[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2647-S2651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. 
        Cochran):
  S. 482. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
partially exclude from the gross estate of a decedent the value of a 
family-owned business, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


       the family business and family farm protection act of 1997

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am proud to be introducing the 
Family Business and Family Farm Preservation Act of 1997, which will 
provide urgently needed estate tax relief to our Nation's family-owned 
businesses and farms. It is no accident that this is my first bill as a 
Member of the U.S. Senate, for I fervently believe that small, family 
enterprises hold the key to our economic growth and prosperity and that 
Government policies must promote and not undermine their continued 
existence.
  Simply put, the extremely high estate tax rates make it very 
difficult for many families to pass their businesses on to the next 
generation--the very opposite of what Government policy should be. 
After allowing for what is essentially a $600,000 exemption, an amount 
which has not been increased in a decade, the marginal rates that 
effectively apply for estate tax purposes range from 37 to 55 percent, 
higher than any other generally applicable Federal tax rates. Adding 
insult to injury, some of what we leave to our children has already 
been subject to income taxation, and the combined effect of income and 
estate taxes can be a tax bite as high as 73 percent.
  It should come as no surprise that when a family business or farm is 
left to the sons and daughters of the owner, the estate often lacks the 
cash to pay the tax. A 1995 Gallup survey found that one-third of the 
owners of family businesses expect that some or all of the company will 
have to be sold to satisfy estate tax liabilities. That this actually 
comes about is reflected in the experience of the inheritors of such 
businesses, 37 percent of whom reported that they had to shrink or 
restructure the enterprises solely to meet estate tax obligations.
  Mr. President, behind these statistics are the stories of hard-
working Americans whose life's work is dismantled by a confiscatory 
tax. One of those stories was recently told to me by Judy Vallee of 
Cumberland, ME. In 1933, her father opened a restaurant in Portland and 
worked hard over time to expand the business into a chain of 25 
restaurants along the east coast. When the father died in 1977, the 
family was left with a staggering estate tax bill of about $1 million. 
Lacking the cash to pay the tax, they had to take on partners outside 
the family, totally restructure the company, and arrange to pay the tax 
in installments. Unfortunately, even these measures were not enough, 
and they ultimately had to liquidate the business at fire-sale prices.

  Ironically, Judy Vallee now finds herself in the very same situation, 
but this time as a business owner and not a potential heir. When the 
original business was liquidated, she managed to purchase one of the 
restaurants in her own name, which she has now developed into a 
prosperous enterprise. Eager to leave the restaurant to her son and 
desperate to ensure that history does not repeat itself, she has spent 
a small fortune on life insurance to enable her son to enjoy the fruits 
of her own hard work.
  Mr. President, jobs are the primary worry of Maine people, and often 
overlooked in this debate is the negative effect of the estate tax on 
employment. Let me give you an example. A potato bag manufacturer in 
northern Maine, the area I'm originally from, has told me that he would 
be able to expand his operation and hire more people were it not for 
the money he has to spend on estate planning and life insurance. In 
another instance, the owner of a Maine trucking company made the 
painful decision to sell the business to a large, out-of-state 
corporation rather than leaving it to his children and forcing them to 
assume a large debt to pay the estate tax. Not only was he compelled to 
abandon what he and his father before him had spent their lives 
building, but making matters worse, the new corporate owner moved the 
administrative operations out of State, costing Maine 50 good jobs.
  Maine's experience is common throughout our Nation. The Gallup survey 
found that 60 percent of business owners reported that they would add 
to their work forces were it not for the estate tax. Two studies 
mentioned in a Wall Street Journal editorial last month quantified the 
job losses caused by this levy--one put it at 150,000 and the other at 
228,000. In a word, the harm is widespread.
  My bill would give relief to small businesses. It would raise the 
amount effectively excluded from the tax from $600,000 to $1,000,000, 
which probably does little more than compensate for inflation during 
the past decade. While $600,000 understandably seems like a 
considerable sum, the fact is that many small businesses require 
investment in complex or heavy equipment which easily exceeds that 
threshold. Referring to a machine essential to his business, the owner 
of a Maine sawmill recently asked me, ``What are my sons supposed to 
do? Sell the debarker to pay the tax?'' There is no justification for 
this legal Catch 22, under which the second- or third-generation 
business owner can only pay the tax by selling assets essential to 
running the business.

