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

S6188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

the Senate to effect this delicate balance, and to implement an immigration policy that is both tough and fair. 

The administration’s proposal is a 

great step in this direction.

f 

∑ 

TRIBUTE TO DR. RAY STOWERS 

∑ Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise 

today to congratulate a fellow Oklahoman, Ray Stowers, D.O. on his recent 

appointment to the Physicians Payment Review Commission [PPRC]. 

Dr. Stowers is an osteopathic, family 

practice physician from Medford, OK. 

Since his first year in practice, Dr. 

Stowers has remained dedicated to the 

advancement of rural family medical 

practice, evidenced by his service as a 

faculty member of the Oklahoma State 

University College of Osteopathic Medicine. During this time, Dr. Stowers 

maintained his office at the rural site 

for the Enid Memorial Hospital providing exceptional health care for the 

individuals in that community. 

One of Dr. Stowers’ many successes 

occurred when he was appointed by the 

Governor of Oklahoma to serve on the 

board of the Task Force on Rural 

Health Care issues which was responsible for advising the Governor on the 

State’s health care manpower needs, 

and for convening a statewide conference to discuss rural health care delivery issues. 

Dr. Stowers is also an expert in physician payment issues. Since 1992, he 

has served on the American Medical 

Association’s Relative Value Update 

Committee [RUC]. As the first osteopathic physician appointed to serve on 

this committee, Ray has facilitated 

greater understanding, collaboration, 

and teamwork between the osteopathic 

medical profession and the allopathic 

physician community, and has lent his 

considerable expertise on physician 

practices to the RUC proceedings. 

Since 1994, he has also served as the osteopathic profession’s liaison to the 

American Academy of Physicians regarding reimbursement, certification, 

legislation, and managed care options. 

Since PPRC was established by Congress in 1986, an osteopathic physician 

has never served on the Commission. 

Dr. Stowers’ appointment makes him 

the first osteopathic physician to serve 

on the Commission and the medical 

profession could not have put forth a 

finer candidate. Dr. Stowers represents 

what is best about medicine and physicians in America today. During the 

time when the trend to become a specialized physician is so strong and 

promises such great rewards, he has remained dedicated to the path of providing solo, rural family medicine for 

over 21 years. 

Dr. Stowers has served his family, his 

profession, his community, and his 

State of Oklahoma well. The entire 

country will now benefit from the same 

service of compassion and integrity. 

Dr. Stowers, the State of Oklahoma is 

proud of your accomplishments. I am 

honored to join your family, friends, 

and colleagues in wishing you every 

success as you embark on your next 

challenge of serving on the Physician 

Payment Review Commission.

f 

∑ 

ARSON AWARENESS WEEK 

∑ Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this is 

Arson Awareness Week. In the time it 

will take me to finish my first sentence, arson fires will destroy at least 

$600 worth of property in this country. 

That is an annual cost of more than $2 

billion. And while in recent years arson 

has accounted for just over 15 percent 

of building fires, it has accounted for 

more than 30 percent of the dollar loss. 

This, Mr. President, is a problem we 

all pay for. We pay for it in higher 

property insurance premiums and in 

higher taxes. 

Analysis of 1987 to 1991 fires by the 

National Fire Protection Association 

found that residential arson averaged a 

cost of $14,000 per fire. Fires set in 

stores, offices, and restaurants averaged a cost of $30,000 per fire. And 

arson fires in manufacturing sites averaged more than $65,000. 

Beyond the obvious economic costs 

associated with homes and businesses 

lost to arson, there is a severe social 

consequence. In many cases the remnants from acts of arson end up as 

hangouts and havens for drug dealers, 

prostitutes, and other criminal elements. Put simply, arson breeds crime 

in more ways than one, contributing to 

fear and frustration, especially in our 

Nation’s cities. 

Finally—and more importantly—we 

pay for the heinous crime of arson in a 

way that cannot be measured—a loss 

that is beyond monetary considerations. This, of course, is the loss of 

life. Every year, Mr. President, more 

than 700 people—men, women, and children—die in arson fires. Beyond the 

deaths, there are the tortured survivors, people who often end up physically or emotionally scarred. 

National Arson Awareness Week 

sponsored by the International Association of Arson Investigators begins 

the week of May 1. It serves to remind 

us of one of the more notorious and unfortunate chapters in recent American 

history, the series of devastating fires 

set over 3 days in Los Angeles in 1992. 

May 1 is the anniversary of the day 

those fires ended. It is my sincere hope 

that by focusing on the tragedy that is 

always, in one way, associated with 

arson, we can minimize, and even bring 

an end to this horrible crime. 

As we focus attention on arson, we 

will better understand who sets fires 

and under what circumstances. Based 

on arson arrests, juveniles set approximately half of arson fires, usually as a 

way to commit vandalism. However, 

my definition of juveniles is broader 

than just teenagers. Of those arrested, 

6 percent are under 10 years old. 

However, it is the adult arsonists 

who are the most sophisticated and 

who cause the greater amount of destruction. Revenge often serves as a 

motive for their arson. In 1990, in New 

York City, a man who was angry with 

his girlfriend, set fire to the restaurant 

where she worked. The end result was 

the death of 87 people turning his hateful act into the second-deadliest fire of 

the past 30 years. 

What is being done to reduce the 

threat of arson? Many things. 

Insurance companies report information on suspicious fires to the Property 

Insurance Loss Register, a national 

database, which police and fire officials 

use to investigate fires and prosecute 

arsonists. While this is not a recent development, increased use will pay bigger dividends as the amount of information in the database grows. 

Also, firefighters have long received 

training in arson detection. Some even 

specialize in the field. They are highly 

trained and skilled in determining a 

fire’s origin. 

Recently, dogs have also assumed a 

new role, the role of a fire investigator’s best friend. These specially 

trained dogs are sometimes able to 

sniff out what started a fire, such as 

gasoline, when human investigators 

cannot. 

I am encouraged by the progress and 

the dedicated men and women who 

dedicate themselves to our safety. 

Arson Awareness Week is one way we 

can demonstrate our gratitude and encourage the rest of America to join us 

in fighting this destructive and pointless crime.∑ 

f 

DEMOCRACY IN TANZANIA 

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I speak to 

you today about an African country 

that could, this year, take another 

major step on the path toward democracy. 

The Republic of Tanzania was formed 

in 1964 through the merger of two independent States: the East African State, 

Tanganyika, and the independent island, Zanzibar. From 1965 until his retirement in 1985, President Julius 

Nyere, one of the greatest of African 

statesman, headed the Tanzanian Government. 

For most of its history, the Republic 

of Tanzania has had a single party political system. In 1985, President Nyere 

was succeeded by their current leader, 

President Ali Hassan Mwinyi in a single party election. President Mwinyi 

won that election with no opposition 

and 96 percent of the vote. In 1990, 

President Mwinyi was again the sole 

candidate in the Presidential elections. 

Again, he won with 95.5 percent of the 

votes. 

In 1992, Tanzania formally adopted 

constitutional amendments providing 

for a multiparty system. This constitutional change was not forced on the 

Government by a popular uprising. Instead, it was recommended by a Presidential commission and adopted by the 

ruling party, the Chama Cha Mapinduzi 

[CCM] party. I commend President 

Mwinyi for his leadership in moving 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS