141
HR 4539 PP1S
on a mileage basis is limited to the cost of travel by common
carrier including per diem.
‘‘(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)
and (b) of this section, in any case in which an employee
who is engaged on official business for the Government
chooses to use a privately owned vehicle in lieu of a Govern-
ment vehicle, payment on a mileage basis is limited to the
cost of travel by a Government vehicle.
‘‘(d) In addition to the rate per mile authorized under
subsection (a) of this section, the employee may be reim-
bursed for—
‘‘(1) parking fees;
‘‘(2) ferry fees;
‘‘(3) bridge, road, and tunnel costs; and
‘‘(4) airplane landing and tie-down fees.’’.
(b) Section 5707(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(b) The Administrator of General Services shall pre-
scribe the mileage reimbursement rates for use on official
business of privately owned airplanes, privately owned
automobiles, and privately owned motorcycles while en-
gaged on official business as provided for in section 5704
of this title as follows:
‘‘(1)(A) The Administrator of General Services,
in consultation with the Comptroller General of the
142
HR 4539 PP1S
United States, the Secretary of Transportation, the
Secretary of Defense, and representatives of organiza-
tions of employees of the Government, shall conduct
periodic investigations of the cost of travel and the
operation of privately owned vehicles to employees
while engaged on official business, and shall report
the results of such investigations to Congress at least
once a year.
‘‘(B) In conducting the periodic investigations,
the Administrator shall review and analyze among
other factors—
‘‘(i) depreciation of original vehicle cost;
‘‘(ii) gasoline and oil (excluding taxes);
‘‘(iii) maintenance, accessories, parts, and
tires;
‘‘(iv) insurance; and
‘‘(v) State and Federal taxes.
‘‘(2)(A) The Administrator shall issue regula-
tions under this section which—
‘‘(i) shall prescribe a mileage reimburse-
ment rate which reflects the current costs as de-
termined by the Administrator of operating pri-
vately owned automobiles, and which shall not
exceed, as provided in section 5704(a)(1) of this
143
HR 4539 PP1S
title, the single standard mileage rate established
by the Internal Revenue Service, and
‘‘(ii) shall prescribe mileage reimbursement
rates which reflect the current costs as deter-
mined by the Administrator of operating pri-
vately owned airplanes and motorcycles.
‘‘(B) At least once each year after the issuance
of the regulations described in subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph, the Administrator shall determine,
based upon the results of the cost investigation, spe-
cific figures, each rounded to the nearest half cent, of
the average, actual cost per mile during the period for
the use of a privately owned airplane, automobile,
and motorcycle.
‘‘(C) The Administrator shall report the specific
figures to Congress not later than five working days
after the Administrator makes the cost determination.
Each such report shall be printed in the Federal Reg-
ister.
‘‘(D) The mileage reimbursement rates contained
in the regulations prescribed under this section shall
be adjusted within thirty days following the submis-
sion of the report under subparagraph (C) of this
paragraph.’’.
144
HR 4539 PP1S
(c) Section 5707 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking paragraph (c)(2), and redesignating
(c)(1) as subsection (c).
Ω97æSEC. 637. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING
CANADA’S RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF UNITED
STATES CHICKENS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate makes the following find-
ings:
(1) The United States chicken industry is a
highly competitive and growing industry which em-
ploys over 200,000 people, has over 25,000 family
farms, and has significant production in over 28
States.
(2) United States exports of chickens grew by 32
percent in volume in 1993 and exports are increas-
ingly important to the continued economic vitality of
the chicken industry.
(3) Canada’s chicken supply management system
has severely limited the importation of United States
chickens to Canada since it was imposed over 15
years ago, and its elimination would lead to between
$350,000,000 and $700,000,000 in new exports to
Canada and between 7,000 and 14,000 new jobs in
the United States.
145
HR 4539 PP1S
(4) Canada’s chicken supply management system
protects Canadian chicken growers while seriously
hurting both United States and Canadian food proc-
essors, retailers, and consumers.
(5) The United States and Canada have a free
trade agreement which calls for the elimination of all
tariffs and prohibits the imposition of new tariffs on
any goods traded bilaterally.
(6) The goals of the Uruguay Round Agreement
on Agriculture are to liberalize and expand trade in
agriculture and to eliminate distortions to such trade.
(7) Canada refused to negotiate the issue of
elimination of its severe trade restrictions on the im-
portation of United States chickens as part of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (hereafter re-
ferred to as ‘‘NAFTA’’) because the issue was part of
the global trade negotiations under the Uruguay
Round.
(8) The Uruguay Round has now concluded and
the former and current United States Trade Rep-
resentative, as well as other key cabinet-level officials,
have stated that Canada will be in violation of its
NAFTA obligations if it does not eliminate its newly
imposed tariffs on chickens.
146
HR 4539 PP1S
(9) The United States chicken industry has wait-
ed patiently for access to Canadian markets, which
would be the United States largest export market for
chickens if it were fully open.
(10) NAFTA should lead to free and completely
open trade for the chicken industry between the Unit-
ed States and Canada, as it will between the United
States and Mexico.
(11) The United States and Canada are cur-
rently holding discussions to resolve this and other bi-
lateral agricultural matters.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that—
(1) the United States should reserve all current
and future rights to bring Canada into compliance
with its tariff obligations under NAFTA, including
the use of bilateral or multilateral dispute settlement
proceedings; and
(2) any agreement that is negotiated between the
United States and Canada on chickens should lead
to—
(A) substantial and immediate new market
access opportunities for United States chicken
exports in excess of the levels that have already
been achieved; and