  My legislation would also lower the effective tax rate for the next 
$1.5 million from 55 to 27.5 percent and would increase from 10 to 20 
years the time during which family businesses could pay the tax on an 
installment basis.
  These measures are not designed to provide relief to large 
enterprises. Rather, the beneficiaries, Mr. President, will be 
enterprising Americans, many of whom risk their life savings and work 
at their factories, mills, offices, and farms 7 days a week to build a 
small business, with the reasonable expectation that their Government 
will let them pass it along to their children.
  Prior to becoming a Member of the Senate, I ran Husson College's 
Family Business Center in Bangor, ME. I would share with you two 
lessons I learned from that experience. First, those family business 
owners who understand the estate tax cannot comprehend why the Federal 
Government imposes a tax that undermines the very type of activity it 
says it wishes to encourage. Second, many small business owners do not 
take the extreme measures required to prepare for the estate tax, often 
with devastating and totally unexpected consequences for their 
families.
  Why do I call these measures extreme? In the Gallup survey, the 
respondents estimated spending an average of more than $33,000 over 
6\1/2\ years on lawyers, accountants, and financial experts to help 
plan and prepare for the estate tax. The cost is not only monetary, for 
the average number of hours spent in the planning process was 167.
  As currently designed, the estate tax represents bad public policy. 
In my State, it is the 30,000 small businesses, many of them family 
owned, which provide most of the new employment opportunities, and it 
is these businesses which will account for two-

[[Page S2648]]

thirds of the new jobs in the future. By discouraging the development 
and expansion of family enterprises, the estate tax stands as the enemy 
of job creation and economic growth.
  Mr. President, it is time for our actions to match our rhetoric. If 
we believe in promoting family businesses, as we say we do, and if we 
believe in promoting family farms, as we say we do, we must change a 
tax policy which takes the family out of the family business and family 
farm. Mine is not a call for Government assistance or for special 
treatment. Mine is a call to reform an unfair, destructive, and 
confiscatory tax.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 483. A bill to fully fund the construction of the Woodrow Wilson 
Memorial Bridge; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


          THE WOODROW WILSON MEMORIAL BRIDGE FULL FUNDING ACT

 Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that responds 
to an urgent situation facing the Capital region--the crumbling Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my 
distinguished colleague from the other side of the Potomac, Senator 
Mikulski. The bridge is already a major bottleneck for travelers on 
Interstate 95, and in 7 years the current bridge will probably need to 
be closed as unsafe for travel.
  It is with this knowledge that Congress created the Woodrow Wilson 
Memorial Bridge Authority in 1995 to hasten the selection, design, and 
replacement of the old bridge. The replacement bridge has now been 
selected, and construction will begin in late 1998 or 1999.
  Last Thursday, the Washington Post joined the chorus calling for 
action to fund the bridge, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
the Post editorial, ``Fixing a Dangerous Bridge,'' be included in the 
Record. The Post points out that the Clinton administration's $400 
million funding proposal is wholly inadequate, that it wouldn't buy 
three lanes at yesteryear prices. I wholeheartedly agree.
  So today my distinguished colleague, Senator Mikulski and I are 
introducing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Full Funding Act to ensure the 
bridge is completed quickly and funded without tolls. Our legislation 
authorizes full Federal funding for building the new bridge.
  This proposal is forward-looking. Today, area roads are already 
terribly congested. Only Los Angeles has more traffic. And over the 
next few decades, traffic congestion is expected to increase by 70 
percent. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is a bottleneck today because it is 
old and narrow. Ten years from now we'll still have a bottleneck if, 
because of inadequate Federal funding, we're forced to put toll booths 
on the bridge. We need full funding now to keep tomorrow's traffic 
moving.
  Full funding for the bridge is also important for the environment--
this metropolitan area has been classified by the EPA as a 
nonattainment area because of its poor air quality. Traffic congestion 
contributes significantly to this pollution. For that reason, I've 
supported mass transit initiatives like commuter rail service and the 
Metro system, higher fuel economy standards, alternative-fuel vehicles, 
and transportation alternatives such as telecommuting. These 
initiatives, while important, are only part of the solution. We also 
need to keep traffic moving to reduce the amount of time vehicles stand 
idling and adding to the smog problem in this region. Full funding for 
the Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement will not solve the congestion 
problems in northern Virginia, but it will help.
  Finally, my proposal is also reasonable. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is 
part of the interstate highway system. Comparable interstate projects, 
including the nearby Baltimore's Fort McHenry Tunnel have received 90 
percent Federal funding, despite the fact the projects are owned by the 
individual States. The bridge, on the other hand, is wholly owned by 
the Federal Government. Moreover, as a recent opinion piece in Car & 
Travel put it, the bridge is ``a major gateway to our Nation's 
Capital.'' It's time for the Federal Government to pay its share.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 483

       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 ``Woodrow Wilson Memorial 
     Bridge Full Funding Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) traffic congestion imposes serious economic burdens on 
     the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area, costing each 
     commuter an estimated $1,000 per year;
       (2) the volume of traffic in the metropolitan Washington, 
     D.C., area is expected to increase by more than 70 percent 
     between 1990 and 2020;
       (3) the deterioration of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge 
     and the growing population of the metropolitan Washington, 
     D.C., area contribute significantly to traffic congestion;
       (4) the Bridge serves as a vital link in the Interstate 
     System and in the Northeast corridor;
       (5) identifying alternative methods for maintaining this 
     vital link of the Interstate System is critical to addressing 
     the traffic congestion of the area;
       (6) the Bridge is--
       (A) the only drawbridge in the metropolitan Washington, 
     D.C., area on the Interstate System;
       (B) the only segment of the Capital Beltway with only 6 
     lanes; and
       (C) the only segment of the Capital Beltway with a 
     remaining expected life of less than 10 years;
       (7) the Bridge is the only part of the Interstate System 
     owned by the Federal Government;
       (8)(A) the Bridge was constructed by the Federal 
     Government;
       (B) prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Government has contributed 100 percent of the cost of 
     building and rehabilitating the Bridge; and
       (C) the Federal Government has a continuing responsibility 
     to fund future costs associated with the upgrading of the 
     Interstate Route 95 crossing, including the rehabilitation 
     and reconstruction of the Bridge; and
       (9) the Federal Government should provide full funding for 
     construction of the replacement Bridge.

     SEC. 3. FULL FUNDING OF BRIDGE.

       (a) Interchanges.--Section 404(5)(F) of the Woodrow Wilson 
     Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-59; 109 
     Stat. 629) is amended by inserting ``interchange,'' after 
     ``roadway,''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 104(i) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``From'' and all that 
     follows through ``final engineering'' and inserting ``The 
     Secretary shall obligate sums made available under paragraph 
     (3) for final engineering and construction''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1998 
     through 2004 such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 484. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a pediatric research initiative; to the Committee 
on Labor and Human Resources.


             THE PEDIATRICS RESEARCH INITIATIVE ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DeWINE.  Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
increase our Nation's investment in pediatric research.


                              THE PROBLEM

  Children under the age of 21 represent 30 percent of the population--
and yet, the NIH devotes only somewhere between 5 and 14 percent of its 
budget to their needs.
  Just as there has been a recognition in recent years that women and 
minorities have been neglected in research efforts nationwide, there's 
a growing consensus that children deserve more attention than they are 
getting.


