S6184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING 

∑ Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise 

today to express my sincere condolences to the families and friends who 

lost their loved ones in the horrible 

terrorist act which took place in Oklahoma City, OK, on April 19, 1995. My 

prayers are with the victims, with 

those who lost loved ones, and with 

those who simply had to suffer through 

the agony of uncertainty. And, like 

every Member of this Senate, I am determined to ensure that those terrorists who committed this crime will be 

prosecuted to the fullest extent of the 

law. 

Our top priority today and always 

ought to be the protection and safety 

of all the citizens of our country. 

Though we in the Senate will, as we already have, differ about the role of the 

Federal Government and the scope of 

Congress’ authority, I think we can all 

agree that the first obligation of the 

Government is to protect its citizens 

from harm. We must do everything we 

rightfully can to prevent future tragedies of this sort and to see to it that 

the perpetrators of this terrible act are 

brought to justice. 

One hope I have is that, in the process of focusing on the tragic incident in 

Oklahoma City involving one type of 

crime, we don’t lost sight of the rising 

tide of all violent crime in this country. It did not take the massive destruction of this bombing to make violence a major problem in America. The 

rate of violent crime is increasing and 

will continue to do so if we do not put 

a stop to it now. Thus, it is even more 

urgent that government at all levels—

Federal, State, and local—act accordingly to make sure that all types of 

criminal violence are prevented, or, 

that when these acts occur, to see to it 

that the responsible parties are severely punished for their actions. 

In my view, there is a continuum in 

our society, with the rights of criminals on one end, and the rights of both 

victims of crime and the law-abiding 

on the other. More rights for criminals 

ineluctably translates to fewer rights 

for victims. I believe the pendulum has 

swung too far, and for too long, toward 

the right of criminals. It is time for us 

to shift things in the direction of lawabiding citizens and the victims of 

crime. 

Despite our best efforts, we must recognize that, no matter what we do, we 

will never to able to eradicate crime, 

nor, though we would like to, eliminate 

the possibility of a violent fanatic detonating a fertilizer-based bomb. So 

long as human nature remains imperfect there are going to be murderers, 

there are going to be rapists, there are 

going to be violent fanatics. Prevention is critical, and all appropriate 

tools should be provided to law enforcement officials to aid their preemptory 

efforts. But what is also important is 

the response which our criminal justice 

system is able to muster after the fact. 

In short, we must ensure that the 

perpetrators of all criminal acts in this 

country are—as the President promised 

in this case—brought to swift and certain justice. Legal reforms that would 

permit the rapid apprehension, trial, 

and punishment of the perpetrators of 

crime—all crimes—would go a long way 

toward preventing future such crimes 

and assuring the victims that justice 

will be done. 

I believe, with regard to Oklahoma 

City that what most affects us all is 

seeing the families of the victims. Like 

most Americans, I want to see justice 

for those families prevail. I would like 

to be able to assure those families that 

they will not have to suffer through a 

9-month trial on TV—including, for example, several weeks devoted to selecting the perfect, dispassionate and adequately uninformed jury. And I would 

like to be able to tell those families 

that they will not then have to endure 

years upon years of repetitive trials 

and appeals, forcing them to relive 

over and over the nightmare of the 

past weeks. But I cannot. 

Regrettably, our current system is 

all too often exploited by the guilty—

at the expense of the innocent. That is 

why, as we move ahead with any proposed antiterrorist legislation as well 

as with the Senate Republican crime 

bill, S. 3, the Violent Crime Control 

and Law Enforcement Improvement 

Act of 1995, I hope we will seek to pass 

legislation which does put the rights of 

victims and law-abiding citizens first—

where they belong. 

Mr. President, on another note, I 

would like to also shed light on an unfortunate incident which took place 

during the aftermath of the bombing in 

Oklahoma City. Immediately after the 

bombing, many so-called experts and 

news media outlets rushed to the judgment that this attack was most probably the result of, ‘‘Islamic radical fundamentalist terrorists from the Middle 

East.’’ This inaccurate and prematurely reached conclusion did great 

damage to the millions of loyal Araband Moslem-Americans in the United 

States, producing a wave of anti-Moslem, anti-Arab hysteria in the days 

after the bombing. The windows of a 

mosque in Oklahoma City were shattered by bullets in the days after the 

bombing, and death threats were called 

in to many mosques across the United 

States—including several in my home 

State of Michigan. In addition, many 

Arab- and Moslem-American students 

were harassed at their schools and universities. All of these unfortunate incidents could have been avoided had 

some in the media and their so-called 

terrorism experts refrained from jumping to such unsubstantiated conclusions. 

