[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1233-S1240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, 
        Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 2184. A bill to amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, 
to divide the ninth judicial circuit of the United States into two 
circuits, and for other purposes; read the first time.


     the ninth circuit court of appeals reorganization act of 2000

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, soon we are going to be debating 
judicial nominations in this body. I want to take this opportunity to 
address what I consider a grave problem affecting the administration of 
justice in our Nation.
  I am referring to the unwieldy Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some 
will prefer the status quo, and I hope after my presentation this 
morning they will share in the recognition that the Ninth Circuit 
demands reform. The Ninth Circuit has grown so large and has drifted so 
far from prudent legal reasoning, that sweeping change is in order.
  Congress has already recognized that change is needed. In 1997, we 
commissioned a report on structural alternatives for the Federal courts 
of appeals. The Commission, chaired by former Supreme Court Justice 
Byron White, found numerous faults within the Ninth Circuit. In its 
conclusion, the Commission recommended major reforms and a drastic 
reorganization of the Circuit.
  For this reason, I, along with my distinguished colleague from 
Washington, Senator Slade Gorton, introduced S. 253, the Federal Ninth 
Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, which would in effectuate the 
recommendations of the White commission.
  The bill would reorganize the Ninth Circuit into three regional 
divisions, designed as the northern, middle, and southern divisions, 
and a nonregional circuit division. Ideally, a more cohesive judicial 
body would emerge--one that reflects the community it serves, and holds 
a greater master of applicable, but unique, state law and state issues.
  Some in this body were not too happy with the divisional realignment. 
Perhaps a more direct and simplified solution to the problems of the 
Ninth Circuit is in order. For this reason, I, along with my colleague, 
Senator Hatch of Utah, introduced a new bill this morning, the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2000. We are joined by 
Senator Craig, Senator Crapo, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Smith of 
Oregon.
  This bill will divide the Ninth Circuit into two independent 
circuits. The new Ninth Circuit would contain Arizona, California, and 
Nevada. A new Twelfth Circuit would be composed of Alaska, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana 
Islands. Immediately upon enactment, the concerns of the White 
Commission will be addressed, and a more cohesive, efficient, and 
predictable judiciary will emerge.
  In this debate, let us not forget why change is in order. The Ninth 
Circuit extends from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border. It spans 
the tropics of Hawaii and across the International Dateline to Guam and 
the Mariana Islands. Encompassing some 14 million square miles, the 
Ninth Circuit, by any means of measure, is the largest of all our U.S. 
courts of appeal. It is larger than the First, Second, Third, Fourth, 
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits combined.
  Let me refer to chart one because I think it makes the point that the 
Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 50 million, almost 60 
percent more than are served by the next largest circuit court. By the 
year 2010, the Census Bureau estimates the Ninth Circuit population 
will be more than 63 million. Mind you, it is now 50 million--63 
million. That is an increase of 26 percent in just 10 years.

[[Page S1234]]

  I wonder how many people this court has to serve before Congress will 
realize the court is simply overwhelmed by its population. That is a 
fact.
  I must confess our efforts in this case are not novel. Calls to split 
the Ninth Circuit Court have been heard since 1891. More to the point, 
Congress has attempted to reorganize the Ninth Circuit since World War 
II!
  Congressional Members are not alone in advocating a split. In 1973, 
the Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court of 
Appellate System recommended that Congress split the Ninth Circuit. 
That was 1973. Unfortunately, Congress never effectuated the 
recommendations. Over the years, many legislative efforts have been 
made to correct the Ninth Circuit problems. Still, no solution. Now, in 
a new millennium, the problems of the Ninth Circuit still exist and 
have even grown worse.

  Mr. President, justice bears the price for Congress' inaction. The 
time for action is long overdue.
  Because of the circuit's massive size, there is a natural decrease in 
the ability of the judges to keep abreast of legal developments within 
the Ninth Circuit. I encourage my colleagues to contact some of those 
judges--they will be the first to admit they cannot follow the number 
of cases pending before the court. It simply is too great a load. 
Inconsistent decisions and improper constitutional interpretations are 
not unusual.
  Let's look at the next chart. In the 1996-1997 session alone, an 
astounding 95 percent of the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court were 
overturned. This number should raise more than a few eyebrows. That is 
from 1996 and 1997. Again, 95 percent of cases reviewed by the Supreme 
Court were overturned.
  Looking at chart 2, over the past 3 years, 33 percent of all cases 
reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court arose from this troubled Ninth 
Circuit. That is three times the number of reversals for the next 
nearest circuit court, and 33 times higher than the reversal rate for 
the Tenth Circuit.
  There you have it. Compare the courts, caseloads, and the question of 
promptness in justice.
  What are these reversal cases? These are people who had their cases 
wrongly decided. They are people who had to incur great expense, wait 
unnecessary lengths of time, and risk adverse legal rulings in order to 
receive justice. No American should have to receive substandard legal 
attention based, solely on what State they live in.
  But we cannot fault the judges of the Ninth Circuit alone. We, in 
Congress, have allowed this circuit to grow to staggering proportions. 
In 1998, there were over 9,450 cases filed. It is this number that 
makes adjudication of claims unacceptably slow. Consequently justice 
suffers.
  Mr. President, we should listen to the voices of the judges who 
attempt to serve this region. Ninth Circuit Judge Diramuid O'Scannlain 
described the problem as follows:

       An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it 
     must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a 
     coherent body of law. . . . As the number of opinions 
     increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of 
     precedent and the ability to know what our circuit's law is.

