probable than not.''
       The doubling of risk shown on Tuesday's study satisfied 
     that requirement, Banzhaf said, adding, ``You're right in 
     that striking range with regard to the quantum of proof which 
     we need.''
       Because passive smoke can cause heart problems more quickly 
     than it causes lung cancer, Banzhaf said, it will be easier 
     to prove the connection to juries.
       The study may also affect negotiations between Northwest 
     Airlines and its flight attendants. The airline still allows 
     smoking on many of its flights to Japan and has stated that 
     it will continue to even after other American carriers ban 
     smoking on those routes in July.
       Flight attendants have protested the decision, but a 
     spokesman for Northwest, John Austin, said the airline would 
     maintain a smoking section because its major competitor on 
     those flights, Japan Air Lines, permitted smoking.
       ``We believe that absent a smoking section we'll lose quite 
     a bit of business in Japan,'' Austin said. But he added that 
     Northwest's management had not yet seen the Harvard study. 
     ``It'll certainly factor in,'' he said. ``But it's hard to 
     say what the impact will be.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 828. A bill to provide for the reduction in the number of children 
who use tobacco products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

[[Page S5258]]

                      THE NO TOBACCO FOR KIDS ACT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for more than 5 years now, the tobacco 
companies have said repeatedly, ``We do not want to sell our products 
to kids.'' They have bought full page ads in the Washington Post, the 
New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, saying that they adamantly 
oppose the sale of tobacco to kids.
  I don't know many kids who read the Wall Street Journal, the New York 
Times, or the Washington Post. What the tobacco companies have been 
doing is creating a sham that they are serious about reducing sales to 
kids.
  Let's take a look at the record. From 1991 to 1996, the percentage of 
children who use tobacco increased by almost 50 percent. This means 
that, at the same time the tobacco companies have been saying they are 
dedicated to reducing the illegal sales of tobacco to kids, more and 
more children have been buying the tobacco products those companies 
sell.
  That is not an accident. This multi-billion dollar industry is made 
up of tobacco companies that design their marketing and advertising to 
lure new customers into this addiction. The fact that more and more 
children are smoking is clear evidence that the tobacco companies have 
failed, once again, to tell the truth. They need these new, young 
customers to prop up their profits as older customers die or quit using 
tobacco. And they continue to do what it takes to secure a new 
generation of young people who are becoming hooked on their products.
  Today, I am introducing, along with Senator Frank Lautenberg and 
Congressman Henry Waxman, a new piece of legislation that says the only 
honest way to approach the reduction of tobacco sales to children is to 
make the tobacco companies put their profits on the line.
  The NO Tobacco For Kids Act says we will do a survey of the tobacco 
products for sale and find out how many children are using those 
products and what brands they are using. Then, each year, we will 
update that survey to see which products continue to be purchased by 
children. Those companies that continue to sell their products to 
children will face a fine of $1 a pack on all their sales if they don't 
reduce the number of children using their brands in steps to reach a 
reduction of 90 percent over the next 6 years. Since current childhood 
users will cycle out of the underage population over that time, this 
measure will give the tobacco companies a chance to show whether they 
are serious about reducing the use of tobacco products by kids.
  Unless the tobacco companies have their profits on the line, we will 
continue to get cheap talk from them about stopping sales to kids. This 
bill puts teeth into the campaign to stop selling tobacco products to 
children. It sets a very simple standard for the tobacco companies: 
stop selling cigarettes and spit tobacco to children, or pay the 
consequences.
  In the past, every child hooked on tobacco was a new profit center 
for the tobacco industry. This legislation totally reverses the 
incentives for marketing to children. When this measure becomes law, 
every new child who picks up a cigarette or pockets a can of spit 
tobacco will become an economic loss to the company whose products the 
child chooses. With that reversal, the tobacco companies will have a 
strong economic incentive to stop marketing to children.
  Mr. President, this legislation could be one the simplest yet most 
effective steps we can take to reduce teenage tobacco use. I invite my 
colleagues to cosponsor the NO Tobacco For Kids Act and help us put in 
place clear performance standards for the tobacco industry to stop 
selling their products to minors.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill and the text of 
the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 828

       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 ``NO Tobacco for Kids Act''.

     SEC. 2. CHILD TOBACCO USE SURVEYS.

       (a) Annual Performance Survey.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter 
     the Secretary shall conduct a survey to determine the number 
     of children who used each manufacturer's tobacco products 
     within the past 30 days.
       (b) Baseline Level.--The baseline level of child tobacco 
     product use of a manufacturer is the number of children 
     determined to have used the tobacco products of such 
     manufacturer in the first annual performance survey.