                              THE SOLUTION

  The bill I am introducing today would help us begin to remedy this 
lack of research into children's health. This legislation would create 
a Pediatric Research Initiative within the Office of the Director of 
NIH to encourage, coordinate, support, develop, and recognize pediatric 
research. The bill would authorize $75 million over the next 3 years 
for this initiative. Last year, we received a $5 million downpayment in 
the appropriations process, and we look forward to working with the 
appropriators to continue on the path toward the necessary level of 
funding.

[[Page S2649]]

  This is a crucial investment in our country's future--and one that 
will produce a great return. If we focus on making our children 
healthy, we'll set the stage for a healthy citizenry 60 to 70 years 
into the future.
  This initiative will also promote greater coordination in children's 
health research. Today, there are some 20 Institutes and Centers and 
Offices within NIH that do something in the way of pediatrics. In my 
view, we need to bring some level of coordination and focus on these 
efforts.
  In developing this initiative, I have made sure that it gives the 
Director of NIH as much discretion as possible. The money has to be 
spent on outside research, so that the dollars flow out to the private 
sector--but it can go toward basic research or clinical research, at 
the discretion of the Director.
  This bill does not create a new Office, Center, or Institute. It 
proposes spending for research, not infrastructure.
  This initiative has the support of the pediatric research community 
in children's hospitals and university pediatric departments all over 
the country. It has been endorsed by the National Association of 
Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairmen, the 
American Pediatric Society, Children's Hospitals and University Medical 
Centers, the Juvenile Diabetes Association, Advocates for Children With 
Special Conditions, Pediatric Academy Societies, Association of Ohio 
Children's Hospitals, Children's Hospital Affiliates of the Missouri 
Hospital Association, Children's Hospital Association of Texas, 
Federation of Children's With Special Health Care Needs, and Family 
Voices.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senator 
DeWine's effort to establish a pediatric research initiative within the 
Office of the Director at the National Institutes of Health [NIH].
  To achieve real progress in improving the health of our Nation's most 
vulnerable and valuable resource--our children--we must strengthen 
public investments in pediatric research; enhance Federal coordination 
among the NIH Institutes to ensure quality multi-disciplinary research 
in areas of scientific progress; develop new incentives for investment 
in pediatric clinical trials; support new ways to treat children with 
special conditions; and develop information to promote safer and more 
effective use of prescription drugs for children.
  The opportunity for scientific progress in combating and preventing 
illnesses and diseases affecting children has never been greater. To 
assist the NIH in strengthening its pediatric research efforts, I, 
along with other members of the Labor, HHS, and Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee, successfully secured $5 million for the 
NIH Office of the Director to begin this new pediatric research 
initiative last year.
  Senator DeWine's legislation builds upon that down payment, and I 
look forward to working with other Members of the Senate in ensuring 
passage of this effort.
  Although health care spending for children is only a fraction of 
total health care spending, we must not turn our backs on the health 
care needs of our children. Pediatric research offers potential savings 
in health care costs as well as substantial benefits to the well-being 
of children for a lifetime. Moreover, pediatric research contributes to 
new insights and discoveries in preventing and treating illnesses and 
diseases among our country's adult population.
  Let me close by saying that this bill complements legislation I 
introduced last week which will provide surveillance, research, and 
services aimed at the prevention of birth defects, the No. 1 killer of 
babies. We currently know the causes of about 30 percent of all birth 
defects. With the enactment of a pediatric research initiative and the 
Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1997, we will shed new light on the 
causes of birth defects as well as numerous other diseases, illnesses, 
and other health factors afflicting our Nation's children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Bond):
  S. 485. A bill to amend the Competitive, Special, and Facilities 
Research Grant Act to provide increased emphasis on competitive grants 
to promote agricultural research projects regarding precision 
agriculture and to provide for the dissemination of the results of the 
research projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


    THE PRECISION AGRICULTURE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND INFORMATION 
                       DISSEMINATION ACT OF 1997