  ``The ability to know what our circuit's law is''--that is part of 
the problem. These judges acknowledge they don't know, and they cannot 
possibly know, because the caseload is too great.
  He said:

       In short, bigger is not necessarily better.

  He further stated:

       We [the Ninth Circuit] cannot grow without limit. . . . As 
     the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the 
     ability to know what our circuit's law is.

  That is the key. It has grown so fast, they don't know what the 
circuit law is.

       In short, bigger is not necessarily better. The Ninth 
     Circuit will ultimately need to be split. . . .

  Judge O'Scannlain is not alone. The very Supreme Court Justices we 
entrust to guide our Nation's jurisprudence have acknowledged and 
recommended reform for this troubled court.
  Justice Kennedy continued that:

       We have very dedicated judges on that circuit, very 
     scholarly judges . . . but I think institutionally, and from 
     the collegial standpoint, that it is too large to have the 
     discipline and control that is necessary for an effective 
     circuit.

  Judge Stevens notes:

       Arguments in favor of dividing the Circuit in either two or 
     three smaller circuits overwhelmingly outweigh the single 
     serious objection to such a change.

  But now, with this new bill we can fix the problem. And in turn, we 
can ensure that all Americans receive swift and fair adjudication of 
their claims. While I may believe even more sweeping changes are in 
order, I strongly urge this body address this crisis in our judiciary 
system.
  Mr. President, it is the 50 million residents of the Ninth Circuit 
who suffer from our inaction. These Americans wait years before their 
cases are heard. And after these unreasonable delays, justice may not 
even be served in an overstretched and out-of-touch judiciary.
  Mr. President, Congress has known about the problem in the Ninth 
Circuit for a long time. Justice has been delayed too long. The time 
for reform has come, and I urge action on this bill.
  I yield to my friend who has been recognized.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak this morning to discuss 
legislation that I have introduced with Senator Murkowski that would 
divide the Ninth Circuit into two manageable circuits.
  I have been told of a children's song that, with its circular and 
repetitious melody, is called ``the song without an end.'' And that 
might be an apt description of our efforts to reach some resolution 
with the nagging problem of the Ninth Circuit's boundaries.
  Indeed, I am told that calls to reexamine the boundaries of what is 
presently called the Ninth Circuit were first made more than a century 
ago. In more recent history:
  A congressional commission--the Hruska Commission--recommended a 
split of the Ninth Circuit--not just the Fifth Circuit-- in 1973;
  In 1995 I held a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to examine a 
proposal to split the circuit;
  In 1997, as part of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, 
the Senate passed a split proposal which was ultimately replaced with a 
provision creating a commission to report on structural alternatives 
for the Federal Courts of Appeals--and the Ninth Circuit in particular; 
and
  Last year, Senator Murkowski, and others, introduced legislation to 
implement the recommendation of that commission, which would have 
maintained the circuit's structural boundaries, but partitioned its 
Court of Appeals into three semi-autonomous divisions.
  Yet here we stand, like Sisyphus with the boulder at his feet, with 
nothing to show for years of effort.
  All the while, the problems perceived in the Ninth Circuit itself 
have not disintegrated with the passage of time.
  Rather, as we look at that circuit's boundaries, what is immediately 
apparent is its gargantuan size. That factor, in itself, by no means 
justifies a remedy in the form of a change in boundaries. But it does 
serve as a necessary starting point from which to explain many of the 
criticisms that have been lodged against the circuit.
  Stretching across nine States and two territories, and constituting 
some 14 million square miles, the Ninth Circuit serves the largest U.S. 
population by far--more than 51 million people. The Ninth Circuit is 
authorized by statute to maintain 28 active Court of Appeals judges. 
The next largest circuit--the Fifth--has only 17 active judges, and 
most other circuits have 12 or fewer judges.

  Though the size of the circuit is not in itself a reason to modify 
its boundaries, the problems resulting from the circuit's size are.
  Most notably, the massive size of the circuit's boundaries has 
confronted the circuit's judges with a real difficulty in maintaining 
the coherence of its circuit law. This is because there are enormous 
obstacles both, one, to keeping abreast of the circuit's decisions, 
and, two, to correcting those decisions that stray from the law of the 
circuit.
  With regard to the first concern, various conscientious judges on the 
Ninth Circuit have stated they are unable to read the number of 
published decisions being issued by their colleagues, given the sheer 
volume of such opinions. They have stated that frequently,

[[Page S1235]]

there is no time to do anything more than review the head notes of such 
decisions.
  This is a serious problem from which other problems ensue. Absent the 
ability of each active judge on the Ninth Circuit to read each such 
published decision, there can be no assurance that calls will be made 
for en banc review of those cases which judges believe merit rehearing 
by a larger component of the court.
  With regard to the second concern--the ability to correct decisions 
that stray from the circuit law--the large size of the Ninth Circuit 
presents a tremendous impediment. At present, a special exception has 
been made by Congress to better enable the Ninth Circuit to review 3-
judge decisions en banc, and that process--known as limited en banc--
involves the empaneling of only 11 judges, rather than the circuit's 
full complement of 28 judges.
  In my view, this system is being utilized with insufficient 
frequency. And the result is that the stated aim of Federal Rule of 
Appellate Procedure 35--to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's 
decisions--is being thwarted.
  Moreover, the mechanism is imperfect, and simple math proves the 
point. It is entirely conceivable that a limited en banc decision could 
be handed down by an 11-to-0 vote, and yet not reflect the views of a 
majority of the circuit's judges. Nor is it any answer to say that the 
Ninth Circuit's rules allow for full en banc hearings with all 28 
judges, since no such hearing has ever taken place.
  The problems with the lack of internal decisional consistency within 
the Ninth Circuit have become all too obvious. Three terms ago, the 
Ninth Circuit's reversal rate before the U.S. Supreme Court exceeded 95 
percent. It is no cause for celebration to note that during the last 
two terms, the Ninth Circuit reversal rate averaged 77 percent, and 
this term I have noted that the Ninth Circuit is not faring 
particularly well, with a record of 0 to 7 before the Supreme Court. 
What is really wrong is there are literally thousands of cases they 
hear that they are probably making the wrong decisions on that will 
never go to the Supreme Court because the Court doesn't have time to 
listen to thousands of cases from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
So we are having all kinds of injustice out there just because of 
judges who are out of control, who are activist judges ignoring the law 
itself.

  I believe these problems will be corrected when we streamline the 
circuit, leaving two more manageable circuits in place to more 
carefully and exactingly do the work currently undertaken by one. I 
believe the system of error correction and the assurance of coherence 
of circuit law will be a more manageable task in two circuits where the 
judges of each will have one-half as many of their colleagues' opinions 
to read for compliance with and correction of their circuit law.
  To this end, Senator Murkowski and I have drafted a measure we 
believe reflects sound public policy. It would continue to denominate 
as part of the Ninth Circuit the States of California, Nevada, and 
Arizona, as well as the island territories currently within the Ninth 
Circuit. The proposal would place Hawaii and the Northwest States 
within a new Twelfth Circuit. Such a proposal results in a logical 
split. Indeed, the contours of this very proposal were set out as an 
alternative option in the final report of the Commission on Structural 
Alternatives. And it maintains geographic coherence by avoiding the 
type of gerrymandered circuit that would have resulted from the split 
proposal passed by the Senate in 1997, although I could very easily go 
for that as well.
  As a final word, I express for the record my appreciation for the 
very substantial work performed by the members and staff of the 
Commission on Structural Alternatives. Its final work product is a most 
capable report, and the Commission's work under Justice White will 
truly become part of the history of relations in this country before 
the Congress and the Judiciary.
  With that thanks, I will close my remarks on this by urging my 
colleagues to act on this sensible proposal to solve a problem that has 
persisted for far too long. There are some of our colleagues who are 
very upset at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and its record of 
reversal by the Supreme Court. I just raised the issue that there may 
be thousands of cases that need to be reversed, but the Supreme Court 
doesn't have time to do that. I think they would be much more concerned 
about voting for and passing this split of the Ninth Circuit than they 
would attacking some of the judges who are up for nominations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2194. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
assistance in planning and developing a regional heritage center in 
Calais, Maine; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     st. croix island heritage act

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the St. Croix 
Island Heritage Act, legislation that will help develop a regional 
heritage center in Calais, ME, in time to commemorate an event of great 
historical and international significance: the 400th anniversary of one 
of the earliest settlements in North America, at St. Croix Island. I am 
pleased to have my senior colleague from Maine, Ms. Snowe, as a 
cosponsor of my legislation.
  Planning for the regional heritage center is well underway. The 
residents of the St. Croix River Valley and organizations such as the 
St. Croix Economic Alliance and the Sunrise County Economic Council 
have worked hard to move the project forward. They commissioned a 
consulting firm to evaluate the market potential of the heritage center 
and to prepare preliminary exhibit and operating plans. They secured 
planning and seed money from the U.S. Forest Service, the city of 
Calais, local businesses, and others. And they have hired a full-time 
project coordinator to oversee development of the heritage center. Now 
they need assistance from the National Park Service, assistance that 
this bill would provide.
  The regional center will preserve and chronicle the region's 
cultural, natural, and historical heritage. The Interior Department's 
role in the planning and development of the heritage center stems from 
the close proximity of the proposed site to St. Croix Island, the only 
international historic site in the National Park System.
  In 2004, the United States, Canada, and France will celebrate the 
400th anniversary of the first settlement at St. Croix Island. We have 
only 4 more years to prepare for a celebration of this historic event.
  I have spoken before on the Senate floor about the historical 
significance of the settlement of St. Croix Island. It is a remarkable 
and little-known story that bears retelling. The story dates to the 
summer of 1604, when a French nobleman, accompanied by a courageous 
group of adventurers that included Samuel Champlain, landed on St. 
Croix Island and set about to construct a settlement. They cleared the 
island, planted crops, dug a well, and built houses, fortifications, 
and public buildings. In the process, they were aided by Native peoples 
who made temporary camps on the island. At the same time, Samuel 
Champlain undertook a number of reconnaissance missions from the 
island. On one, he found and named Mount Desert Island, now the home to 
Acadia National Park.
  By October of 1604, the settlement was ready. But the Maine winter 
was more than the seventy-nine settlers had bargained for. By winter's 
end, nearly half had died, and many others were seriously ill.
  The spring brought relief from the harsh weather. The colony was 
relocated to Port Royal in what is now Nova Scotia and, in 1608, 
Champlain and his fellow explorers founded Quebec.
  According to the National Park Service, the French settlement on St. 
Croix Island in 1604 and 1605 was the first and ``most ambitious 
attempt of its time to establish an enduring French presence in the 
`New World' '' and ``set a precedent for early French claims in New 
France.'' Many view the expedition that settled on St. Croix Island in 
1604 as the beginning of the Acadian culture in North America. This 
rich and diverse culture spread across the continent, from Canada to 
Louisiana, where French-speaking Acadians came to be known as 
``Cajuns.''
  Mr. President, thousands of people attended the celebration that 
marked the 300th anniversary of the settlement