     SEC. 3. GRADUATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

       (a) Performance Standards for Existing Manufacturers.--Each 
     manufacturer which manufactured a tobacco product on or 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act shall reduce the 
     number of children who use its tobacco products so that the 
     number of children determined to have used its tobacco 
     products on the basis of--
       (1) the second annual performance survey is equal to or 
     less than--
       (A) 80 percent of the manufacturer's baseline level; or
       (B) the de minimis level;
     whichever is greater;
       (2) the third annual performance survey is equal to or less 
     than--
       (A) 60 percent of the manufacturer's baseline level; or
       (B) the de minimis level;
     whichever is greater;
       (3) the fourth annual performance survey is equal to or 
     less than--
       (A) 40 percent of the manufacturer's baseline level; or
       (B) the de minimis level;
     whichever is greater;
       (4) the fifth annual performance survey is equal to or less 
     than--
       (A) 20 percent of the manufacturer's baseline level; or
       (B) the de minimis level;
     whichever is greater; and
       (5) the sixth annual performance survey and each annual 
     performance survey conducted thereafter is equal to or less 
     than--
       (A) 10 percent of the manufacturer's baseline level; or
       (B) the de minimis level;
     whichever is greater.
       (b) Performance Standards for New Manufacturers.--Any 
     manufacturer of a tobacco product which begins to manufacture 
     a tobacco product after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall ensure that the number of children determined to have 
     used the manufacturer's tobacco products in each annual 
     performance survey conducted after the manufacturer begins to 
     manufacture tobacco products is equal to or less than the de 
     minimis level.
       (c) De Minimis Level.--The de minimis level shall be 0.5 
     percent of the total number of children determined to have 
     used tobacco products in the first annual performance survey.

     SEC. 4. NONCOMPLIANCE.

       (a) First Violation.--If a manufacturer of a tobacco 
     product violates a performance standard, the manufacturer 
     shall pay a noncompliance fee of $1 for each unit of its 
     tobacco product which is distributed for consumer use in the 
     year following the year in which the performance standard is 
     violated.
       (b) Fee Increase for Subsequent Violations.--If a 
     manufacturer violates the performance standards in 2 or more 
     consecutive years, the noncompliance fee for such 
     manufacturer shall be increased by $1 for each consecutive 
     violation for each unit of its tobacco product which is 
     distributed for consumer use.
       (c) Reduction in Noncompliance Fee.--If a manufacturer 
     achieves more than 90 percent of the reduction in the number 
     of children who use its tobacco products that is required 
     under the applicable performance standard, the noncompliance 
     fee required to be paid by the manufacturer shall be reduced 
     on a pro rata basis such that there shall be a noncompliance 
     fee reduction of 10 percent for each percentage point over 90 
     percent achieved by the manufacturer.
       (d) Payment.--The noncompliance fee to be paid by a 
     manufacturer shall be paid on a quarterly basis, with the 
     payments due within 30 days after the end of each calendar 
     quarter.

     SEC. 5. USE OF NONCOMPLIANCE FEE.

       (a) Funds for Enforcement and Education.--The first 
     $1,000,000,000 of noncompliance fees collected in any fiscal 
     year shall go into a Tobacco Enforcement and Education Fund 
     in the United States Treasury. Fees in such fund shall be 
     available to the Secretary, without fiscal year limitation, 
     to enforce this Act and other Federal laws relating to 
     tobacco use by children and for public education to 
     discourage children from using tobacco products.
       (b) Funds for the Treasury.--Any amount of noncompliance 
     fees collected in any fiscal year which exceeds 
     $1,000,000,000 shall be paid into the United States Treasury.

     SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       A manufacturer of tobacco products may seek judicial review 
     of any action under this Act only after a noncompliance fee 
     has been assessed and paid by the manufacturer and only in 
     the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia. In an action by a manufacturer seeking judicial 
     review of an annual performance survey, the manufacturer may 
     prevail--
       (1) only if the manufacturer shows that the results of the 
     performance survey were arbitrary and capricious; and
       (2) only to the extent that the manufacturer shows that it 
     would have been required to pay a lesser noncompliance fee if 
     the results of the performance survey were not arbitrary and 
     capricious.

[[Page S5259]]

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (28 
     U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(x) The failure to pay any noncompliance fee required 
     under the NO Tobacco for Kids Act.''.

     SEC. 8. PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall preempt or otherwise affect any 
     other Federal, State, or local law or regulation which 
     reduces the use of tobacco products by children.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Children.--The term ``children'' means individuals 
     under the age of 18.
       (2) Cigarette.--The term ``cigarette'' has the same meaning 
     given such term by section 3(1) of the Federal Cigarette 
     Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332(1)).
       (3) Cigarette tobacco.--The term ``cigarette tobacco'' 
     means any product that consists of loose tobacco that 
     contains or delivers nicotine and is intended for use by 
     consumers in a cigarette.
       (4) Manufacture.--The term ``manufacture'' means the 
     manufacturing, including repacking or relabeling, 
     fabrication, assembly, processing, labeling, or importing of 
     a tobacco product.
       (5) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means any 
     person who manufactures a tobacco product.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (7) Smokeless tobacco.--The term ``smokeless tobacco'' has 
     the same meaning given such term by section 9(1) of the 
     Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Education Act of 1986 (15 
     U.S.C. 4408(1)).
       (8) Tobacco product.--The term ``tobacco product'' means a 
     cigarette, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
       (9) Unit.--The term ``unit'' when used in connection with a 
     tobacco product means 20 cigarettes in the case of cigarettes 
     and the smallest amount of tobacco distributed by a 
     manufacturer for consumer use in the case of any other 
     tobacco product.
                                                                    ____


               The NO Tobacco for Kids Act (NOT for Kids)