The news media has a clear duty to 

the American people to report allegations of this type responsibly. The 

media has received many compliments 

about its coverage of Oklahoma City, 

much of it deserved. However, those 

outlets which failed to show proper restraint or which countenanced wildly 

speculative finger-pointing should, I 

believe, extend an apology to the Araband Moslem-American communities for 

the damage done to the hardworking 

individuals and families that comprise 

them. The American-Moslem community has donated $22,500 to assist the 

families of the victims of the bombing 

in Oklahoma City—a story which I 

hope the media will also be reporting. 

That said, I want to reemphasize my 

comments regarding this horrible tragedy in Oklahoma. Our criminal law enforcement community needs to have 

the appropriate tools for prevention 

and punishment. If we, in the Senate, 

are able to pass the appropriate legislation which will assist the law enforcement officials to effectively combat 

crime, then perhaps criminals will be 

deterred from committing another 

tragic Oklahoma City incident anywhere in the United States. Amidst all 

the pain, we may have learned a very 

valuable lesson from this incident—the 

worst terrorist crime in our Nation’s 

history. The painful lesson learned 

may be that Oklahoma City is a wakeup call to all Americans that we desperately need to reform our criminal 

laws.∑ 

f 

OPEN MARKETS AND FAIR TRADE 

ACT OF 1995 

∑ Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

seek to have placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a copy of the ‘‘Open 

Markets and Fair Trade Act of 1995,’’

S.756, that was formally submitted for 

the RECORD yesterday, May 3, 1995, but 

which was not printed in full. 

The ‘‘Open Markets and Fair Trade 

Act of 1995,’’ will evaluate the current 

conditions of markets around the world 

for American products and instigate a 

process of negotiating access to those 

markets. It also gives the President 

and Congress a new tool to use in those 

negotiations—the threat of reciprocal 

trade action. Basically the bill tells 

our trading partners that if they refuse 

to give our products reasonable market 

access, we may impose the same kind 

of restrictions on their products. 

Mr. President, this bill was written 

in response to a problem that persists 

year after year. I am speaking, of 

course, of our trade deficit, which is 

out of control. Certainly, we are making progress on some micro-economic 

levels, and the Clinton Administration 

has hammered out more than 70 different trade agreements over the last 

two-plus years—14 with Japan alone. 

These are helping some industries, 

some workers, and some parts of our 

economy. But they have done nothing 

to shrink the trade deficit. Clearly, 

more must be done. 

Mr. President, this bill does not single out any one country. It is designed 

to pry open markets wherever they’re 

closed, wherever in the world American 

products are denied access. This bill 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6185 

follows up on the Uruguay Round and 

looks beyond tariffs—it is designed to 

deal with market barriers; the internal 

rules in various countries that are 

practical impediments to American 

businesses. I am seeking to open more 

markets across the globe in order to 

bring about the increased exports and 

jobs that the GATT promised. 

And I think it’s high-time we question the wisdom that blames almost all 

of America’s trade deficit problems 

solely on ourselves. For years, we’ve 

heard the same assertions: ‘‘Americans 

spend too much and save too little 

* * * the budget deficit is too high 

* * * we are growing faster than other 

countries so we have more money to 

spend.’’ Yes, these economic realities 

contribute to the problem, but under 

President Clinton’s leadership, we have 

reduced the Federal fiscal deficit by 

over $700 billion, yet the trade deficit 

goes up and up. 

I think it’s time we reverse the 

premise and look at how the trade deficit fuels our savings and debt problems. The inability of American companies to sell in places like Japan, 

China, Germany and elsewhere costs 

our corporations profits, our workers 

job opportunities, and our nation revenues—all of which weigh down our own 

economic growth and add to our fiscal 

deficit. 

Whether it is a requirement for 

American firms to hire local agents to 

conduct business; cumbersome inspection and customs procedures; bans on 

the sale of products for dubious claims 

of national sovereignty or some other 

sort of prerogative, the simple fact is 

that protected sanctuary markets 

abroad are a major contributor to 

America’s economic problems. 

