Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)

[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.

____________________