       The NO Tobacco for Kids Act (NOT for Kids) will establish a 
     clear performance standard for the reduction of youth smoking 
     in America. For too many years, the tobacco companies have 
     claimed they oppose youth smoking and spit tobacco use while 
     continuing to hook new generations of kids on their deadly 
     products. This bill sets out a schedule to reduce actual 
     youth tobacco use and contains provisions that, for the first 
     time, will give individual tobacco companies an economic 
     incentive to stop marketing their products to children. 
     Specifically, the bill provides that:
       Within 1 year after enactment, the Secretary of HHS will 
     conduct a survey to determine the number of children who used 
     each manufacturer's tobacco products within the previous 30 
     days.
       Each manufacturer will then face penalties if it does not 
     reduce the number of children who use its tobacco products by 
     specified percentages from this baseline level over the 
     succeeding years. The performance standard for each 
     manufacturer is as follows: Year 1: no standard, baseline 
     survey is taken; year 2: 20-percent reduction from the 
     baseline; year 3: 40-percent reduction from the baseline; 
     year 4: 60-percent reduction from the baseline; year 5: 80-
     percent reduction from the baseline; year 6: 90-percent 
     reduction from the baseline; and subsequent years: 90-percent 
     reduction from the baseline.
       Manufacturers that reduce use to a de minimus level--one-
     half percent of the current number of youth smokers--will be 
     deemed in compliance.
       If a manufacturer violates the performance standard, that 
     manufacturer must pay a noncompliance fee of $1 per pack, 
     pouch, can, et cetera, on all of their tobacco sales in the 
     subsequent year--not just on sales to youth. If the 
     manufacturer violates the performance standard for 2 or more 
     consecutive years, the noncompliance fee is increased by $1 
     for each consecutive year of violation. A manufacturer who 
     comes within 10 percent of the required reduction for a 
     particular year will have its noncompliance fee reduced on a 
     pro rata basis.
       The first $1 billion of noncompliance fees collected in any 
     fiscal year will go into a fund for enforcement and public 
     education to discourage children from using tobacco products. 
     Any additional fees will go to the Treasury for deficit 
     reduction.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 829. 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 1997

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Clean Fuel 
Vehicle Act of 1997 to provide a program of tax incentives and other 
changes to promote the use of clean fuel vehicles. I believe that, as a 
U.S. Senator, I have no greater responsibility than to support policies 
that will protect the health and safety of the American people. Today, 
I want to tell you why I believe that my bill, the Clean Fuel Vehicle 
Act, is an important part of meeting that responsibility.
  More than 43 million people in the United States live in areas that 
fail to meet EPA's air quality standards for carbon monoxide. We have 
13 million people in nonattainment areas for nitrogen oxide. And, in my 
State of California, nearly 26 million people live in a nonattainment 
area for one or more pollutants, out of a state of nearly 32 million 
people. Air pollution is a very serious problem. According to the EPA, 
the current annual average concentrations of fine particulate matter in 
southeast Los Angeles County may be responsible for up to 3,000 deaths 
annually, and more then 52,000 incidences of respiratory symptoms 
including 1,000 hospital admissions.
  Young children constitute the largest group at high risk from 
exposure to air pollutants. They breathe 50 percent more air by body 
weight than the average adult. In California alone there are over 6 
million children under the age of 14 and approximately 90 percent of 
them live in areas that fail to meet State and Federal standards. How 
are our children being affected? Studies show health effects ranging 
from 20 to 60 percent losses of lung capacity.
  So much of our air pollution problem comes from automobiles and other 
vehicles that burn fossil fuel. Sixty-five percent of carbon dioxide 
emissions and 47 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from cars and 
trucks.
  I believe we must reinvigorate--electrify if you will--our efforts 
for clean fuel vehicles. The role of the Federal Government should be 
to encourage the market for these vehicles for a limited period of time 
with tax incentives.
  The Clean Fuel Vehicle Act would make it easier for both individual 
car buyers and government purchasers of auto fleets to purchase clean 
fuel vehicles. In summary, the bill repeals the luxury excise tax on 
clean fuel vehicles--a $320 savings this year on a $40,000, factory-
built electric vehicle, and repeals the luxury tax depreciation cap. It 
provides a full tax credit of $4,000 on the purchase of an electric 
vehicle. It allows companies which lease electric vehicles to 
government agencies to take advantage of the tax incentives and pass on 
the savings. It makes electric buses and other heavy duty electric 
vehicles eligible for the same tax deduction already in place for other 
clean fuel buses and heavy duty equipment. It lowers the excise tax on 
liquified natural gas--used in heavy vehicles such as tractor-trailer 
rigs and buses--to the gasoline gallon equivalent of compressed natural 
gas so that it can be competitive with diesel fuel. And, it sunsets all 
these tax incentives by January 1, 2005.
  According to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill 
would cost only about $22 million over 5 years. My bill is endorsed by 
the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Electric Transportation 
Coaltion, and the Natural Gas Vehicle/USA.
  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. 829

       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 1997''.
       (b) Reference to 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.--
       ``(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

[[Page S5260]]

     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) Subsection (f) of section 4001 (relating to phasedown) 
     is amended by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(1)''.
       (3) 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 the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF THE INCREMENTAL COST OF A CLEAN FUEL 
                   VEHICLE FROM THE LIMITS ON DEPRECIATION FOR 
                   VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 280F(a)(1) (relating to limiting 
     depreciation on luxury automobiles) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Special rule for certain clean-fuel passenger 
     automobiles.--
       ``(i) Modified automobiles.--In the case of a passenger 
     automobile 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 (as defined in section 179A(e)(1)), the 
     depreciation deductions specified in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be increased by the incremental cost of the installed 
     qualified clean burning vehicle property as depreciated 
     pursuant to section 168 by applying the rules under 
     subsections (b)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(3)(B) thereof.
       ``(ii) Purpose built passenger vehicles.--In the case of a 
     purpose built passenger vehicle (as defined in section 
     4001(a)(2)(C)(ii)), the depreciation deductions specified in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be tripled.
       ``(iii) Incremental cost.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     incremental cost shall be the equal of the lesser of--

       ``(I) the incremental cost of the installed qualified clean 
     fuel vehicle property (as so defined), or
       ``(II) the amount by which the total cost of the clean fuel 
     passenger automobile exceeds the sum of the amounts that 
     would be allowed under subparagraph (A) for the recovery 
     period determined by applying the rules under subsections 
     (d)(1) and (e)(3) of section 168.''

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales and installations occurring and property 
     placed in service on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act and before January 1, 2005.

     SEC. 4. 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 enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. 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 enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. 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. 7. 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, 3.54 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 enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
        Wellstone):
  S.J. Res. 31. 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.


       MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT DISAPPROVAL JOINT RESOLUTION

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in offering this resolution, Mr. President, 
which formally disapproves President Clinton's renewal of MFN for 
China, I am pleased that the able Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] 
is a principal cosponsor of the resolution of disapproval.
  In moving around my State during the Memorial Day recess I was 
impressed with the attitude of a majority of North Carolinians who are 
absolutely persuaded that the United States must conduct its policy 
toward China on the basis of morality as well as pragmatism. It has 
made no sense either morally or practically for the United States to 
have conducted its China policy as it has for so long.
  There are many who are asserting the truth that the term MFN, which 
stands for most favored nation, is certainly a misnomer. MFN, in fact, 
means that a country gets trade treatment as good as anybody else's, 
not that it gets more favorable treatment than any other country. I 
accept that and I oppose MFN on exactly those grounds. China gets the 
same trade treatment that virtually everybody else gets. When a country 
like China gets normal trade relations with the United States it is 
getting better treatment than China deserves. That is just plain 
foolish.
  Those who favor MFN for Communist China also like to point out that 
other countries with at least equally dubious records--like Iran, Iraq, 
Syria, Libya and Burma--qualify for MFN without an annual debate. 
Therefore, the proMFN crowd says China ought to get MFN without an 
annual debate.
  I dissent. The trouble with that, Mr. President, is this. Those 
people who rely on the cases of these countries to make their points 
about MFN for China just have not done their homework. It is 
disingenuous at best for the proMFN lobby to create the impression that 
Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria, enjoy MFN status, because they absolutely

[[Page S5261]]

do not. MFN for Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya is a moot point since 
nearly all trade is banned with them due to their involvement in state-
sponsored terrorism.
  Burma may technically have MFN status but it, also, is the subject of 
a ban on new United States investment. Syria and Burma both are denied 
low-tariff benefits under the generalized system of preferences. 
Besides that, policies against individual countries have evolved in 
response to historical developments and the needs of U.S. policy. No 
proponent of MFN renewal would say that the United States should treat 
every country exactly the same way regardless of specific conditions 
inside the country, the type of government it has, or the type of 
threat it poses to the United States or to the neighbors of the United 
States.
  Now, China is a special case, Mr. President. When you stop to think 
about it there is no valid reason for the United States--this is the 
world's leader in freedom--offering the same trading terms for China 
that the United States offers to other nations that do honor their 
citizens' human rights and that do respect the rule of law. Now, there 
can be no such thing as normal trade with the world's largest country, 
a Communist system engaging in proliferation of conventional nuclear, 
biological, and chemical weapons.
  A country of which our State Department can say, there was not a 
single dissident active in 1996.
  A country which is violating commitments it made in an international 
agreement to preserve Hong Kong's institutions and way of life 
virtually intact.
  A country whose economy is built on prison labor and Peoples 
Liberation Army joint ventures with U.S. companies.
  A country which fires missiles across the Taiwan strait in an attempt 
to intimidate the people of Taiwan from conducting democratic 
elections.
  A country which makes money from organ transplants taken from 
prisoners, who have just been shot in the head.
  A country which has a policy of forced abortion.
  A country which has systematically destroyed Tibet's religion and 
culture.
  A country which violates international law in the South China Sea.
  A country which has a huge and growing trade deficit with the United 
States.
  It matters not whether one calls China's trade status most favored 
nation, or normal trade relations as the White House Office of 
``newspeak'' wishes to call it. Either way, it's a bad policy, when one 
considers that in every important area of United States-China 
relations--from weapons proliferation, to human rights, to trade and 
intellectual property, to Hong Kong--the White House crowd has made the 
word ``engagement'' synonymous with the word ``appeasement.''
  Let's talk for a little while about China's record of weapons 
proliferation. In April, a subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee chaired by the able Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Cochran], 
held a hearing which laid out the truth about Chinese proliferation, 
that this administration has repeatedly failed to impose sanctions 
required by United States law for China's transfers of equipment, 
components and weapons of mass destruction to Iran and Pakistan.
  On human rights, the State Department acknowledges continued 
widespread abuse of human rights by China. This year's annual human 
rights report catalogues violations of rights of speech, assembly, and 
association, and abuses including extra-judicial punishment, prison 
labor, and religious repression.
  Even more shocking than the extent of these abuses is the 
administration's refusal to use United States leverage to influence 
China, or even United States allies. This year, the United States 
failed to mount a credible campaign to introduce and pass a resolution 
condemning Chinese human rights abuses at the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission in Geneva.
  The Commission's meeting is not a mystery. It is scheduled a year in 
advance. Yet this administration did almost no lobbying until the last 
minute. That's because the administration hoped against hope that the 
Vice President's trip to China would result in some concessions by the 
Chinese which would enable the administration to abandon the resolution 
once and for all.
  But just guess what happened. China did not make concessions to Vice 
President Gore and the Clinton administration was left trying to put 
together a coalition at Geneva.
  In trade, the story is the same. There is absolutely no improvement. 
The United States trade deficit with China climbed once again this 
year, to just under 40 percent. According to the President, that's an 
increase of 17 percent over last year. United States companies have 
precious little access to China's market, even as they are pouring 
investment into China. Sometimes, United States companies deal with the 
People's Liberation Army. Sometimes they deal with factories using with 
prison labor. That is the way the game is played--under cover, under 
the table.
  The United States buys 30 percent of China's exports. Yet China makes 
up just 2 percent of the United States export market--30 vs. 2. This 
past year, United States exports to Taiwan, Hong Kong--and even to 
Belgium, if you believe that, were greater than United States exports 
to China, even though the populations of each of these countries are a 
tiny fraction of China's population.
  Just the same, we hear the same old rhetoric from certain 
businessmen. They come to my office day after day. I like them. I am 
sorry I can't agree with them. But I tell them I do not agree with 
them. They sit there and contend that the United States needs to trade 
with China. It will open up society; that is to say, the Chinese 
society, they say. But what is going on in China isn't free trade but 
trade on the Chinese Government's terms, which can be changed every 
hour on the hour.
  The Chinese military operates commercial enterprises. Let me repeat 
that. The Chinese military army, all the rest of it, they are in 
business. They do that so they can pay for the ever-growing cost of 
operating their military establishment--and, by the way, collect 
technology from the United States and other sucker governments who send 
it to them.
  No rule of law protects Chinese or foreign investors. Official 
corruption is widespread, and everybody knows it. A disagreement with a 
business partner who has an official connection can land you in jail in 
China, or worse. You might be one of the guys hauled out on that field 
tomorrow morning with a bullet through your head so that one of your 
organs can be sold for $40,000 cash money.
  Want a run down of stories you won't hear from those lobbying 
Congress for MFN?
  In 1994, Revpower, a Florida company won an international arbitration 
award against a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Despite China's 
obligations as a party to the 1958 Convention on Recognition and 
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, China has failed to enforce the 
award in its courts.
  In 1994, James Peng, an Australian citizen, was seized by Chinese 
police in Macau--which is not yet under Chinese control--and taken to 
China. In this case, the court found Peng innocent of any wrongdoing, 
but local officials who saw an opportunity to extort money from Peng 
and his partners. Peng has been in jail ever since.
  Troy McBride, a United States businessman, had his passport seized 
and was detained for several weeks in a hotel in China in 1995. You can 
read about this in last year's State Department Human Rights Report.
  According to the Chicago Tribune, Philip Cheng, a Chinese-American, 
was jailed without charges in 1993 over a dispute with his joint 
venture partner. In the story about Mr. Cheng, a Western diplomat was 
quoted as saying:

       When a deal goes sour we only hear about the worst cases. 
     But dozens, perhaps hundreds of businessmen have been mobbed, 
     punched and even jailed to make them pay what the locals 
     demand. In most cases the victims make no fuss because their 
     companies want to keep doing business in China.

  Zhang Gueixing, a U.S. resident immigrant was imprisoned for 2\1/2\ 
years in connection with a dispute over bicycles. While in prison, 
Zhang witnessed executions of prisoners.
  China has steadily reneged on its commitments in the 1984 Joint 
Declaration. In that agreement, China

[[Page S5262]]

promised that Hong Kong would have an elected legislature, an 
accountable executive, an independent judiciary, and a broad range of 
personal and political freedoms including rights of speech, assembly, 
association, and religion. For the past several years China has first 
announced a violation of the joint declaration, then carried it out. 
This is all a matter of public record.
  Yet, the United States has failed to prevent or reverse a single 
violation of the joint declaration. How can it when the 
administration's official position is that the United States is not 
entitled to say what does or does not violate the Joint Declaration?
  Where the President will not lead, the Congress must act. An 
editorial from The Weekly Standard noted that:

       The Clinton Administration obstinately refuses to link U.S. 
     China policy to anything the Chinese do or fail to do. 
     Linkage must be reestablished; equilibrium must be restored 
     to the relationship between the United States and its most 
     troublesome and persistent challenger. That mission falls to 
     the Congress by default.