To explain this simply, I will use as 

an example the well known case of how 

Japanese manufacturers sell things 

like electronics in the United States at 

such cheap prices, even when the Yen 

is at a record height. I am citing Japan 

here, but it could be any other country 

that has a sanctuary market. It is well 

known that many Japanese-made products are cheaper in the United States 

than in Japan. That is because Japan’s 

closed market is a sanctuary that effectively insulates producers from 

competition, and allows them to overcharge Japanese consumers, giving 

them enough of a profit margin at 

home to sell below cost here. That 

means American companies lose on 

both ends. We can’t export into these 

markets, and their subsidized exports 

harm our domestic industries and costs 

us jobs. 

My trade policy is quite simple, in 

addition to preserving the effectiveness 

of America’s trade laws, I support 

measures that will increase American 

exports, and West Virginia exports specifically. Every $1 billion in exports 

supports about 17,000 jobs. So it follows 

that if we increase American exports, 

we will create more jobs here in the 

United States. And export related jobs 

are, on average, better, higher paying 

jobs. That is why I have worked so hard 

to introduce West Virginia businesses 

to foreign market opportunities. 

The ‘‘Open Markets and Fair Trade 

Act of 1995’’ is about market opportunities for American firms and especially 

markets for American industries with 

the most export potential and which 

promote critical technologies. Most 

importantly, it instructs the Commerce Department to look at markets 

which, if we can export there, offer the 

greatest employment opportunities for 

American workers. 

America cannot afford to be a market for everyone else’s products when 

we don’t get the same kind of access in 

return. Our economy, and the global 

economy, cannot sustain that kind of 

imbalance. The American people will 

only continue to support free trade if it 

means we are able to sell American 

products abroad as easily as Asian and 

European and Latin American manufacturers have access to our shelves 

and showrooms. While past negotiations should have made these points 

perfectly clear, the ‘‘Open Markets and 

Fair Trade Act of 1995’’ will erase any 

doubts that may have lingered with 

our trading partners. 

Mr. President, I ask that following 

my statement the full text of the 

‘‘Open Markets and Fair Trade Act of 

1995’’ appear, followed by a summary of 

S. 756. 

The material follows: 

S. 756 

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 ‘‘Open Markets and Fair Trade Act of 1995’’. 

SEC. 2. REPORTS ON MARKET ACCESS. 

(a) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than 90 

days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 

shall submit to the Congress a report with 

respect to those countries selected by the 

Secretary in which goods or services produced or originating in the United States, 

that would otherwise be competitive in those 

countries, do not have market access. Each 

report shall contain the following with respect to each such country: 

(1) ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MARKET ACCESS.—An assessment of the opportunities 

that would, but for the lack of market access, be available in the market in that 

country, for goods and services produced or 

originating in the United States in those sectors selected by the Secretary. In making 

such assessment, the Secretary shall consider the competitive position of such goods 

and services in similarly developed markets 

in other countries. Such assessment shall 

specify the time periods within which such 

market access opportunities should reasonably be expected to be obtained. 

(2) CRITERIA FOR MEASURING MARKET ACCESS.—Objective criteria for measuring the 

extent to which those market access opportunities described in paragraph (1) have been 

obtained. The development of such objective 

criteria may include the use of interim objective criteria to measure results on a periodic basis, as appropriate. 

(3) COMPLIANCE WITH TRADE AGREEMENTS.—

An assessment of whether, and to what extent, the country concerned has materially 

complied with—

(A) agreements and understandings 

reached between the United States and that 

country pursuant to section 3, and 

(B) existing trade agreements between the 

United States and that country. 

Such assessment shall include specific information on the extent to which United States 

suppliers have achieved additional access to 

the market in the country concerned and the 

extent to which that country has complied 

with other commitments under such agreements and understandings. 

(b) SELECTION OF COUNTRIES AND SECTORS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In selecting countries and 

sectors that are to be the subject of a report 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give 

priority to—

(A) any country with which the United 

States has a trade deficit if access to the 

markets in that country is likely to have 

significant potential to increase exports of 

United States goods and services; and 

(B) any country, and sectors therein, in 

which access to the markets will result in 

significant employment benefits for producers of United States goods and services. 

The Secretary shall also give priority to sectors which represent critical technologies, 

including those identified by the National 

Critical Technologies Panel under section 

603 of the National Science and Technology 

Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 

1976 (42 U.S.C. 6683). 

(2) FIRST REPORT.—The first report submitted under subsection (a) shall include 

those countries with which the United 

States has a substantial portion of its trade 

deficit. 

