[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 24, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8441-S8444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Burns, Mr. Bond, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Hagel, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Craig, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Conrad, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1316. A bill to treat payments under the Conservation Reserve
Program as rentals from real estate; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
``Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act of 2003'' be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1316
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 ``Conservation Reserve Program
Tax Fairness Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM PAYMENTS AS
RENTALS FROM REAL ESTATE.
(a) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 1402(a)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining net earnings from
self-employment) is amended by inserting ``and including
payments under section 1233(2) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3833(2))'' after ``crop shares''.
(b) Social Security Act.--Section 211(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act is amended by inserting ``and including payments
under section 1233(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3833(2))'' after ``crop shares''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Brownback and
a number of our colleagues today in re-introducing the Conservation
Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. This legislation is virtually
identical to the bill we introduced in the 107th Congress, which
garnered nearly twenty Senate cosponsors. It clarifies that
Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, payments received by farmers are
treated for Federal tax purposes as rental payments from real estate,
not self-employment income subject to self-employment taxes.
Despite past strong bipartisan support for this legislation, the
Congress did not make this long overdue tax law clarification in the
major tax reduction bill that was recently signed into law. This is
regrettable and I hope that the Congress will move expeditiously to
reverse the IRS's wrong-headed position on this matter.
Let me take a moment to describe this problem. For many years, the
IRS has been taking the erroneous position that CRP payments received
by farmers are income from self-employment and therefore are subject to
self-employment taxes. This position imposes a significant financial
hardship on family farmers farmers who have voluntarily agreed to take
environmentally-sensitive lands out of farm production and place them
in the Conservation Reserve Program in return for an annual rental
payment from the Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
In our judgment, the IRS's tax treatment of CRP payments is not what
Congress intended, nor is it supportable in law. The U.S. Tax Court
shares our view that the IRS position is improper. In fact, the U.S.
Tax Court ruled in 1998 that CRP payments are properly treated by
farmers as rental payments and, thus, not subject to self-employment
taxes. Unfortunately, the IRS challenged the Tax Court decision and the
Tax Court was later reversed by a federal appellate court.
Today, North Dakota has some 3.3 million acres with $110 million in
rental payments in the CRP program. Left unchanged, the IRS's
interpretation means that farmers in North Dakota will owe an
additional $16 million in federal taxes this year. A typical North
Dakota farmer with 160 acres in CRP would have a CRP payment of $5,280
and would owe nearly $800 in self-employment taxes because of the IRS's
ill-advised position. If the IRS also decides to pursue back taxes on
returns filed by farmers in past years, the amount of taxes owed by
individuals farmers for CRP payments could amount to thousands of
dollars.
I believe that it is absolutely wrong for the IRS to load up farmers
with an added tax burden, especially when most of our Nation's family
farmers are still struggling from day to day to make ends meet. With
the legislation we are introducing today, Congress can tell the IRS
that its effort to treat CRP payments as net earnings from self-
employment is inappropriate and will not be allowed to stand.
Senator Brownback and I ask our colleagues to support this much-
needed tax relief for family farmers by cosponsoring the Conservation
Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. And we hope you will work with us to
get this legislation enacted into law at the first available
opportunity.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1317. A bill to amend the American Servicemember's Protection Act
of 2002 to provide clarification with respect to the eligibility of
certain countries for United States military assistance; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues Mr.
Biden of Delaware and Mr. Durbin of Illinois, 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. 1317
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S8442]]
SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN COUNTRIES FOR UNITED STATES
MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
(a) Amendment.--Section 2007(d)(1) of the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (title II of the 2002
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and
Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States (Public
Law 107-206; 116 Stat. 905)) is amended by inserting ``or a
country that has concluded a protocol with NATO for the
accession of the country to NATO'' before the semicolon.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on July 1, 2003.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1318. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Tenants
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1319. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Northeast
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1320. A bill to modify the project for navigation, Union River,
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills for
harbors in Maine, two of them that will deauthorize the Federal
Navigation Projects in Tenants Harbor and Northeast Harbor in Mt.
Desert, and the third will redesignate the Upper Basin of the Union
River Federal Navigational Channel in Ellsworth as an anchorage. The
bills will help strengthen the economic viability of these three
popular Maine harbors.
My first bill, S. 1318, pertains to Tenants Harbor, ME. Officials of
the Town of Tenants Harbor have requested that the harbor be
deauthorized. The original project was authorized in 1919, and was
dredged that same year so that steamboats could access the Harbor. The
channel has a width of 375 feet and extended out to 1,100 feet from
Steamboat Wharf. Times have certainly changed as no steamboat has
landed in the Harbor for 75 years. Over the years there have been
mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit
process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30
years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited
because they fall within the Federal navigational channel.
Deauthorizing the FNC would be of great help to the town in
appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas.
My second bill S. 1319 concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME.
The Town of Mount Desert has requested that Northeast Harbor be
withdrawn from the Federal Navigation Project because of changing
harbor usage over the last 45 years. This removal will allow the town
to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to
obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached
capacity for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting
list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have
been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial
vessels.
The Harbor was authorized in 1945 and constructed in 1954 as a mixed-
use commercial fishing/recreational boating harbor--and it still is
today. It was dredged in the early 1950s to provide more space for
recreational boating and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has informed
the town that Northeast Harbor would be very low on its dredging
priority list as it has become primarily a recreational harbor. The
town says it realizes that, once it is no longer part of the Federal
Navigational Project, any further dredging within the harbor would be
carried out at town expense.
The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and
commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast
Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the
nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water.
My third bill, S. 1320, addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME.
The bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the
Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification
called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union
River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater
number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation
and will further improve the city's revitalization efforts for the
harbor area.
I have worked with the New England Division of the Corps to draft
these bills and the language has been approved by Army Corps
Headquarters in Washington. I look forward to working with my
colleagues for their passage, either as stand alone bills or as
separate provisions in the Corps reauthorization bill, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2003, that Congress is currently drafting.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 1323. A bill to extend the period for which chapter 12 of title
11, United States Code, is reenacted by 6 months; read the first time.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
extend Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code until January 1, 2004. This
measure will provide our family farmers with the necessary bankruptcy
protections during hard times. However, I remain hopeful that the
Senate will take up and pass the comprehensive bankruptcy legislation
that the House passed not long ago. That bill makes Chapter 12 of the
Bankruptcy Code permanent, so family farms are guaranteed the ability
to reorganize. The bill also makes significant improvements to Chapter
12 so that it will be more accessible and helpful to farmers. So while
I urge quick passage of this temporary Chapter 12 measure, I would like
to see the comprehensive bankruptcy Reform bill and permanent Chapter
12 enacted into law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1323
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 ``Family Farmer Bankruptcy
Relief Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH CHAPTER 12 OF
TITLE 11, UNITED STATES CODE, IS REENACTED.
(a) Amendments.--Section 149 of title I of division C of
Public Law 105-277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``July 1, 2003'' each place it appears and
inserting ``January 1, 2004''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``June
30, 2003''; and
(B) by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and inserting ``July 1,
2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on July 1, 2003.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 1324. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to establish
procedures for identifying countries that deny market access for
agricultural products of the United States, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce today the
United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003. This
bill will be yet one more tool for the United States to use to expand
its exports of agricultural products.
Agricultural exports are key to the economic health of rural America.
Just last year, $53.1 billion worth of U.S.-produced agricultural
products were exported. About one-third of America's farm products are
sold outside of our borders. These sales in foreign markets translate
to improved incomes for our country's farmers. Today, approximately
one-fourth of gross farm income for U.S. producers comes from exports.
Agricultural exports are particularly important to farmers in my
State of Iowa. In 2001, some $3.3 billion worth of Iowa's agricultural
production was exported. This makes Iowa the second largest
agricultural exporting State in the country. Iowa's largest
commodities--corn, soybeans, pork, and beef--greatly benefit from sales
abroad. Approximately one-half of U.S. soybean production, and 20
percent of our country's corn production, is exported. Last year U.S.
pork exports set record levels. Since the implementation of the NAFTA,
exports of U.S. beef and beef
[[Page S8443]]
variety meats to Mexico have increased five-fold. Iowa's producers
clearly benefit from exports.
While Iowa's agricultural exports are already high, they have the
potential to grow even more in coming years. Demand in the U.S. market
for agricultural products is relatively stable. But populations, as
well as disposable incomes, are increasing rapidly in foreign
countries. With the hardest-working farmers and ranchers in the world,
and with productivity increasing through improved technologies, the
United States clearly has the ability to continue feeding a growing
world.
But trade barriers imposed by foreign governments often cloud this
bright spot for U.S. agriculture. Too frequently, misguided foreign
governments overlook the wants and needs of their consumers and take
measures to restrict, or prevent, imports of U.S. farm products. These
policies hurt U.S. farmers. They also hurt foreign consumers.
In fact, due in part to foreign trade barriers, U.S. agricultural
exports declined from $60.4 billion in 1996 to $53.1 billion in 2002.
Unfortunately, even countries that should be our closest trade allies
are proving adept at imposing measures that block imports of U.S. farm
products. As an example, our NAFTA-partner Mexico is imposing, or
threatening to impose, barriers to imports of a wide variety of U.S.
agricultural products. These products include corn, high fructose corn
syrup, pork, beef, rice, apples, and dry beans. Iowa is a major
producer of four of these products--corn, high fructose corn syrup,
pork, and beef.
Not surprisingly, much of U.S. agriculture is upset with Mexico and
other of our trading partners at this time. U.S. agricultural producers
have traditionally been the strongest supporters of new trade deals.
But due to foreign trade barriers, some in U.S. agriculture are
beginning to question their support for new trade agreements.
The U.S. Trade Representative, in conjunction with Congress, is
working hard to remove trade barriers imposed by Mexico and other
countries. But the current tools available to the USTR, including
negotiations, NAFTA challenges, and WTO challenges, don't always
accomplish the job.
Let me give you an example. For several years now, Mexico has gone to
great lengths to block imports of U.S.-produced high fructose corn
syrup. In 1998, Mexico imposed antidumping duties on imports of this
product from the United States. The United States challenged this
antidumping order under the NAFTA. Mexico lost at the NAFTA. The United
States challenged this order at the WTO. Mexico lost at the WTO.
Following its defeats at the NAFTA and the WTO, Mexico revoked this
antidumping order.
But, no, that wasn't the end of the story. Mexico turned around and
imposed a 20 percent tax on sales of soft drinks containing high
fructose corn syrup. This discriminatory tax was designed to boost
sales of Mexican sugar at the expense of U.S.-produced high fructose
corn syrup.
Mexico's tax in effect shut down the Mexican market for this product.
Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers are now being locked out of
what was at one time their largest export market. This discriminatory
tax is hurting Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers. It's hurting
Iowa's corn farmers.
This example clearly demonstrates that existing tools aren't always
enough to remove entrenched trade barriers. Despite losing at the
NAFTA, despite losing at the WTO, and despite lengthy negotiations,
Mexico is still blocking imports of U.S. high fructose corn syrup.
It's time to add yet another tool to our arsenal.
That's why I'm introducing the United States Agricultural Products
Market Access Act of 2003. This bill creates a new mechanism with which
to confront foreign trade barriers. The new mechanism operates in a
similar fashion to the existing special 301 provision for intellectual
property. The bill requires USTR to identify and report on those
foreign countries that deny fair and equitable market access for U.S.
agricultural exports, or countries that apply to U.S. agricultural
products sanitary or phytosanitary measures that are not based on sound
science. USTR would annually issue a report on its findings.
Out of the countries identified in USTR's report, USTR would identify
which ones have the most egregious practices impacting U.S.
agricultural exports and, further, are not entering into good faith
negotiations with the United States to end these practices.
This legislation also authorizes additional staffing for USTR to
focus on these agricultural enforcement issues.
This bill will further strengthen the ability of the United States to
enforce its existing market access rights for agricultural exports.
Perhaps just as important, it will help Congress and the Administration
prioritize barriers imposed by our trading partners. Through such
prioritization, U.S. negotiators will be better able to focus upon
removing the most egregious of these barriers.
The United States Agricultural Products Market Access Act will not
solve all of our agricultural market access problems. We need to move
ahead vigorously in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to tear
down barriers to our exports. At the top of this list is successful
completion of agricultural negotiations in the WTO. However, the United
States Agricultural Products Market Access Act of 2003 will help us
identify the most egregious problems, so we can focus our energy on
fixing them. It will also provide a new enforcement tool to help make
sure American farmers are getting the benefit of our hard fought trade
bargains.
This bill is strongly supported by Iowa's agricultural community,
including the Iowa Corn Growers, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, and
the Iowa Soybean Association.
I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues Senator Max Baucus,
Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, and Representative Dave Camp
for their hard work on this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1324
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 ``United States Agricultural
Products Market Access Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The export of agricultural products is of vital
importance to the economy of the United States.
(2) In 2002, agriculture was a large positive contributor
to the United States merchandise trade balance with a trade
surplus of $12,300,000,000.
(3) The growth of United States agricultural exports should
continue to be an important factor in improving the United
States merchandise trade balance.
(4) Increasing the volume of agricultural exports will
increase farm income in the United States, thereby protecting
family farms and contributing to the economic well-being of
rural communities in the United States.
(5) Although the United States efficiently produces high-
quality agricultural products, United States producers cannot
realize their full export potential because many foreign
countries deny fair and equitable market access to United
States agricultural products.
(6) The Foreign Agricultural Service estimates that United
States agricultural exports are reduced by $4,700,000,000
annually due to unjustifiable imposition of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures that deny or limit market access to
United States products.
(7) The denial of fair and equitable market access for
United States agricultural products impedes the ability of
United States farmers to export their products, thereby
harming the economic interests of the United States.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to reduce or eliminate foreign unfair trade practices
and to remove constraints on fair and open trade in
agricultural products;
(2) to ensure fair and equitable market access for exports
of United States agricultural products; and
(3) to promote free and fair trade in agricultural
products.
SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES THAT DENY MARKET ACCESS.
(a) Identification Required.--Chapter 8 of title I of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2241 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 183. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES THAT DENY MARKET
ACCESS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the
[[Page S8444]]
annual report is required to be submitted to Congressional
committees under section 181(b), the United States Trade
Representative (in this section referred to as the `Trade
Representative') shall identify--
``(1) those foreign countries that--
``(A) deny fair and equitable market access to United
States agricultural products, or
``(B) apply standards for the importation of agricultural
products from the United States that are not related to
public health concerns or cannot be substantiated by reliable
analytical methods, and
``(2) those foreign countries identified under paragraph
(1) that are determined by the Trade Representative to be
priority foreign countries.
``(b) Special Rules for Identifications.--
``(1) Criteria.--In identifying priority foreign countries
under subsection (a)(2), the Trade Representative shall only
identify those foreign countries--
``(A) that engage in or have the most onerous or egregious
acts, policies, or practices that deny fair and equitable
market access to United States agricultural products,
``(B) whose acts, policies, or practices described in
subparagraph (A) have the greatest adverse impact (actual or
potential) on the relevant United States products, and
``(C) that are not--
``(i) entering into good faith negotiations, or
``(ii) making significant progress in bilateral or
multilateral negotiations,
to provide fair and equitable market access to United States
agricultural products.
``(2) Consultation and consideration requirements.--In
identifying priority foreign countries under subsection
(a)(2), the Trade Representative shall--
``(A) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and other
appropriate officers of the Federal Government, and
``(B) take into account information from such sources as
may be available to the Trade Representative and such
information as may be submitted to the Trade Representative
by interested persons, including information contained in
reports submitted under section 181(b) and petitions
submitted under section 302.
``(3) Factual basis requirement.--The Trade Representative
may identify a foreign country under subsection (a)(1) only
if the Trade Representative finds that there is a factual
basis for the denial of fair and equitable market access as a
result of the violation of international law or agreement, or
the existence of barriers, referred to in subsection (d).
``(4) Consideration of historical factors.--In identifying
foreign countries under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(a), the Trade Representative shall take into account--
``(A) the history of agricultural trade relations with the
foreign country, including any previous identification under
subsection (a)(2), and
``(B) the history of efforts of the United States, and the
response of the foreign country, to achieve fair and
equitable market access for United States agricultural
products.
``(c) Revocations and Additional Identifications.--
``(1) Authority to act at any time.--If information
available to the Trade Representative indicates that such
action is appropriate, the Trade Representative may at any
time--
``(A) revoke the identification of any foreign country as a
priority foreign country under this section, or
``(B) identify any foreign country as a priority foreign
country under this section.
``(2) Revocation reports.--The Trade Representative shall
include in the semiannual report submitted to the Congress
under section 309(3) a detailed explanation of the reasons
for the revocation under paragraph (1) of the identification
of any foreign country as a priority foreign country under
this section.
``(d) Denial of Fair and Equitable Market Access Defined.--
For purposes of this section, a foreign country denies fair
and equitable market access if the foreign country
effectively denies access to a market for a product through
the use of laws, procedures, practices, or regulations
which--
``(1) violate provisions of international law or
international agreements to which both the United States and
the foreign country are parties, or
``(2) constitute discriminatory nontariff trade barriers.
``(e) Publication.--The Trade Representative shall publish
in the Federal Register a list of foreign countries
identified under subsection (a) and shall make such revisions
to the list as may be required by reason of the action under
subsection (c).
``(f) Annual Report.--The Trade Representative shall, not
later than the date by which countries are identified under
subsection (a), transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means
and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance and the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate, a report on the actions taken under this section
during the 12 months preceding such report, and the reasons
for such actions, including a description of progress made in
achieving fair and equitable market access for United States
agricultural products.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 182 the following:
``Sec. 183. Identification of countries that deny market access for
agricultural products.''.
(c) Additional Staff for Office of Assistant Trade
Representative for Agricultural Affairs and Office of
Assistant Trade Representative for Monitoring and
Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2004 for the
salaries and expenses of 1 additional specialist employee
position within the Office of the Assistant United States
Trade Representative for Agricultural Affairs and 1
additional specialist employee position within the Office of
the Assistant United States Trade Representative for
Monitoring and Enforcement.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
SEC. 4. INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) Investigation Required.--Subparagraph (A) of section
302(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(2)) is
amended by inserting ``or 183(a)(2)'' after ``section
182(a)(2)'' in the matter preceding clause (i).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section
302(b)(2) of such Act is amended by inserting ``concerning
intellectual property rights that is'' after ``any
investigation''.
______
By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr.
Hagel, and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 1325. A bill to amend the National Highway System Designation Act
of 1995 to modify the applicability of requirements concerning hours of
service to operators of commercial motor vehicles transporting
agricultural commodities and farm supplies; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will protect an existing exemption for farmers and agribusinesses from
the Department of Transportation's, DOT, limitations on maximum driving
time in transporting agricultural commodities or farm supplies during
peak planting and growing seasons.
In 1995, Public Law 104-59 passed by Congress granted farmers and
retail farm suppliers a limited exemption from DOT limitations on
maximum driving time in transporting agricultural commodies or farm
supplies within a 100-mile radius of a final distribution point. This
legislation recognized the special needs of rural America,
understanding that drivers employed by farm retailers generally operate
in local areas to farmers' fields delivering and applying crop inputs.
Much of their time is spent waiting at the field or the farm store
loading and unloading their trucks. In short, farm retail drivers stay
in a local area and return to their homes each night to sleep. The work
of these crop input suppliers is essential to the Nation's farmers, who
often have short windows of time to plant and harvest their crop around
changing weather patterns.
The agricultural exemption is seasonal, applying only during
designated months throughout the year as determined by each State.
Every State has now taken this action, and to my knowledge this
exemption has not had any impact on public safety.
It is important to note that under my clarifying legislation, the
farm supply/farm commodity exemption would remain limited in scope.
My legislation reiterates original Congressional support for the
agricultural exemption. The DOT has no expertise in this area nor, in
my opinion, does the definition of agricultural commodity come under
the jurisdiction of this agency. In addition, the term ``agricultural
commodity'' is already defined by Section 102 of the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602). Therefore, in my legislation, Section 345
(e) of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 is amended
to reflect the definition in the Agricultural Trade Act.
A bipartisan group of House Members are also seeking clarifying
legislation in this regard with Representative Bereuter of Nebraska
taking the lead.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation to
protect the agricultural exemption to hours of service rules and
prevent DOT from diminishing or revoking the exemption.
____________________