  For far too long, the United States has failed to recognize and use 
its leverage over China.
  Mr. President, revoking MFN will not be the end of our China policy. 
MFN is the means toward restoring equilibrium in the relationship.
  China scholar Harry Harding's book, ``A Fragile Relationship,'' 
chronicles the early 1990's, when there was a real threat of MFN 
revocation in response to the Tiananmen Square Massacre. In response to 
the threat Beijing ended martial law, released several hundred 
political prisoners, bought Boeing aircraft and let a prominent 
dissident out of the country.
  The Congress should withhold MFN status for China this year, 
otherwise the administration will continue to acquiesce to every 
violation of international law, international agreement, bilateral 
agreement, and United States law. The administration's policy toward 
China has been an abject failure. Abject, means both ``utterly 
hopeless'' and ``shamelessly servile.'' Which, it seems to me, fairly 
sums up the situation.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be appropriately 
referred.
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee [Mr. Helms] and I have today introduced a joint 
resolution of disapproval for the President's decision to extend most-
favored-nation status to China.
  This is third year in a row that I will be introducing this joint 
resolution, and--I am pleased to say--the second time with Senator 
Helms. I have joined with the chairman once again because I believe 
that trade policy is an effective tool that the United States can and 
should use with respect to the Chinese Government. I am pleased that 
Senators Wellstone and Hutchinson of Arkansas have joined us in 
introducing this bipartisan resolution.
  Mr. President, on May 19, President Clinton announced his intention 
to extend for another year most-favored-nation trading status to China, 
which he formally requested from the Congress last week. Although we 
have expected the President to make such a decision for some time now, 
I can only say that I am once again disappointed in the President's 
decision. In fact, I have objected to the President's policy regarding 
the extension of MFN status to China since 1994, when he de-linked the 
issue of human rights from our trading policy. The argument made then 
is that trade rights and human rights are not interrelated. At the same 
time, it was said, through ``constructive engagement'' on economic 
matters, and dialogue on other issues, including human rights, the 
United States could better influence the behavior of the Chinese 
Government.
  That was a mistake.
  Let those who support ``constructive engagement'' visit the terribly 
ill Wei Jingsheng in his prison cell, and ask him if developing markets 
for toothpaste or breakfast cereal will help him win his freedom or 
save his life. I do not see how closer economic ties alone will somehow 
transform China's authoritarian system into a more democratic one. 
Unless we press the case for improvement in China's human rights 
record, using the leverage afforded us by the Chinese Government's 
desire to expand its economy and increase trade with us, I do not see 
how conditions will get much better.
  De-linking MFN has resulted only in the continued despair of millions 
of Chinese people, and there is no evidence that MFN has influenced 
Beijing to improve its human rights policies. Basic freedoms--of 
expression, of religion, of association--are routinely denied. Rule of 
law, at least as I would define it, does not exist.
  Mr. President, shortly before the Memorial Day recess, the Foreign 
Relations Committee held several hearings on the current situation in 
China. We had, for example, an excellent hearing on the situation in 
Tibet, where China continues its cultural and political repression and 
still refuses to begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, a Nobel 
laureate. We also heard testimony about how China is not sticking to 
its commitments under a 1992 Memorandum of Understanding with the 
United States on the issue of the use of forced prison labor. It is 
unconscionable that American consumers have unwittingly been used to 
help finance the abhorrent Chinese policy of reform through labor.
  And that is not all.
  Virtually every review of the behavior of the Chinese Government over 
the past year demonstrates that not only has there been no improvement 
in the human rights situation in China, but in many cases, it has 
worsened.
  Now, 3 years after the President's decision to de-link MFN from human 
rights, the State Department's most recent Human Rights report on China 
describes, once again, an abysmal situation. According to the report,

       The Government 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 absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic 
     freedoms. . . . Abuses included torture and mistreatment 
     of prisoners, forced confessions, and arbitrary and 
     lengthy incommunicado detention. Prison conditions 
     remained harsh. The Government continued severe 
     restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, 
     association, religion, privacy, and worker rights.

  In October 1996, we were witness to yet another example of these 
policies, when Wang Dan, one of the leaders of the 1989 pro-democracy 
demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, was sentenced to 11 years in 
prison. This was, of course, after he had already been held in 
incommunicado detention for 17 months in connection with the issuance 
of a pro-democracy petition. Many political prisoners--some whose names 
we know, like Mr. Wang and Mr. Wei, and many of whose names we do not--
have become ill as a result of their prolonged incarcerations, and are 
not receiving proper medical care.
  The past year also saw the December arrest of Ngawang Choepel, a 
Tibetan musicologist and former Fulbright scholar who was the subject 
of a recent Moynihan resolution that I was proud to cosponsor. Also in 
December, a Beijing court sentenced activist Li Hai for collecting 
information on Tiananmen activists in prison. Li was trying to compile 
a list giving the name, age, family situation, crime, length of 
sentence, and the location of the prison in which these activists were 
held.
  In June 1996, university teacher Zhang Zong-ai was arrested and later 
sentenced for meeting with Wang Dan and writing to Taiwanese leaders. 
Earlier this year, reports emerged from Tibet indicating severe torture 
of Tibetan nuns allegedly involved in separatist activities.
  Freedom of expression is curtailed by other means as well. Although 
the government has recently encouraged the expansion of the Internet 
and other communications infrastructure, it requires Internet users to 
register and sign a pledge not to endanger security. Selected web 
sites, like those from news organizations based in Hong Kong and 
Taiwan, or those hosted by dissidents, are blocked by the government, 
and authorities continue to jam Voice of America broadcasts.
  Mr. President, Beijing's contempt for United States values is evident 
in many fora: in the loathsome compulsory one-child family planning 
program, in the increased incidence of religious persecution, in the 
sales of nuclear equipment to Pakistan or missiles to Iran, and in 
China's utter disregard for agreements to end violations of United 
States intellectual property

[[Page S5263]]

rights. Lack of progress in these areas flies in the face of the United 
States policy of ``constructive engagement,'' with respect to China.
  In my view--and I know that Senator Helms agrees with me here--it is 
impossible to come to any other conclusion except that ``constructive 
engagement'' has failed to make any change in Beijing's human rights 
behavior. I would say that the evidence justifies the exact opposite 
conclusion: human rights have deteriorated and the regime continues to 
act recklessly in other areas vital to U.S. national interest.
  At the May 13, 1997, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
The Situation of Tibet and its People, Dr. Robert Thurman, a renowned 
expert in Tibetan culture who has traveled to the region numerous times 
over the past 35 years, presented compelling testimony about the 
Chinese Government's intentions toward the Tibetan people. Dr. Thurman 
explained quite clearly that, ``It is a calculated policy consistent 
[of the] Chinese Government . . . to eradicate those who might some day 
claim the land of Tibet back to them.'' In order to achieve this goal, 
Dr. Thurman explained, the Chinese Government engages in all kinds of 
activities to destroy Tibetan culture, Tibetan religion and Tibetan 
identity, and in so doing, attempts to assimilate Tibetans into the 
Chinese way of life.
  But what was most striking about Dr. Thurman's testimony was his 
description of the behavior of the Chinese Government over the past 3 
years, and in particular, Beijing's reaction to United States trade 
policy. Mr. President, allow me to read from his oral testimony:

       It is definitely a fact that anyone who goes to Tibet 
     regularly--and I have been there eight times--anyone who goes 
     there regularly will tell you that since 1994, when our 
     Executive Branch misguidedly delinked . . . trade 
     privileges from the Chinese behavior, the Chinese behavior 
     accelerated in a negative direction to an extreme degree. 
     Since 1994, the complete oppression of Tibetan religion 
     and the Tibetan national identity has been reembarked upon 
     by the recent and current administration in China. From 
     1994 to 1997, their policy has returned to being 
     completely genocidal, no longer pretending even to 
     tolerate Tibetan religion. . . . They have expelled many 
     monks from monasteries. They have closed important 
     monasteries. . . . [The Chinese] will never abandon 
     [Tibet] when they feel we have no real will to do anything 
     serious no matter what they do. . . . This has been proven 
     in religious terms . . . in the last three years, since 
     1994. Once you delinked the money from their treatment of 
     human rights, from their treatment of religion in Tibet, 
     they just went and completely abused everything totally. 
     They undid all sorts of liberties that had been allowed in 
     the 1980s, in fact. They completely have undone them.

  So, Mr. President, we have here compelling testimony of my main 
argument: that the delinking of trade privileges from human rights 
issues has actually led to a worsening of the human rights situation in 
China.
  Perhaps equally disturbing, China continues to violate agreements 
with the United States on other issues. Violations of agreements on 
intellectual property rights cost U.S. firms an estimated $1.8 billion 
annually. Violations of the memorandum of understanding on prison 
labor, according to some estimates, have resulted in millions of 
dollars worth of tainted goods being imported into our country. And 
China's blatant disregard for international efforts to control nuclear 
proliferation cost us unimaginable sums in future international 
security.
  We have so few levers that we can use against China. And if China is 
accepted by the international community as a superpower under the 
current conditions, it will believe it can continue to abuse human 
rights with impunity. The more we ignore the signals and allow trade to 
dictate our policy, the worse we can expect the human rights situation 
to become.
  We know that putting pressure on the Chinese Government can have some 
impact. China released dissident Harry Wu from prison when his case 
threatened to disrupt the First Lady's trip to Beijing for the U.N. 
Conference on Women, and it similarly released both Wei Jingsheng and 
Wang Dan around the same time that China was pushing to have the 2000 
Olympic Games in Beijing. After losing that bid, and once the spotlight 
was off, the Chinese government rearrested both Wei and Wang.
  Examples such as this only affirm my belief that the United States 
should make it clear that human rights are of real--as opposed to 
rhetorical--concern to this country. Until Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan, and 
others committed to reform in China are allowed to speak their voices 
freely and work for change, United States-China relations should not be 
based on a business-as-usual basis. Last Sunday, Fred Hiatt illustrated 
this point in a Washington Post editorial called The Skyscraper and the 
Bookstore. In recalling the 1993 tour of Beijing that Chinese leaders 
offered to Mr. Wei after he had been in prison for 14 years, Hiatt 
wonders whether the skyscraper, a powerful symbol of Western-style 
economic modernization, or a bookstore, in which Wei found little 
literary diversity, is the more significant portent for China's future. 
Hiatt's point is that the more the United States focuses on its trade 
and economic relations with China, the more skyscrapers might be built 
in Beijing. But despite massive urban development, there has not been 
massive development in the most basic freedoms of expression and ideas.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Hiatt's 
June 1, 1997, Washington Post op-ed be included in the Record.
  Mr. President, this year--1997--is perhaps the most important year 
since 1989 with respect to our relationship with the Chinese 
Government. In less than 1 month, Hong Kong will revert to China, and 
already there are fears of what the transition may mean for democratic 
liberties in that city. There may also be significant developments with 
respect to China's desire to join the World Trade Organization. And of 
course, there are the myriad other issues I have already mentioned.
  But even with all that is going on, the United States and others in 
the international community failed to pass a resolution regarding China 
at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights earlier this year 
largely because China lobbied hard to prevent it. That failure proves 
that it is even more important for the United States to use the levers 
that we do have to pressure China's leaders.

  Mr. President, if moral 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 real political and economic self-interest. We must not 
forget that we currently have a trade deficit of nearly $40 billion. 
Forty billion dollars. Political considerations aside, such a deficit 
represents a formidable obstacle to developing normal trading relations 
with China at any point in the near future. Plus, China is becoming 
more and more dangerously involved in nefarious arms dealings with Iran 
and Pakistan.
  But, Mr. President, my main objective today is to push for the United 
States to once again make the link between human rights and trading 
relations with respect to our policy in China. As I have said before, I 
believe that trade--embodied by the peculiar annual exercise of MFN 
renewal--is one of the most powerful levers we have, and that it was a 
mistake for the President to de-link this exercise from human rights 
considerations.
  So, Mr. President, for those who care about human rights, about 
freedom of religion, and about America's moral leadership in the world, 
I urge support for the Helms-Feingold resolution disapproving the 
President's decision to renew most-favored-nation status for China.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 1, 1997]

                    The Skyscraper and the Bookstore

                            (By Fred Hiatt)

       After keeping him in prison for 14 years, Chinese leaders 
     decided one day in 1993 to give their leading dissident, Wei 
     Jingsheng, a tour of Beijing. For Wei, the tour produced a 
     shock--and perhaps something of a reproof as well. Wei had 
     been writing from his solitary cell that economic 
     modernization could not take place without democracy; yet the 
     sleepy capital he remembered from 1979, with only bicycles 
     clogging its wide boulevards, had become a modern city with 
     traffic jams, skyscrapers and fancy new hotels.
       ``The changes are enormous,'' Wei admitted. ``They made an 
     old Beijinger like myself feel like a tourist--a stranger in 
     his own hometown.''
       But then Wei insisted that his keepers take him to a 
     bookstore. There he found offerings no broader than they had 
     been before the Cultural Revolution. The economy had

[[Page S5264]]

     expanded, but freedom of thought and expression had not. 
     ``But this is precisely your goal,'' Wei wrote to China's 
     president. ``Widespread cultural ignorance is the foundation 
     for dictatorship.''
       The contrast Wei noted during his brief field trip from 
     jail underlies Washington's current debate over extending 
     most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status to China and, more 
     broadly, U.S.-China relations. Which is the more significant 
     portent for China's future, the skyscraper or the bookshop?
       Those who favor MFN extension point to the skyscraper, 
     arguing that economic modernization inevitably will lead to 
     political liberalization--that if you get enough skyscrapers, 
     eventually you'll get books and newspapers, too. This has 
     been the pattern in South Korea and Taiwan, after all, where 
     a rising middle class eventually insisted on democratic 
     rights. Even in China, where authoritarian rulers maintain 
     tight political control, market reforms have brought new 
     freedoms--to choose one's place of work and residence, to 
     live private and personal lives.
       Yet a South Korea-style progression is not inevitable. Nazi 
     Germany proved that a totalitarian political regime can 
     comfortably co-exist with capitalism--with private 
     shopkeepers, big corporations, a developed middle class.
       Ah, but the advent of the information age has changed all 
     that, the argument continues. Knowledge is the essential 
     commodity of tomorrow's economies, and no nation that limits 
     its flow can prosper.
       It's a seductive argument, and it may be true in the very 
     long run. The demise of the Soviet Union, where even a 
     copying machine was considered subversive, gave currency to 
     the view. But totalitarian regimes can use information 
     technologies as well as be undermined by them as George 
     Orwell realized some time ago. China's regime so far has 
     proved far more adept than the Soviet Union at attracting 
     commercial knowledge and technology from outside while 
     controlling the political debate inside--intimidating print 
     media in Hong Kong, monitoring Internet access in China, 
     whipping up nationalistic fervor to promote its own survival.
       So China might become more democratic; it also might become 
     more fascist, a danger to its neighbors and to U.S. 
     interests, too. Given that uncertainty, the debate shifts: 
     Can other nations do anything to steer China toward the first 
     outcome? Supporters of MFN extension argue that trade 
     sanctions won't work; China ``has steadfastly resisted 
     efforts to link its commercial interests to its behavior in 
     other areas,'' Laura D'Andrea Tyson, President Clinton's 
     first term economic adviser, wrote in the Wall Street Journal 
     last week.
       This isn't quite right either. In the few years after the 
     Tiananmen Square massacre, when China's leaders believed 
     Congress would impose serious sanctions, they released 
     political prisoners and allowed a leading dissident to go 
     into exile. Once President Clinton ``delinked'' trade and 
     human rights, the concessions stopped.
       Yet trade sanctions are surely an imperfect tool. Are there 
     others? Tyson argues that ``with the limited means at our 
     disposal, we can try to shape the kind of great power China 
     will become and the path it will travel to get there.'' She 
     doesn't say what those means might be, but in 1994 the 
     Clinton administration produced a long list of possibilities. 
     The United States would no longer use MFN as a lever, Clinton 
     said then, but it would prod China in many other ways: 
     supporting ``civic society,'' pushing human rights issues in 
     international forums, working with U.S. businesses to develop 
     voluntary principles for operating in China and more.
       Unfortunately, most of these resolutions fell by the 
     wayside, some right away, some after a few years. Clinton's 
     promise to use non-trade methods to ``try to shape'' China, 
     in Tyson's words, proved to be more spin than policy, so the 
     concept was never really put to the test. As a result, 
     political freedoms in China are, if anything, more 
     restricted, and many in Congress see MFN as the only way to 
     send a message.
       Wei is back in prison and unavailable for comment on this 
     turn of events. In his prison letters, though (recently 
     published in this country), Wei maintained that a peaceful 
     evolution toward democracy would be almost impossible for 
     China unless other nations pushed in that direction, 
     supporting those Chinese who share their values.
       ``One way to minimize losses and setbacks for all sides is 
     for countries with related interests to exert pressure and 
     help bring about internal progress and reform,'' Wei wrote in 
     1991. Six years later, Wei undoubtedly is still waiting.
       The writer is a member of the editorial page staff.

                          ____________________