(3) TRADE SURPLUS COUNTRIES.—The Secretary may include in reports after the first 

report such countries as the Secretary considers appropriate with which the United 

States has a trade surplus but which are otherwise described in subsection (a) and paragraph (1) of this subsection. 

(c) OTHER SECTORS.—The Secretary shall 

include an assessment under subsection (a) 

of any country or sector for which the Trade 

Representative requests such assessment be 

made. In preparing any such request, the 

Trade Representative shall give priority to 

those barriers identified in the reports required by section 181(b) of the Trade Act of 

1974 (19 U.S.C. 2241(b)). 

(d) INFORMATION ON ACCESS BY FOREIGN

SUPPLIERS.—The Secretary shall consult 

with the governments of foreign countries 

concerning access to the markets of any 

other country of goods and services produced 

or originating in those countries. At the request of the government of any such country 

so consulted, the Secretary may include in 

the reports required by subsection (a) information, with respect to that country, on 

such access. 

SEC. 3. NEGOTIATIONS TO ACHIEVE MARKET ACCESS. 

(a) NEGOTIATING AUTHORITY.—The President is authorized to enter into agreements 

or other understandings with the government of any country for the purpose of obtaining the market access opportunities described in the reports of the Secretary under 

section 2. 

(b) DETERMINATION OF PRIORITY OF NEGOTIATIONS.—Upon the submission by the Secretary of each report under section 2, the 

Trade Representative shall determine—

(1) for which countries and sectors identified in the report the Trade Representative 

will pursue negotiations, during the 6-month 

period following submission of the report, for 

the purpose of concluding agreements or 

other understandings described in subsection 

(a), and the timeframe for pursuing negotiations on any other country or sector identified in the report; and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

(2) for which countries and sectors identified in any previous report of the Secretary 

under section 2 the Trade Representative 

will pursue negotiations, during the 6-month 

period described in paragraph (1), in cases in 

which—

(A) negotiations were not previously pursued by the Trade Representative, or 

(B) negotiations that were pursued by the 

Trade Representative did not result in the 

conclusion of an agreement or understanding 

described in subsection (a) during the preceding 6-month period, but are expected to 

result in such an agreement or understanding during the 6-month period described 

in paragraph (1). 

For purposes of this Act, negotiations by the 

Trade Representative with respect to a particular sector shall be for a period of not 

more than 12 months. 

(c) SEMIANNUAL REPORTS.—At the end of 

the 6-month period beginning on the date on 

which the Secretary’s first report is submitted under section 2(a), and every 6 

months thereafter, the Trade Representative 

shall submit to the Congress a report containing the following: 

(1) REPORT WHERE NEGOTIATIONS PURSUED IN

PREVIOUS 6-MONTH PERIOD.—With respect to 

each country and sector on which negotiations described in subsection (b) were pursued during that 6-month period—

(A) a determination of whether such negotiations have resulted in the conclusion of an 

agreement or understanding intended to obtain the market access opportunities described in the most recent applicable report 

of the Secretary, and if not—

(i) whether such negotiations are continuing because they are expected to result 

in such an agreement or understanding during the succeeding 6-month period; or 

(ii) whether such negotiations have terminated; 

(B) in the case of a positive determination 

made under subparagraph (A)(i) in the preceding report submitted under this subsection, a determination of whether the continuing negotiations have resulted in the 

conclusion of an agreement or understanding 

described in subparagraph (A) during that 6- 

month period. 

(2) REPORT WHERE NEGOTIATIONS NOT PURSUED.—With respect to each country and sector on which negotiations described in subsection (b) were not pursued during that 6- 

month period, a determination of when such 

negotiations will be pursued. 

SEC. 4. MONITORING OF AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of making the assessments required by section 

2(a)(3), the Secretary shall monitor the compliance with each agreement or understanding reached between the United States 

and any country pursuant to section 3, and 

with each existing trade agreement between 

the United States and any country that is 

the subject of a report under section 2(a). In 

making each such assessment, the Secretary 

shall describe—

(1) the extent to which market access for 

the country and sectors covered by the 

agreement or understanding has been 

achieved; and 

(2) the bilateral trade relationship with 

that country in that sector. 

In the case of agreements or understandings 

reached pursuant to section 3, the description under paragraph (1) shall be done on the 

basis of the objective criteria set forth in the 

applicable report under section 2(a)(2). 