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today several colleagues and I 
are introducing the Precision Agriculture Research, Education, and 
Information Dissemination Act of 1997.
  Earlier this month the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry began a series of hearings on reforming and reauthorizing 
agricultural research programs. It is our desire that as we move 
through this process this legislation will become part of the research 
reauthorization that is signed into law.
  This legislation emphasizes research on precision agriculture 
technologies. These technologies are very exciting and will enable the 
United States to maintain and augment our competitive edge in global 
agricultural markets. The legislation amends the Competitive, Special 
and Facilities Research Grant Act of 1965 by modifying the National 
Research Initiative [NRI] to give the Secretary of Agriculture 
authority to provide research, extension, and education competitive 
grants and programs that emphasize precision agriculture technologies 
and management practices.
  This legislation represents a compromise between various interests. 
The bill is supported by The Fertilizer Institute, National Center for 
Resources Innovations, Experiment Station and Extension Service 
Directors, Lockheed Martin, and a consortium of other high technology 
companies.
  An identical bill H.R. 725 was introduced by Congressman Lewis and 
Congressman Crapo on February 12, 1997.
  Precision agriculture technologies are rapidly advancing, and it is 
crucial that the agricultural research community invest in this field 
of research so that all farmers will be able to benefit. This bill will 
not only increase the investment in precision agriculture, but it will 
also emphasize an educational process that will assist all farmers in 
adopting precision agriculture technologies and applications.
  Emerging technologies in production agriculture are changing and 
improving the way farmers produce food and fiber in this country. New 
technologies such as global positioning satellites field mapping, geo-
reference information systems, grid soil sampling, variable rate 
seeding and input applications, portable electronic pest scouting, on-
the-go yield monitoring, and computerized field history and record 
keeping are just a few of the next generation technological tools in 
use today.
  Today, these technologies can map these variables and data 
instantaneously as an applicator or combine drives across the field. In 
short, each farm field using precision technology becomes a research 
pilot. And in the down months or winter season a farmer can collect the 
data from the previous growing season and adjust dozens of important 
agronomic variables to maximize the efficient use of all the farmers 
inputs: time, fuel, commercial inputs, seed rate, irrigation--the list 
goes on and on.

  These precision farming tools are already proving to help farmers 
increase field productivity, improve input efficiency, protect the 
environment, maximize farm profitability, and create computerized field 
histories that may help increase land values. Collectively, these and 
other emerging technologies are being used in an integrated, site-
specific systems approach called ``Precision Agriculture.'' Progressive 
and production minded farmers are already using these technologies. In 
a decade they may be as commonplace on the farm as air-conditioned 
tractor cabs and power steering.
  Precision farming seems to offer great promise for improving 
production performance. Inherently, it sounds very appealing to be able 
to evaluate production conditions on an individual square foot, yard, 
or acre basis rather than that of a whole field. It would seem that we 
should be able to treat

[[Page S2650]]

any situation more appropriately the smaller the plot we are 
considering. There have been great strides in predicting productivity 
on the basis of smaller and smaller units on the ground than we have 
ever realistically envisioned in the past, measuring yields as we 
harvest, being able to collect soil samples on a very small pilot basis 
and prescribe corrective measures on the go. All of these things are 
possible. They are being done on an experimental basis in many 
locations. Some producers have adopted the new technology and are using 
it.
  Precision farming is, in its simplest form, a management system for 
crop production that uses site-specific data to maximize yields and 
more efficiently use inputs. The technology is quickly gaining 
acceptance and use by producers, farm suppliers, crop consultants, and 
custom applicators.
  Precision farming links the data-management abilities of computers 
with sophisticated farm equipment that can vary applications rates and 
monitor yields throughout a field.
  Mr. President, the capabilities of precision agriculture technologies 
are rapidly increasing. The economic and environmental benefits of 
these technologies have not been fully realized. Increasing the use of 
these technologies and development of complementary new technologies 
will benefit American agriculture, the U.S. economy and both domestic 
and global environmental concerns. In Kentucky this type of research 
can help producers increase their yield while protecting environmental 
concerns such as water quality. I believe these new high-technology 
tools can make agriculture better by boosting production, environmental 
quality and profits. 
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 486. A bill to amend the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988 to clarify the limitation for accession to the GATT and the WTO of 
foreign countries that have state trading enterprises; to the Committee 
on Finance.


