[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15950-15954]
[From the U.S. 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''.

[[Page 15951]]



     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 Foreign Relations.
  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,

     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

[[Page 15952]]

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 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.

[[Page 15953]]

  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 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.

[[Page 15954]]

       ``(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.

                          ____________________