[[Page S1236]]

of St. Croix Island. The consul general of France and the famous Civil 
War hero General Joshua Chamberlain were among those who spoke at the 
event.
  In four years, another century will have passed since the last 
commemoration, and we will celebrate St. Croix Island's 400th 
anniversary. There is much work to be done. In 1996, the U.S. National 
Park Service and Parks Canada agreed to ``conduct joint strategic 
planning for the international commemoration [of the St. Croix Island], 
with a special focus on the 400th anniversary of settlement in 2004.'' 
For its part, Parks Canada constructed an exhibit in New Brunswick 
overlooking St. Croix Island. The exhibit uses Champlain's first-hand 
accounts, period images, updated research, and custom artwork to tell 
the compelling story of the settlement.
  The U.S. National Park Service, on the other hand, still has a ways 
to go. In October 1998, the Park Service did complete a general 
management plan for the St. Croix Island International Historic Site.
  From a variety of alternatives, the Park Service settled on a plan 
that envisions an interpretive trail and ranger station at Red Beach, 
Maine and exhibits located in the regional heritage center up the road 
in Calais.
  The bill I introduce today directs the National Park Service to 
facilitate the development of the regional heritage center in time for 
the 400th anniversary of the St. Croix Island settlement. It empowers 
the Secretary of Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with 
State and local agencies and nonprofit organizations to assist in this 
effort and authorizes $2.5 million for this purpose.
  Mr. President, this bill authorizes and commits the National Park 
Service to follow a plan it has already endorsed to help commemorate a 
1604 settlement of enormous historical significance. I believe that the 
400th anniversary celebration and the heritage center in Calais will be 
a source of pride to all Americans of French ancestry.
  I am very pleased to see that the distinguished chairman of the 
Energy Committee is on the floor. It is to his Committee that this 
legislation, I believe will be referred. I hope that it will be 
favorably reported and enacted this year.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Collins for her 
introduction of the St. Croix heritage bill. I look forward to 
receiving that in my Energy Committee, and I will attempt to take it up 
at an early opportunity for a hearing and report it out. I want to 
commend her and her colleague from Maine, as well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2196. A bill to reliquidate certain entries of tomato sauce 
preparation; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2197. A bill to reliquidate certain entries of tomato sauce 
preparation; to the Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 2198. A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain entries 
of vanadium carbides and vanadium carbonitride; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  S. 2199. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic quartz 
or synthetic fused silica; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2200. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on N-Cycloproply-N'-
(1, 1-dimethylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1, 3,5-triazine-2, 4-diamine; to 
the Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2201. A bill to reliquidate certain entries of tomato sauce 
preparation; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2202. A bill to reliquidate certain entries of tomato sauce 
preparation; to the Committee on Finance.


                       miscellaneous tariff bills

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that 
temporarily suspend duties on certain imports of goods not produced in 
the United States and five bills to reliquidate specific entries of 
vanadium and tomato sauce preparations.
  The first bill will temporarily suspend the duty on imports of silica 
substrate. Silica substrates are produced only in Japan and imported 
for use in the domestic production of semiconductors. Currently, 
semiconductors enter the United States duty-free while imports of 
silica substrate are subject to a 4.9 per cent duty. As a result of 
this tariff inversion, there is a competitive imbalance which favors 
foreign production of semiconductors. My bill would extend the current 
suspension on duties of silica substrates until 2004.
  The second bill will temporarily suspend the duty on imports of an 
environmentally friendly chemical paint additive. The product safely 
replaces mercury-based chemicals (which were banned a number of years 
ago) used in ``anti-fouling'' boat paint, intended to prevent fouling 
of underwater structures. It is also the only EPA-registered algicide 
for use in the architectural paint market. There is no known production 
of this chemical in the United States.
  The third bill reliquidates thirty-seven entries of vanadium carbide 
and vanadium carbonitride. Vanadium is used primarily as a 
strengthening agent in steel and can only be imported from South 
Africa. The bill seeks to recover duties paid since July 1, 1998, the 
original date of a competitive need limit waiver by USTR, through 
December 23, 1999, when the waiver actually took effect.
  The final four bills seek to reliquidate entries of canned tomatoes, 
used to prepare tomato sauce, by four separate companies. The imports 
were incorrectly subjected to 100 percent ad valorem retaliatory duties 
beginning in 1989 due to a Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
misclassification; the retaliation stemmed from a GATT case against the 
European Union. Treliquidation covers entries not originally included 
in a decision by the Court of International Trade, which ruled the 
products had been incorrectly classified and were, therefore, not 
subject to the retaliatory duties.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2203. A bill to amend title 26 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1986 
to allow income averaging for fishermen without negative Alternative 
Minimum Tax treatment, for the creation of risk management accounts for 
fishermen and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


              Fair Tax Treatment for Fisherman Act of 2000

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation that will ease the financial hardships that fisherman 
endure because of the uncertainties of their industry. I am very 
pleased that Senator Stevens has joined me in co-sponsoring this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, in 1986 when Congress rewrote the tax law and cut the 
number of tax brackets from 11 to two, one of the provisions of prior 
law that was repealed was income averaging. The purpose of income 
averaging was to ameliorate the tax burden on individuals whose incomes 
varied from year to year. It ensured that an individual whose income 
increased significantly in one year and then dropped significantly in 
the next year could average the tax brackets for the two years. With 
only two brackets, many believed that income averaging was no longer 
needed.
  However, in the 14 years since the 1986 tax reform, we have added 
three additional brackets to the tax code. And with five brackets there 
is a clear need for income averaging, especially for individuals who 
are in occupations where the predictability of income is uncertain. In 
1997, we adopted income averaging for farmers because we recognized 
that weather conditions can significantly impact what a farming family 
earns in any particular year.
  In this legislation we are introducing today, we are adding fishermen 
to the category eligible for income averaging. Just as farmers cannot 
predict the weather, fisherman are unable to predict how large or small 
their catch will be.
  Let me give you an example of how the fishermen in Bristol Bay in my 
home state of Alaska have fared in recent years. Between 1995 and 1998, 
the fish run dropped from 244 million to barely 58 million last year. 
At the same time their income has dropped from $188 million to $69 
million.

[[Page S1237]]

  Quite frankly, income averaging is fair for farmers and is equally 
justified for fishermen.
  In addition, our legislation establishes risk management savings 
accounts which fishermen will be able to draw down when fishing runs 
are low. Under this proposal, fishermen could set aside up to 20 
percent of their income in special savings accounts. Interest earned in 
the account would be taxable, but withdrawals would only be taxable in 
the year of the withdrawal.
  Mr. President, a recent fishery failure in Alaska resulted in the 
federal government allocate $50 million to assist the fishermen and 
their local communities. With these special risk management accounts, 
fishermen will be less dependent on federal assistance and will be able 
to more easily survive fishing downturns.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that when we consider a tax bill later 
this year, these modest proposals will be included in that bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2203

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be referred to as the ``Fair 
     Tax Treatment for Fishermen Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. INCOME AVERAGING FOR FISHERMEN WITHOUT INCREASING 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 55(c) (defining regular tax) is 
     amended by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and 
     by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Coordination with income averaging for fishermen.--
     Solely for purposes of this section, section 1301 (relating 
     to averaging of fishing income) shall not apply in computing 
     the regular tax.''.
       (b) Allowing Income Averaging for Fishermen.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1301(a) is amended by striking 
     ``farming business'' and inserting ``farming business or 
     fishing business,''.
       (2) Definition of elected farm income.--
       (A) In general.--Clause (i) of section 1301(b)(1)(A) is 
     amended by inserting ``or fishing business'' before the 
     semicolon.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     1301(b)(1) is amended by inserting ``or fishing business'' 
     after ``farming business'' both places it occurs.
       (3) Definition of fishing business.--Section 1301(b) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Fishing business.--The term `fishing business' means 
     the conduct of commercial fishing (as defined in section 3 of 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1802, P.L. 94-265 as amended).)''.

     SEC. 3. FISHING RISK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part II of subchapter E of 
     chapter 1 (relating to taxable year for which deductions 
     taken) is amended by inserting after section 468B the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 468C. FISHING RISK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.

       ``(a) Deduction Allowed.--In the case of an individual 
     engaged in an eligible commercial fishing activity, there 
     shall be allowed as a deduction for any taxable year the 
     amount paid in cash by the taxpayer during the taxable year 
     Fishing Risk Management Account (hereinafter referred to as 
     the `FisheRMen Account').
       ``(b) Limitation.--
       ``(1) Contributions.--The amount which a taxpayer may pay 
     into the FisheRMen Account for any taxable year shall not 
     exceed 20 percent of so much of the taxable income of the 
     taxpayer (determined without regard to this section) which is 
     attributable (determined in the manner applicable under 
     section 1301) to any eligible commercial fishing activity.
       ``(2) Distribution.--Distributions from a FisheRMen Account 
     may not be used to purchase, lease, or finance any new 
     fishing vessel, add capacity to any fishery, or otherwise 
     contribute to the overcapitalization of any fishery. The 
     Secretary of Commerce shall implement regulations to enforce 
     this paragraph.
       ``(c) Eligible Businesses.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Commercial fishing activity.--The term `commercial 
     fishing activity' has the meaning given the term `commercial 
     fishing' by section (3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802, P.L. 94-265 
     as amended) but only if such fishing is not a passive 
     activity (within the meaning of section 469(c)) of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(d) Fishermen Account.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `FisheRMen Account' means a 
     trust created or organized in the United States for the 
     exclusive benefit of the taxpayer, but only if the written 
     governing instrument creating the trust meets the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) No contribution will be accepted for any taxable year 
     in excess of the amount allowed as a deduction under 
     subsection (a) for such year.
       ``(B) The trustee is a bank (as defined in section 408(n)) 
     or another person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the manner in which such person will 
     administer the trust will be consistent with the requirements 
     of this section.
       ``(C) The assets of the trust consist entirely of cash or 
     of obligations which have adequate stated interest (as 
     defined in section 1274(c)(2)) and which pay such interest 
     not less often than annually.
       ``(D) All income of the trust is distributed currently to 
     the grantor.
       ``(E) The assets of the trust will not be commingled with 
     other property except in a common trust fund or common 
     investment fund.
       ``(2) Account taxed as grantor trust.--The grantor of a 
     FisheRMen Account shall be treated for purposes of this title 
     as the owner of such Account and shall be subject to tax 
     thereon in accordance with subpart E of part I of subchapter 
     J of this chapter (relating to grantors and others treated as 
     substantial owners).
       ``(e) Inclusion of Amounts Distributed.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     there shall be includable in the gross income of the taxpayer 
     for any taxable year--
       ``(A) any amount distributed from a FisheRMen Account of 
     the taxpayer during such taxable year, and
       ``(B) any deemed distribution under--
       ``(i) subsection (f)(1) (relating to deposits not 
     distributed within 5 years),
       ``(ii) subsection (f)(2) (relating to cessation in eligible 
     commercial fishing activities), and
       ``(iii) subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (f)(3) 
     (relating to prohibited transactions and pledging account as 
     security).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) any distribution to the extent attributable to income 
     of the Account, and
       ``(B) the distribution of any contribution paid during a 
     taxable year to a FisheRMen Account to the extent that such 
     contribution exceeds the limitation applicable under 
     subsection (b) if requirements similar to the requirements of 
     section 408(d)(4) are met.

     For purposes of subparagraph (A), distributions shall be 
     treated as first attributable to income and then to other 
     amounts.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Tax on deposits in account which are not distributed 
     within 5 years.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, at the close of any taxable year, 
     there is a nonqualified balance in any FisheRMen Account--
       ``(i) there shall be deemed distributed from such Account 
     during such taxable year an amount equal to such balance, and
       ``(ii) the taxpayer's tax imposed by this chapter for such 
     taxable year shall be increased by 10 percent of such deemed 
     distribution.

     The preceding sentence shall not apply if an amount equal to 
     such nonqualified balance is distributed from such Account to 
     the taxpayer before the due date (including extensions) for 
     filing the return of tax imposed by this chapter for such 
     year (or, if earlier, the date the taxpayer files such return 
     for such year).
       ``(B) Nonqualified balance.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `nonqualified balance' means any balance in the 
     Account on the last day of the taxable year which is 
     attributable to amounts deposited in such Account before the 
     4th preceding taxable year.
       ``(C) Ordering rule.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     distributions from FisheRMen Account (other than 
     distributions of current income) shall be treated as made 
     from deposits in the order in which such deposits were made, 
     beginning with the earliest deposits.
       ``(2) Cessation in eligible business.--At the close of the 
     first disqualification period after a period for which the 
     taxpayer was engaged in an eligible commercial fishing 
     activity, there shall be deemed distributed from the 
     FisheRMen Account of the taxpayer an amount equal to the 
     balance in such Account (if any) at the close of such 
     disqualification period. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, the term `disqualification period' means any period 
     of 2 consecutive taxable years for which the taxpayer is not 
     engaged in an eligible commercial fishing activity.
       ``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the 
     following rules shall apply for purposes of this section:
       ``(A) Section 220(f)(8) (relating to treatment on death).
       ``(B) Section 408(e)(2) (relating to loss of exemption of 
     account where individual engages in prohibited transaction).
       ``(C) Section 408(e)(4) (relating to effect of pledging 
     account as security).
       ``(D) Section 408(g) (relating to community property laws).
       ``(E) Section 408(h) (relating to custodial accounts).
       ``(4) Time when payments deemed made.--For purposes of this 
     section, a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment to 
     a FisheRMen Account on the last day of a taxable year if such 
     payment is made on account of such taxable year and is made 
     on or before the due date (without regard to extensions) for 
     filing the return of tax for such taxable year.
       ``(5) Individual.--For purpose of this section, the term 
     `individual' shall not include an estate or trust.

[[Page S1238]]

       ``(6) Deduction not allowed for self-employment tax.--The 
     deduction allowable by reason of subsection (a) shall not be 
     taken into account in determining an individual's net 
     earnings from self-employment (within the meaning of section 
     1402(a)) for purposes of chapter 2.
       ``(g) Reports.--The trustee of a FisheRMen Account shall 
     make such reports regarding such Account to the Secretary and 
     to the person for whose benefit the Account is maintained 
     with respect to contributions, distributions, and such other 
     matters as the Secretary may require under regulations. The 
     reports required by this subsection shall be filed at such 
     time and in such manner and furnished to such persons at such 
     time and in such manner as may be required by such 
     regulations.'.
       (b) Tax on Excess Contributions.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 4973 (relating to tax on 
     excess contributions to certain tax-favored accounts and 
     annuities) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
     paragraph (3), by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
     (5), and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) a FisheRMen Account (within the meaning of section 
     468C(d)), or''.
       (2) Section 4973 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Excess Contributions to Fishermen Accounts.--For 
     purposes of this section, in the case of a FisheRMen Account 
     (within the meaning of section 468C(d)), the term `excess 
     contributions' means the amount by which the amount 
     contributed for the taxable year to the Account exceeds the 
     amount which may be contributed to the Account under section 
     468C(b) for such taxable year. For purposes of this 
     subsection, any contribution which is distributed out of the 
     FisheRMen Account in a distribution to which section 
     468C(e)(2)(B) applies shall be treated as an amount not 
     contributed.''.
       (e) The section heading for section 4973 is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 4973. EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN ACCOUNTS, 
                   ANNUITIES, ETC.''.

       (4) The table of sections or chapter 43 is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 4973 and inserting the 
     following:

''Sec. 4973. Excess contributions to certain accounts, annuities, 
              etc.''.

       (c) Tax on Prohibited Transactions.--
       (1) Subsection (c) of section 4975 (relating to tax on 
     prohibited transactions) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Special rule for fishermen accounts.--A person for 
     whose benefit a FisheRMen Account (within the meaning of 
     section 468C(d)) is established shall be exempt from the tax 
     imposed by this section with respect to any transaction 
     concerning such account (which would otherwise be taxable 
     under this section) if, with respect to such transaction, the 
     account ceases to be a FisheRMen Account by reason of the 
     application of section 468C(f)(3)(A) to such account.''
       (2) Paragraph (1) of section 4975(e) is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (F) 
     and (G), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (D) the following.
       ``(E) a FisheRMen Account described in section 468C(d).''.
       (d) Failure to Provide Reports on Fishermen Accounts.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 6693(a) (relating to failure to 
     provide reports on certain tax-favored accounts or annuities) 
     is amended by redesignating subparagraph (C) and (D) and (E), 
     respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
     following:
       ``(C) section 468C(g) (relating to FisheRMen Accounts),''.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     C of part II of subchapter E of chapter 1 is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 468B the 
     following:

``Sec. 468C. Fishing Risk Management Accounts.''.

     SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) The changes made by this Act shall apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2000.
 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
from Alaska in introducing this important piece of legislation. As a 
member of the Senate Finance Committee he is all too aware of the need 
for equity in our tax system and simplicity in our Tax Code.
  The first portion of the bill we introduce today would allow 
fishermen to average income and would not penalize that election with 
the alternative minimum tax. Up until 1986, individuals, including 
farmers and fishermen, could elect to average income under section 
1301. That choice was no longer available after Congress repealed 
section 1301 in 1986. Later, in 1997, Congress inserted a new version 
of section 1301 with a modified form of income averaging for farmers. 
Section 1301 currently allows farmers engaged in an eligible farming 
business to average income for tax purposes. This allows farmers to 
take the fluctuations of their markets, prices and crop conditions into 
account when calculating income taxes. Fishermen should be afforded the 
same opportunities as farmers--they are the farmers of the sea and 
should be treated as such under the Tax Code.
  A provision similar to this was included in the Taxpayer Refund Act 
of 1999 that was vetoed by the President last year. It is not a 
controversial measure, and its impact on the Treasury is minimal. The 
Joint Committee on Tax estimated last summer that this provision would 
cost approximately $5 million over the next ten years. This is a small 
price to pay to create equity and fairness in our Tax Code and to 
ensure fishermen receive the same benefits as farmers. While this is 
one step toward equal treatment for our fishermen, it is an important 
part of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our fishing industry.
  The second portion of the bill we introduce today would allow 
fishermen to establish tax deferred risk management savings accounts to 
help them through downturns in the market. The Taxpayer Refund Act of 
1999 included similar language. These new risk management accounts 
would be used to let fishermen set aside up to 20 percent of their 
income on a tax deferred basis. The money could be held for up to five 
years, then it would have to be withdrawn from the individual's 
account. Once the money is withdrawn from the account, the fishermen 
would pay tax on the amount that was originally deferred. Any interest 
earned on the money in the account would be taxed in the year that it 
was earned.
  This approach to encouraging fishermen to set some money aside for 
downturns in the market makes sense. The Joint Committee on Taxation 
estimated last year that allowing fishermen to set aside 20 percent of 
their income into these tax deferred accounts would cost only $18 
million over 10 years. This is a small price to pay to encourage 
fishermen to be pro-active in planning for downturns rather than having 
to be reactive when markets collapse or fishing stocks are weak.
  In previous years we have had to bail out fishing areas that have 
been hit hard by fishery failures. A recent fishery failure in Alaska, 
and the impact of that failure on families and communities, is still 
being felt today. We were forced to allocate $50 million to bail out 
those fishermen and the local communities. This provision, at a cost of 
$18 million over ten years, is a far-sighted way to let fishermen play 
a part in a disaster recovery and preserve the proud self-reliance that 
marks their industry.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for his support 
of this bill and I encourage all Senators to support these 
provisions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 2204. To suspend temporarily the duty on high molecular, very high 
molecular, homopolymer, natural color, virgin polymerized powders; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2205. To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclooctene (COE); to the 
Committee on Finance.
  S. 2206. To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclohexadecadlenel,9 
(CHDD); to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2207. To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one 
(CHD); to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2208. To suspend temporarily the duty on Neo Heliopan MA (Menthyl 
Anthranilate); to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2209. To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,6 dichlorotoluene; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2210. To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-bromo-2-
fluoroacetanilide; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 2211. To suspend temporarily the duty on propiophenone; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  S. 2212. To suspend temporarily the duty on metachlorobenzaldehyde; 
to the Committee on Finance.


      bills to suspend the duty on certain chemicals used in the 
                         manufacturing industry

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce nine bills 
which will suspend the duties imposed on certain chemicals that are 
important components for a wide array of applications. Currently, these 
chemicals are imported for use in the United States because there are 
no known domestic producers or readily available substitutes. 
Therefore, suspending the duties on these chemicals would not adversely 
affect domestic industries.
  This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on meta-
chlorobenzaldehyde; propiophenone; 4-bromo-2-

[[Page S1239]]

fluoroacetanilide; 2, 6-dichlorotoluene; menthyl anthranilate; 
cyclooctene; cyclohexadeca-1, 9-diene; cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one; and 
high molecular weight polymerized powders, which are used as 
intermediate chemicals in the manufacturing of a number of products 
including, but not limited to, fragrances, agricultural inputs, 
pharmaceuticals, water filters elements, surgical orthopedic hip and 
knee implants, and fibers used to make bullet-proof vests.
  Mr. President, suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit 
the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use 
products. Further, these suspensions will allow domestic producers to 
maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope 
the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2204

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

     SECTION 1. HIGH MOLECULAR, VERY HIGH MOLECULAR, HOMOPOLYMER, 
                   NATURAL COLOR, VIRGIN POLYMERIZED POWDERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
       

``      9902.38.00       High molecular, very      Free                 Free                 No change            On or before 12/31/2002
                          high molecular, or                                                                                                          ''
                          ultra high molecular                                                                                                         .
                          weight, homopolymer,
                          natural color, virgin
                          polymerized powders
                          with a specific gravity
                          of < 940 g/liter and
                          molecular weight of
                          500,000-6,000,000 (as
                          defined by ASTM D4020)
                          containing a maximum
                          nominal 500 ppm calcium
                          stearate with low bulk
                          densities (200-350 g/l)
                          and/or complying with
                          ASTM F648, Types 1,2,
                          and ISO 5834, Types 1,
                          2, and/or extremely
                          fine or coarse particle
                          sizes (<70 or >250
                          microns) and/or special
                          dissolution properties.
                          (CAS No. 9002-88-4)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading 3901.20.00).

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                    __
                                  

                                S. 2205

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

     SECTION 1. CYCLOOCTENE (COE).

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
       

``      9902.28.11       Cyclooctene (COE)         Free                 Free                 No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          (provided for in                                                                                                            ''
                          subheading 2902.90.80).                                                                                                      .

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____
                                  

                                S. 2206

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

     SECTION 1. CYCLOHEXADECADLENEL,9 (CHDD).

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
       

``      9902.28.12       Cyclohexadecadlenel,9     Free                 Free                 No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          (CHDD) (provided for in                                                                                                     ''
                          subheading 2902.90.80).                                                                                                      .

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____
                                  

                                S. 2207

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

     SECTION 1. CYCLOHEXADEC-8-EN-1-ONE (CHD).

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
       

``      9902.28.13       Cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one   Free                 Free                 No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          (CHD) (provided for in                                                                                                      ''
                          subheading 2914.29.00).                                                                                                      .

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____
                                  

                                S. 2208

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

     SECTION 1. NEO HELIOPAN MA (MENTHYL ANTHRANILATE).

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
       

``      9902.08.10       Neo Heliopan MA (Menthyl  Free                 Free                 No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          Anthranilate) (CAS No.                                                                                                      ''
                          134-09.8) (provided for                                                                                                      .
                          in subheading
                          2922.49.27)............

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                    __
                                  

                                S. 2209

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

     SECTION 1. 2,6 DICHLOROTOLUENE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

       

[[Page S1240]]



``      9902.28.08        2,6 Dichlorotoluene      Free                 No change            No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          (CAS No. 118-69-4)                                                                                                          ''
                          (provided for in                                                                                                             .
                          subheading 2903.69.70).

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____
                                  

                                S. 2210

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

     SECTION 1. 4-BROMO-2-FLUOROACETANILIDE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

       

``      9902.28.08        4-Bromo-2-               Free                 No change            No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          Fluoroacetanilide (CAS                                                                                                      ''
                          No. 326-66-9) (provided                                                                                                      .
                          for in subheading
                          2924.21.50)............

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                    __
                                  

                                S. 2211

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

     SECTION 1. PROPIOPHENONE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

       

``      9902.28.08        Propiophenone (CAS No.   Free                 No change            No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          93-55-0) (provided for                                                                                                      ''
                          in subheading                                                                                                                .
                          2914.39.90)............

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____
                                  

                                S. 2212

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

     SECTION 1. META-CHLOROBENZALDEHYDE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

       

``      9902.28.08        Meta-Chlorobenzaldehyde  Free                 No change            No change            On or before 12/31/2003
                          (CAS No. 587-04-2)                                                                                                          ''
                          (provided for in                                                                                                             .
                          subheading 2913.00.40).

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________