               THE FAIRNESS IN STATE TRADING ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness 
in State Trading Act of 1997. This bill, which is cosponsored by 
Senators Grassley, Hagel, and Johnson, is a bipartisan approach to 
addressing the problem faced by U.S. exporters in countries in which 
state trading enterprises [STE's] dominate the economy.

  The Fairness in State Trading Act would subject the import activities 
of STE's to the jurisdiction of section 1106 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade 
and Competitiveness Act of 1988, (19 U.S.C. 2905). If this bill passes, 
the President would have to determine whether the import activities of 
the state trading enterprises of an applicant to the WTO impede, or are 
likely to impede, U.S. exports to that country. If the President makes 
such a determination, the WTO Agreement cannot apply between the United 
States and that nation until the latter agrees that its STE's will make 
decisions based exclusively on commercial considerations.
  The Brownback bill is designed to ensure that the WTO accession 
protocol agreements of such countries as China, Russia, and the Ukraine 
include a provision in which these countries specifically agree that 
their STE's will make purchasing decisions based solely on commercial 
considerations. This provision is important because these WTO 
applicants have indicated that they intend to continue to purchase 
commodities such as wheat, corn, rice, vegetable oils, and sugar 
exclusively or almost exclusively through STE's.
  Without a strong commitment from these countries to depoliticize 
their import practices, the United States would only have recourse to 
GATT article XVII for questionable activities undertaken by China's 
STE's. In 1995, the GAO determined that article XVII is an ineffective 
mechanism for policing the activities of STE's, and that the state 
trading activities of China, Russia, and the Ukraine present problems 
that article XVII is not capable of addressing.
  Weak enforcement of STE activities would enable the STE's of new WTO 
members to continue to employ a politicized procurement process. Why 
should the United States be more concerned about the state trading 
activities of new members of the WTO rather than the activities of 
current members? Because the state trading activities of current WTO 
members pale in comparison to the state trading activities of nations 
such as China, Russia, and the Ukraine.
  Import decisions must be made on purely commercial considerations. 
GATT article XVII is not capable of effectively policing the state 
trading activities of countries accustomed to a command-and-control 
economic model. Before we apply the WTO Agreement between the United 
States and these countries, we must ensure that they agree to 
depoliticize their import practices.
  Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and States across the Nation 
grow the best crops in the world. Exports of these and other U.S. 
commodities have skyrocketed as tariff and nontariff barriers to these 
goods have been reduced worldwide. We cannot allow state trading 
activities to supplant tariff and other nontariff measures as the new 
barriers to U.S. exports. Let's make sure that U.S. goods can compete 
on a level playing field in the markets of new members of the WTO 
before we lock in reductions in our barriers to goods from these 
countries. Please print statement and bill in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 486

       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 ``Fairness in State Trading 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) State trading enterprises play a significant role in 
     the economies of several countries that have applied to the 
     World Trade Organization (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``WTO'').
       (2) The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (referred to 
     in this Act as the ``GATT''), and especially GATT Article 
     XVII, does not adequately prevent countries from using state 
     trading enterprises as a disguised barrier to imports from 
     the United States.
       (3) The United States economy will be adversely affected by 
     the accession to the WTO of foreign countries that have state 
     trading enterprises that make production or procurement 
     decisions based upon noncommercial considerations.
       (4) State trading enterprises have a particularly negative 
     impact on United States farmers.

     SEC. 3. ACCESSION OF COUNTRIES WITH STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
                   TO GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE OR 
                   WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

       Section 1106 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 
     of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2905) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``major foreign country'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``foreign country'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) whether state trading enterprises produce or procure 
     a significant share of--
       ``(A) the goods exported from such foreign country;
       ``(B) the goods imported into such foreign country; or
       ``(C) the goods produced domestically in such foreign 
     country; and''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(2)(A)--
       (A) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(i) will make purchases and sales in international trade 
     based solely on commercial considerations (including price, 
     quality, availability, marketability, and transportation), 
     and''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``, in accordance with 
     customary practice,''.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Kansas, 
Senator Brownback. This bill is an important step toward opening 
foreign markets to American products--especially our agricultural 
products.
  Several countries have State Trading Enterprises that control all 
imports of certain products. These trading enterprises create a 
bottleneck in trade--a bottleneck controlled by the Government, not by 
free enterprise. The result is that foreign politics end up controlling 
trade decisions, and American exporters get hurt.
  This bill would require the United States to oppose membership in the 
World Trade Organization for any country that has a State Trading 
Enterprise that refuses to buy our products for reasons other than 
market conditions. Its purpose is simple: It

[[Page S2651]]

gives America leverage against countries that shut out our exporters 
for political reasons.
  This is important for all of America's exporters, who benefit from 
having a level playing field. It is especially important for American 
farmers. This bill will give our negotiators an important new tool to 
use as they oppose the unjustified actions of State trading enterprises 
around the world. It will help us get American dairy products into New 
Zealand and American wheat into Canada.
  But its most important effect will be in regard to China. China is an 
enormous and growing market. As China emerges economically, we must do 
all we can to bring China into the world trading system as a full 
partner. If we want our exporters to do business in China's emerging 
market, we need to ensure that China plays by all the rules of trade 
that govern the rest of the world.
  The discussions about China's accession to the World Trade 
Organization are ongoing. I strongly believe China must accept all 
obligations that WTO membership entails. That includes letting the 
market, not the politicians, control its trading decisions. China must 
dismantle its remaining State Trading Enterprises--especially the 
enterprise that controls the import of wheat into the country.
  American farmers--especially our wheat producers--need full and free 
access to China's market. This bill gives our trade negotiators a small 
but important tool to help ensure that will happen.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Inouye and 
        Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 487. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
employment opportunities in the Department of Health and Human Services 
for women who are scientists, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Labor and Human Resources.


           THE HHS WOMEN SCIENTIST EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ACT

 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I introduce the HHS Women 
Scientist Employment Opportunity Act. What this bill does is quite 
simple. It will require all agencies within the Department of Health 
and Human Services to establish policies to ensure employment 
opportunities for women scientists within the Department. It will 
ensure a fair break for the many dedicated women scientists serving at 
the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control and 
Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and other agencies or 
offices in the Department. Policies are to be reviewed regularly and 
revised if necessary.
  This bill is about the promoting equality. It is about supporting and 
advancing the careers of women scientists. It is about our Government 
leading the way in setting an example for both academia and industry on 
career policies for women scientists.
  In 1992, it came to my attention that women scientists at the 
National Institutes of Health were not being treated fairly. Women 
scientists at NIH indicated that they were not being given research and 
conference assignments that would help advance their careers. They were 
not being adequately recognized for their accomplishments. Publication 
opportunities were limited. Questions were raised about tenure and 
comparability of pay with male colleagues.
  Legislation was introduced in the 103d and 104th Congresses to 
address these concerns. I am encouraged that NIH voluntarily adopted 
some of the provisions outlined in these bills. But, this is only a 
start. We must continue to address the equity issues and policies 
impacting career advancement of our best and brightest women 
scientists. These issues deserve our utmost attention. That is why this 
bill is so important. It will ensure that the policies are in place to 
promote career opportunities for women scientists. And, it will ensure 
that policies are reviewed regularly, that progress is monitored and 
that policies are revised if necessary.
  What I like about this bill is that it addresses a problem in our own 
backyard. It says we in the Federal Government have a problem, and we 
are going to fix it. It ensures that our women scientists working at 
HHS are treated fairly. It serves as a model for the private sector by 
setting the stage for equity among our career scientists. It shows that 
we are very serious about equity and fair play in the scientific 
community. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the HHS 
Women Scientist Employment Opportunity Act. 
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 488. A bill to control crime, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________