(b) TREATMENT OF AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS.—Any agreement or understanding reached pursuant to negotiations 

conducted under this Act, and each existing 

trade agreement between the United States 

and a country that is the subject of a report 

under section 2(a), shall be considered to be 

a trade agreement for purposes of section 301 

of the Trade Act of 1974. 

SEC. 5. TRIGGERING OF SECTION 301 ACTIONS. 

(a) FAILURE TO CONCLUDE AGREEMENTS.—In 

any case in which the Trade Representative 

determines under section 3(c)(1) (A)(ii) or (B) 

that negotiations have not resulted in the 

conclusion of an agreement or understanding 

described in section 3(a), each restriction on, 

or barrier or impediment to, access to the 

markets of the country concerned that was 

the subject of such negotiations shall, for 

purposes of title III of the Trade Act of 1974, 

be considered to be an act, policy, or practice 

determined under section 304 of that Act to 

be an act, policy, or practice that is unreasonable and discriminatory and burdens or 

restricts United States commerce. The Trade 

Representative shall determine what action 

to take under section 301(b) of that Act in response to such act, policy, or practice. 

(b) NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENTS OR

UNDERSTANDINGS.—In any case in which the 

Secretary determines, in a report submitted 

under section 2(a), that a foreign country is 

not in material compliance with—

(1) any agreement or understanding concluded pursuant to negotiations conducted 

under section 3, or 

(2) any existing trade agreement between 

the United States and that country, 

the Trade Representative shall determine 

what action to take under section 301(a) of 

the Trade Act of 1974. For purposes of section 

301 of that Act, a determination of noncompliance described in the preceding sentence shall be treated as a determination 

made under section 304 of that Act. 

SEC. 6. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN 

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS. 

(a) AUTHORITY FOR RECIPROCAL ACTIONS.—

In any case in which—

(1) section 5 applies, 

(2) the President determines that reciprocal action should be taken by the United 

States in response to—

(A) a restriction, barrier, or impediment 

referred to in section 5(a) with respect to access to the market of a country, or 

(B) noncompliance with an agreement, understanding, or trade agreement referred to 

in section 5(b), 

as the case may be, 

(3) changes in existing law or new statutory authority is necessary for such reciprocal action to be taken, and 

(4) the President, within 30 days (excluding 

any day described in section 154(b) of the 

Trade Act of 1974) after—

(A) the determination of the Trade Representative under section 3(c)(1)(A)(ii) or (B), 

or 

(B) the determination of the Secretary in 

the applicable report under section 2(a), 

as the case may be, submits to the Congress 

a draft of implementing legislation with respect to the changes or authority described 

in paragraph (3), 

then subsection (c) applies. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

(1) the term ‘‘reciprocal action’’ means action that is taken in direct response to a restriction on, or barrier or impediment to, access to the market in another country and is 

comparable or of equivalent effect to such 

restriction, barrier, or impediment; and 

(2) the term ‘‘implementing legislation’’

means a bill of either House of Congress 

which is introduced as provided in subsection 

(c) and which contains provisions necessary 

to make the changes or provide the authority described in subsection (a)(3). 

(c) PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.—On the day on which implementing 

legislation is submitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate under subsection 

(a), the implementing legislation shall be introduced and referred as provided in section 

151(c)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 for implementing bills under such section. The provisions of subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) of 

section 151 of such Act shall apply to implementing legislation to the same extent as 

such subsections apply to implementing 

bills. 

(d) RULES OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AND SENATE.—This section is enacted by the 

Congress—

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such is deemed a 

part of the rules of each House, respectively, 

and such procedures supersede other rules 

only to the extent that they are inconsistent 

with such other rules; and 

(2) with the full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change 

the rules (so far as relating to the procedures 

of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule 

of that House. 

SEC. 7. URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS NOT AFFECTED. 

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

violate any provision of the agreements approved by the Congress in section 101(a)(1) of 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. 3511(a)(1)). 

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act: 

(1) EXISTING TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE UNITED STATES AND A COUNTRY.—An ‘‘existing trade agreement’’ between the United 

States and another country means any trade 

agreement or understanding that was entered into between the United States and 

that country before the date of the enactment of this Act and is in effect on such 

date. Such term includes, but is not limited 

to—

(A) with respect to Japan—

(i) the Arrangement Between the Government of Japan and the Government of the 

United States of America Concerning Trade 

in Semiconductor Products, signed in 1986; 

(ii) the Arrangement Between the Government of Japan and the Government of the 

United States of America Concerning Trade 

in Semiconductor Products, signed in 1991; 

(iii) the United States-Japan Wood Products Agreement, signed on June 5, 1990; 

(iv) Measures Related to Japanese Public 

Sector Procurements of Computer Products 

and Services, signed on January 10, 1992; 

(v) the Tokyo Declaration on the U.S.- 

Japan Global Partnership, signed on January 

9, 1992; and 

(vi) the Cellular Telephone and ThirdParty Radio Agreement, signed in 1989; 

(B) with respect to the European Union—

(i) the Agreement Concerning the Application of the GATT Agreement on Trade in 

Civil Aircraft Between the European Economic Community and the Government of 

the United States of America on trade in 

large civil aircraft, with annexes, entered 

into force on July 17, 1992; 

(ii) the Agreement Concerning Procurement Between the United States and the European Union, signed April 15, 1994; and 

(iii) the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) on Procurement Between the United 

States and the European Union, signed May 

25, 1993; and 

(C) with respect to the People’s Republic of 

China—

(i) the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) on the Protection of Intellectual 

Property Rights Between the United States 

and the People’s Republic of China, signed 

January 17, 1992; 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6187 

(ii) the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) on Market Access Between the United 

States and the People’s Republic of China, 

signed October 10, 1992; 

(iii) the Bilateral Textile Agreement Between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, signed January 17, 1994; and 

(iv) an exchange of letters with an attached action plan between the United 

States and the People’s Republic of China, 

signed February 26, 1995, relating to intellectual property rights. 

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’

means the Secretary of Commerce. 

(3) TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.—The term 

‘‘Trade Representative’’ means the United 

States Trade Representative. 

THE OPEN MARKETS AND FAIR TRADE ACT OF

1995—SUMMARY

GOAL

The legislation will help the United States 

develop a systematic, long-term trade policy 

that will pry open foreign markets for American exporters. This bill supports the Clinton 

Administration’s results-oriented trade policy. 

The U.S. has accumulated more than $1 

trillion in merchandise trade deficits since 

1980. Countries like Japan—which accounted 

for more than 43% of last years deficit and 

China, which accounted for almost 20% of 

last years trade deficit, continue to exclude 

U.S. products from their markets. 

This legislation will create a process for 

defining what our goals and objectives 

should be in trade negotiations. It will help 

ensure that our trade negotiations achieve 

measurable results, not just empty promises. 

Additionally, the legislation will grant the 

President the authority to have Congress 

grant him reciprocal trade authority on an 

expedited basis. 

SPECIFICS

The legislation instructs the Commerce 

Department to choose a range of important 

American goods and services, and study how 

well those products do in foreign markets. 

Then we’ll understand how well we should be 

doing if trade were free and fair. Commerce 

will outline clear, objective criteria for gaining market access and the USTR will be 

given authority to negotiate to achieve these 

or similar goals. 

The bill requires that in developing objective criteria the Department of Commerce 

should give priority to industries which will 

result in the greatest employment benefits 

for the United States, industries which have 

the most export potential and industries 

that promote critical technologies. 

The legislation doesn’t specify what objective criteria should be used. It simply endorses a results-oriented trade policy. The 

effect will not be ‘‘managed trade’’. Rather, 

it will provide the basis for our negotiators 

and our trading partners to know what ‘‘success’’ is. It seeks to create a basis for open, 

honest negotiations where others understand 

what our expectations are. 

The legislation also gives the President the 

ability to come to Congress to authorize reciprocal trade actions if he deems it appropriate. This reciprocal trade authority would 

be considered on an expedited basis. 

The President has full discretion under 

this legislation. But it sends a clear message 

to our trading partners: follow the Golden 

Rule in trade. If another country believes 

that its market access impediments are appropriate and should be continued, then they 

shouldn’t object to others following their 

lead. 

Nothing in this legislation violates our 

commitment to the GATT. The process that 

the bill begins simply requires that we define 

what our national interests and what fair 

play would achieve. It does not specify how 

we will respond to the market barriers our 

farmers, workers and businesses face, although, through the expedited procedures 

provided for in the bill, it shows a clear preference for reciprocity. Reciprocity to respond to anticompetitive practices. Actions 

that aren’t covered by the GATT. 

Those with a vested interest in the status 

quo have engaged in an intensive public relations campaign to discredit the President’s 

trade policy. We must not retreat from our 

desire to enforce the rights of our farmers, 

workers and businesses.

f 

∑ 

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL 

RIGHTS’ REPORT ON HATE 

CRIME IN OHIO 

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Ohio 

Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has released a 

report documenting hate activity in 

that State. The Ohio Advisory Committee compiled hate crime statistics 

from the five largest cities in the 

State, and found continuing reports of 

prejudice and hate ranging from racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia. 

Unfortunately, Ohio’s continued problem with hate crimes mirrors the national struggle against crimes based on 

prejudice. 

The Ohio report serves as a reminder 

that there is still much work to be 

done to reduce the incidence of hate 

crimes. The Hate Crimes Statistics 

Act, which I authored in 1990, has been 

an important first step in this process. 

The reporting system established by 

this law sends a message to both the 

victims and the perpetrators of hate 

crimes that law enforcement officials 

are committed to solving the problem 

of hate crimes. 

Unfortunately, since States are not 

required to provide statistics on hate 

crimes to the FBI, many States have 

not yet fully complied with this important effort. In this, Ohio again mirrors 

the problems in many States. The Ohio 

Advisory Committee found that the reporting of hate crime by local law enforcement agencies is still insufficient 

to gauge with confidence the extent of 

hate crime activity in Ohio. Ohio has 

seen significant progress since 1991 

when only 30 of 401—7 percent—law enforcement agencies who participate in 

the program submitted hate crime reports to the FBI. That number increased to 125 of 401—31 percent—law 

enforcement agencies reporting in 1993. 

This progress is encouraging, but a 

greater commitment is needed. 

In addition to the problems with insufficient reporting, the report found 

that Ohio’s reporting was plagued by 

wide discrepancies in interpretation of 

the hate crime statute. This has been a 

problem in many States, and highlights the importance of the FBI hate 

crime training programs. The FBI offers outreach and training programs 

for local law enforcement officials to 

ensure that hate crime reporting is 

consistent and in keeping with the 

statute. I encourage Ohio law enforcement officials to take advantage of 

this useful training. 

The Ohio report made several recommendations to improve Ohio’s hate 

crime reporting, from encouraging 

local law enforcement officials to avail 

themselves of the hate crime training 

offered by the FBI to the creation of a 

central depository of hate crime information in Ohio. These changes would 

not only boost efforts to monitor hate 

crimes, but facilitate more effective 

remedies and prosecutions of hate 

crimes in the State. I encourage Ohio 

officials to review these recommendations. 

The foundation laid by the 1990 Hate 

Crimes Statistics Act is an important 

step in solving the problem of hate 

crimes. But clearly this problem is not 

going away. The problems in Ohio are 

not unique. Government officials, from 

local to Federal, need to look for ways 

to assist States and cities interested in 

training their law enforcement officials to report hate crimes, and to encourage all States to participate.

f 

∑ 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT 

IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1995 

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am 

proud to be an original cosponsor of 

the Immigration Enforcement Improvements Act of 1995. The approach 

to immigration policy reflected in the 

administration’s proposal is thoughtful 

and comprehensive, and I applaud it. 

The Clinton administration’s bill recognizes, as do the people of this Nation, 

the need to formulate an effective response to the problem of illegal immigration, and proposes increased resources not only for border enforcement, but also increased resources to 

eliminate the job magnet that will continue to draw undocumented aliens 

into the Nation regardless of the success of our border policy. The proposal 

also strives to improve our ability to 

deport those aliens that have been 

identified as deportable. 

To achieve each of these objectives 

the administration has proposed stern 

measures, and, in its fiscal year 1996 

budget request, the commitment of 

substantial resources; yet, at the same 

time, the administration’s proposal 

contains little that feeds the rampant 

anti-immigrant sentiment that has 

pervaded the immigration policy debate in recent years. Rather, the administration’s proposal takes a measured yet aggressive approach to the 

problems we must face. In short, while 

it has taken an undeniably firm stance 

against illegal immigration, the administration has not succumbed to the 

belief that immigration in all its 

shapes and forms is a bad thing. Quite 

the contrary: this legislation reflects 

the fact that, as the President has said, 

an effective immigration policy must 

combine deterrence of illegal immigration with an encouragement and celebration of legal immigration. 

I look forward to working with the 

administration and my colleagues in 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS