Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The perverse operation of crop insurance is that with each successive year's drought, premiums rise but coverage decreases. That is how crop insurance works; namely, premiums rise during years of droughts and coverage declines. Some might ask, why do we need agricultural disaster assistance when we have Federal crop insurance? That is a good point. Federal crop insurance is helpful. Federal crop insurance is widely available in most parts of the country. The fact is, crop insurance today provides less coverage than is needed because of the perverse effect of the operation of the program and does not negate the need to provide natural disaster. Again, to repeat, in successive years of drought, premiums that farmers pay for Federal crop insurance rise and the coverage continues to decline with each year that passes during a natural disaster. That is the way it works because farmers have less of production history, less acreage in a prior year that is available. Add to that, when you have successive years of drought, it might rain this year, as it has in some parts of my State, but that is just the surface soil that is given moisture. It is the subsurface soil down 1, 2, 3 feet that is parched. It is so dry. A lot of crops have roots that go deeper. In addition, very dry subsurface soil has an effect on the moisture content at the surface. So there are many reasons this has just mounted. In 1996--I can only speak for Montana; I cannot speak as authoritatively for other States--before these successive years of drought began, farmers received almost $1 billion in cash receipts from wheat; $847 million, to be precise. Last year, 5 years into the drought, Montana received only $317 million in cash receipts--that is a 62-percent decline--just because of the drought. The same is true with livestock. We are talking about not only crop assistance but also livestock because in drought years feed prices are extremely high and ranchers are liquidating their herds. The range is in poor condition. It just adds up and has a very detrimental cumulative effect. Agriculture is more than 50 percent of my State's economy. It is truly the backbone of our State's economy. So a drought affects not only farmers and ranchers specifically, but it affects communities, it affects schools and businesses, because when farmers don't have a crop, what happens? They are not buying seed, they are not buying fertilizer, not buying fuel, not buying all the staples that go into agriculture. When that happens, clearly, the towns begin to suffer dramatically. It affects our schools and the income available to schools. It affects the psychology of the communities. More than that, it affects the number of people who are willing to stay and fight and live in those communities. Many communities in Montana are losing population. If we don't get this agricultural disaster assistance, I can guarantee you that the failure is going to hasten the decline of the populations in many parts of our country. I can speak personally for parts of my State of Montana. The leader made an excellent point a few minutes ago, which is that we passed a farm bill that addressed economic assistance for farmers. It is needed because the earlier farm program, ``freedom to fail'' was just that; it hurt farmers. There was no safety net. Farmers fell through the cracks and holes in the safety net. We didn't have a basic underpinning for people. Not only was it necessary for farmers to have that underpinning, but I want to remind my colleagues that we have a big battle with other countries that support their farmers much more than America supports its farmers. I also might point out an interesting statistic, which is that agricultural trade barriers worldwide average about 60 percent. Manufacturing trade barriers and tariffs average about 5 percent. We Americans have very few barriers to agricultural trade. There are some commodities, such as peanuts and sugar, that have some assistance, but when it comes to the basic commodities of wheat and barley, we have virtually no protective subsidies. We have no trade barriers to help our industries, whereas, as I mentioned before, the average agricultural trade barrier worldwide is 60 percent. So, clearly, we have to help our people when other countries are helping theirs so much more than we are. Second, in 1975, the European Union was the largest net importer of agricultural products. They didn't like that, so they started doing something about that. They decided to enact various measures within Europe, price levies, agricultural export subsidies, and similar measures. By 1985, Europe was the largest net exporter of agricultural products. That was a big turnaround in 10 years because of the degree to which they were protecting their producers. Eighty-two percent or eighty-six percent of the world's agricultural export subsidies are European Union. Their agricultural export subsidies are about 85 percent of the world's agricultural export subsidies. What are America's? Maybe 2 percent. Our Export Enhancement Program is just peanuts compared with what the Europeans do. So we have to fight and we have to help our farmers. The farm bill was to help our farmers. We are talking today about something totally different. What is it? We are not talking about assistance for low prices, we are talking about disaster assistance. When there are tornadoes, our country responds with disaster assistance. When there are floods, our country responds with disaster assistance. We had the Trade Towers tragedy--an unspeakable tragedy--and our country responded to that disaster. We are simply stating--all of us who are sponsoring this amendment--in fact, I was the original author of this amendment along with Senator Burns. We are saying here is another disaster, but not because of a tornado, earthquake, or floods, but because of the drought, people need help. There is no reason that drought should play by a different set of rules than other natural disasters. We have the opportunity today to keep our rural communities and economies alive. Rural America is resilient. And like them, I will not give up. Thousands of people are suffering from the relentless drought. They deserve emergency agricultural assistance and I will continue to fight until we are successful. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is long overdue and desperately needed. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think finally we are here. Finally we will pass agricultural disaster assistance which is so needed by many farmers and ranchers throughout our country. The amendment now pending is the amendment I offered which got 69 votes just 200 days ago. It has been modified. My colleague, Senator Burns, and I have modified the amendment so it applies to years 2001 and 2002--that is, to crop losses and livestock losses in both those years--whereas the earlier amendment I offered covered losses only in the year 2001. This has been a devastating year, in addition to 2001 being a devastating year. Mother Nature works in strange ways. Some parts of America are hit in some years rather than others. It doesn't rain in some parts of our country in some years, whereas it does in others. That is true within States. Last year was worse for my State of Montana, and this year is a little bit better, but not a lot. For Montana, it is not just 2 years of drought, it is successive years of drought. It is 4 or more years depending upon where you are located in my State. I say that not only because of the obvious implication that there are 4 years of farmers who are not producing the quality or quantity of crops that they should, but also because of the perverse way crop insurance works. I point this out to my colleagues who may not be as steeped in agricultural policy as others. I ask unanimous consent, even though we will get into morning business, that I be allowed to continue as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to thank Angela Marshall- Hofmann, who has worked on my staff for more than a decade. I first met Angela in 1990. She was a reporter for the school newspaper at Eastern Montana College during her freshman year. Angela met me at the Billings airport to do an interview, and after the interview was over, she indicated she would like to be an intern in my Billings office. I told her to come in--and she did such a great job that when a part- time position opened up, we hired her. She continued to work in the Billings office until she graduated from college. During her time in the Billings office, Angela began to develop an interest in trade issues. She worked on setting up a state visit by several Ambassadors, and helped draft an export manual for Montana's small businesses. During her senior year of college, she was encouraged to apply for the Rotary Club's International Scholarship. There is always a talented pool of students in Montana that applies for that prestigious scholarship--and Angela won it. She used it to study in France for a year, and continued to focus on international trade. When she came back from France she went to law school in Missoula and began work in our Missoula office. During her time there she got involved with the Mansfield Center and helped to plan their international conferences, including one in China. In 1997, Angela finally came east to work in our Washington, DC office, with a portfolio that included both agriculture and trade issues. During that time, she organized and traveled on trade missions to Asia and to South America. Angela has always been one of the best multitaskers I know. When she worked in the Missoula office, she was going to law school and teaching dance classes--and doing great at all three. These days, I think she has taken multitasking to a new level. With twin babies Marshall and Stephen at home and all of her responsibilities at work, she still manages to thrive. And not only does Angela thrive, she does so with a positive attitude that makes her one of the most pleasant people to work with. I doubt there is anyone who has a bad thing to say about her. And after all her years on Capitol Hill--that is really saying something. I was perhaps most proud of Angela, however, when she was asked this year to be the commencement speaker at Montana State University in Billings--formerly Eastern. She spoke as one of MSU's most distinguished alumni. I believe she inspired the graduating students to achieve and accomplish many great things--as Angela has. Angela has truly done it all--from intern, part-time staffer, and receptionist, to legislative assistant, and now international trade counsel to the Senate Finance Committee. She has worked on issues that are vital to Montana, including softwood lumber an agriculture. She has helped pass historic legislation, including Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China and this year's Trade Act. Angela--thank you for your years of hard work, for your dedication to the State of Montana, and for the service to your country. You will truly be missed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree. Circumvention definitely has been a problem for the sugar industry. Do you have some examples of such practices?

Mr. BAUCUS. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy on that subject.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the trade law provisions in the conference report. But before I begin, I first want to thank the senior Senator from Idaho, who spoke earlier today on this issue. He and I have worked very hard together over the years to defend our fair trade laws. I think every industry that faces unfair foreign trade practices owes a great deal of gratitude to Senator Craig for standing up for fair trade. I want to thank both Senator Craig and Senator Dayton for their tireless efforts during the Senate debate on the trade bill. Although the Dayton-Craig amendment was modified during the conference process, I can say without hesitation that this fast track bill contains stronger protections for U.S. trade laws than any fast track bill we have ever had. And we have those strong protections in large part because of Senator Craig and Senator Dayton. Now, there have been a lot of questions about the trade law provisions contained in this legislation, so I want to take a minute to spell them out in some detail. The conference bill protects U.S. trade laws in two ways. First, it seeks to ensure that U.S. negotiators do not sign agreements that weaken our laws. Second, it seeks to ensure that our trade remedy laws are not further weakened by WTO dispute panels--and it seeks to remedy some recent decisions that have undermined these laws. Importantly, the legislation makes protecting our U.S. trade remedy laws a principal negotiating objective. The bill instructs trade negotiators to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce rigorously its trade laws, and it provides that the U.S. should not enter into agreements that weaken those laws. I will be inserting for the record what is considered to be a weakening of the trade laws. I fully anticipate that the administration will take these concerns seriously. In addition, the bill also contains a principal negotiating objective instructing trade negotiators to address and remedy market distortions that lead to dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity, cartelization, and market-access barriers. This bill also ensures that Congress is a full partner when it comes to the issue of U.S. trade laws. The conference bill requires the President to notify Congress of proposed changes to U.S. trade laws 6 months in advance of completing an agreement. This will give Congress a chance to comment on proposed changes before an agreement is final--while there is still an opportunity to fix the agreement. The President's report will trigger a process allowing a resolution on whether the proposed trade law changes are consistent with negotiating objectives. After the President submits the report, any Member of either House may introduce a resolution stating that the proposed changes to U.S. trade laws are inconsistent with the negotiating objective that requires no weakening changes. That resolution is referred to the House Ways & Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee. If the committee reports the resolution, it will receive privileged consideration on the floor. I fully expect to bring such a resolution, if introduced, to the Finance Committee for consideration. I will not bottle up a meritorious resolution in the Committee. While committees may only report out only one resolution per agreement--either a resolution regarding U.S. trade laws or a so-called reverse fast track resolution--I would note here that fast track procedures area considered to be rules of the House and Senate. The Constitution is quite clear that either body may change those rules at any time. And if Congress's concerns regarding trade laws are not heard, I expect Congress would quickly derail an agreement. Second, this bill seeks to improve dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization. Our trading partners are now engaged in a systematic attempt to weaken our trade laws through harassing WTO litigation. They are seeking to achieve through dispute resolution what they could not achieve in negotiations. The conference bill seeks to address this problem in several ways. Like the Senate bill, the conference bill includes an overall negotiating objective instructing trade negotiators to strengthen international dispute settlement. In addition, the conference bill contains a principal negotiating objective instructing negotiators to seek adherence by dispute settlement panels to the relevant standard of review applicable under the WTO, including greater deference to the fact-finding and technical expertise of national investigating authorities. That means that these panels should not be inappropriately second- guessing the U.S. International Trade Commission or the Department of Commerce. In addition, the conference bill includes a finding expressing Congress's concerns about these recent bad decisions. In particular, the finding notes Congress's concern that dispute settlement panels appropriately apply the WTO standard of review. Under the conference bill, the Secretary of Commerce must provide a report by the end of this year setting forth the administration's strategy for addressing these concerns. Fast track procedures will not apply to legislation implementing a WTO agreement if the Secretary does not provide the report in a timely manner. I plan to submit for the record a list of WTO cases that raise particular concerns. In closing, let met simply say this: The Senate has made its views on trade laws very clear. Last year, 62 of my colleagues joined me in sending a letter noting that the Senate would not tolerate agreements that weakened our trade laws. And during the Senate debate, 61 Senators re-emphasized their support for trade laws by passing the Dayton-Craig amendment. There can now be no doubt about the Senate's resolve on this issue. Agreements that weaken our trade laws--in any way--simply will not pass. And the procedures in this fast track legislation should underscore that point.

Mr. BAUCUS. I further want to address an aspect of the Andean Trade Preference Act, which forms part of the Trade Act of 2002. The Andean Trade Preference Act grants duty-free access to certain tuna products from the Andean countries. Let me first say that I support the objective of the Andean Trade Preference Act to encourage the Andean countries in promoting economic development and fighting the drug trade. I am concerned, however, that some tuna imported into the United States under this preference program may not be legally harvested. A case was recently reported in the news in which the El Dorado, a Colombian-flagged vessel working for the Ecuadorian company Inepaca, one of the largest fish processing facilities in Latin America, was caught fishing illegally in Ecuador's Galapagos Marine Reserve. Industrial fishing in the reserve is prohibited under Ecuadorian law. The Galapagos Marine Reserve is a globally significant area that was recognized earlier this year as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In addition, the report stated that the vessel was illegally fishing for tuna using a method known as dolphin encirclement. This technique is permitted under international law only if its carried out in compliance with dolphin protection requirements imposed through the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program and other associated legal requirements. The El Dorado reportedly was not authorized to fish using this method. As a result, dolphins were trapped in the net, and over 60 dolphins were either killed or injured. It concerns me that some of the tuna that will be coming into the United States duty free under the Andean Trade Preference Act may be caught in the same way--illegally, and without respect for dolphins and other marine life. I raised this issue during the conference on the trade bill. I am concerned about our environmental and trade policies being mutually supportive. As my colleagues know, the conference report also sets out the overall trade negotiating objectives of the United States. Those objectives include ensuring that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive, and seeking to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international means of doing so, while optimizing the use of the world's resources. Moreover, the conference report makes it a principal negotiating objective to ensure that a party to a trade agreement with the United States does not fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws in a manner affecting trade. I would like to emphasize that, according to reports, the El Dorado incident was not a case where the government simply didn't know about the violation. This was a case of truly ineffective enforcement. As I understand it, the Galapagos National Park Authorities actually captured the El Dorado and took videotape of the incident. The Captain of the Port, an official of the Ecuadorian navy, fined the El Dorado's captain four cents. I think we can all agree that a fine of 4 cents does not even amount to a slap on the wrist. We are waiting to see if the Ecuadorian Government will take additional steps to further prosecute this case. I also believe that the El Dorado incident is not an isolated case. I understand that when the Galapagos National Park authorities found the El Dorado, they were in search of another vessel that had been fishing illegally in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. The Andean Trade Preference Act requires the U.S. Trade Representative to report to Congress biannually on beneficiary countries' compliance with the eligibility criteria under the Act. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I will be asking the U.S. Trade Representative to include in its biannual reports a discussion of the extent to which beneficiary countries are enforcing their environmental laws, including the prohibition on industrial fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve, and complying with their international obligations under the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program. I also note that under section 2102(c)(4) of the conference report, the President is required to conduct environmental reviews of future trade and investment agreements and to report to the Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means. It is my expectation that these reviews will take into account the extent to which trade agreement partners are effectively enforcing their environmental laws.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, my intent is that fish--wild, farm-grown, or shellfish--and inherently fishermen, be considered for the purpose of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for farmers. Also, fishermen can apply and should be eligible for the regular TAA for workers provisions. Further, there is also a study added to the conference report on the topic of fishermen and TAA. It is my hope that this study will address the recent controversy about the application of the TAA for firms to fishermen as well as provide direction on future approaches to ensuring that fishermen are treated equitably under TAA, including whether a separate TAA for Fishermen program should be created.

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Kerry. I would also like to thank you for all of your efforts in helping both in the Committee and on the floor to draft a strong bill that addresses the needs of America's businesses, farmers, and workers. It was certainly my intent as Chairman of the Finance Committee and the lead conferee on the part of the Senate to make fishermen eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers program. It is my understanding that Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers covers all commodities (including livestock) in the raw or natural state. The Trade Act of 1978, defines the term ``livestock'' to cover not only cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry (including egg-producing poultry), and equine animals used for food or in the production of food, but also ``fish used for food.'' Also, the Food for Peace program, otherwise known as P.L. 480, includes ``fish'' under its definition of ``agricultural commodity.''

Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that nothing in the conference report supercedes or repeals the provisions of law to which the Senator from California refers.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. The cap is set as a percentage of the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are available. Under current law, the applicable percentage for the 1- year period beginning October 1, 2000 was 1.5 percent. The applicable percentage increases by equal annual increments, so that for the period beginning October 1, 2007, the applicable percentage does not exceed 3.5 percent. Under that formula, the applicable percentage for the 1- year period beginning October 1, 2002 will be approximately 2.072 percent. Under section 3108(b)(1) of the conference report, that percentage will be increased by 2.17 percent. In other words, the new applicable percentage for the year beginning October 1, 2002 will be 4.242 percent. However, with respect to the increase over current law, i.e., the additional 2.17 percent in the year beginning October 1, 2002, garments must be made from regional or a mixture of regional and U.S. inputs. The conference report further provides that in future years, the applicable percentage will increase by equal increments, such that the applicable percentage for the 1-year period beginning October 1, 2007 will be not greater than 7 percent. For each year, the increase over the applicable percentage under current law pertains only to garments made from regional or a mixture of regional and U.S. inputs.

Mr. BAUCUS. I believe that such a garment would be eligible for benefits under that provision. A garment entered under the regional fabric provision of AGOA is not ineligible for benefits simply because it happens to incorporate U.S. yarns, fabrics, or components.

Mr. BAUCUS. I am very familiar with Section 5203 and its importance to the future of the domestic sugar industry, including the sugarbeet growers and processors in Montana. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Senator Breaux, Senator Craig, and Senator Thomas for the work they have been doing to address the problem of circumvention of the tariff-rate quotas on sugar and sugar-containing products.

Mr. BAUCUS. As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Co-Chair of the Conference Committee, I agree that you have accurately described this important section and its intent.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent?

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 7 minutes concluding the remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today we stand on the precipice of passing a monumental expansion of trade adjustment assistance and overdue fast track trade negotiating authority for our country. Before the debate closes, I wanted to explain how important this legislation is to my home State of Montana. Montana exports nearly a half billion dollars in products a year. We only have 900,000 people in our State. This includes $260 million in agricultural commodities, $100 million in industrial machinery, $24 million in chemical products, and $37 million in wood and paper products. We export more than $300 million to Canada, $34 million to Mexico and have significant trade with China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. In fact, just last week, Ambassador Moreno from Colombia visited Great Falls, Montana and announced a major wheat and barley purchase, with more trade opportunities to follow. And that is just the beginning--if we are willing to engage the world. This bill helps us do that by allowing the President to negotiate new agreements to open foreign markets which is so necessary to the United States, and brings down trade barriers which is so important to this country. I would like to read a letter I received from the Montana Grain Growers, Montana Stockgrowers, Montana Farm Bureau and Montana Chamber of Commerce that addresses this very point. To quote: We are aware that trade is not always free or fair, but we believe this legislation is vital in putting the United States on a similar playing field with agreements that are negotiated around the world. While we understand that trade promotion authority will not fully address inequities with existing trade agreements, we feel strongly that this is an important way of establishing long-term agreements that will help return profitability back to the producer level. I could not agree more. We need to take a seat at the negotiating table and level the playing field for our producers. It is not level today. This means taking aim at the Canadian wheat board and finally dismantling its market distorting monopoly. This means reducing foreign agricultural tariffs to levels that are the same as or lower than those in the United States. These are the same tariffs that block Montana beef exports to Korea and Japan. This means eliminating all export subsidies on agricultural commodities while maintaining bona fide food aid and export credit programs that allow the U.S. to compete with other foreign export promotion efforts. As you well know, Mr. President, the European Union maintains the lion's share of these agricultural export subsidies. You know this figure. It is 60 times more than the U.S. agricultural export subsidies--not 6, 60 times more than the United States. How can we as Americans ever expect to compete in the world if we are undersold time and time again by foreign-backed competitors? We can't. We need a trade agreement so we can begin to level that playing field and begin to eliminate those trade-distorting subsidies that are 60 times greater in one area than those of the United States. This means preventing unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions not based on sound science. For three decades we fought to pry open the Chinese market to Pacific Northwest wheat. Now we are struggling with markets in Chile and Russia that place arbitrary sanitary barriers on U.S. exports of beef, pork and poultry. This must end, to say nothing about the EU restriction on American beef. They will not take American beef. I remember meeting with Mrs. Margaret Thatcher. She admitted to me that it was a phony excuse. She said that to me personally. And, most importantly, this means promoting trade while simultaneously maintaining a strong agricultural policy that preserves our family farms and rural communities. Agriculture is not the only industry dependent on trade, however. We must continue to work to guarantee that small businesses have access to foreign markets. It is open foreign markets that create new opportunities for a Bozeman, MT company that ships trailers for mining equipment to Latin America; that allow a Missoula company to expand its nutraceutical trade; it is open foreign markets that allow our nurseries to send seeds and seedling trees to developing nations rather than fighting phony sanitary barriers. The potential for preserving good jobs--and even creating new jobs-- doesn't stop there. But there is a potential downside to trade that is also addressed by this bill. In this package we target assistance for workers who are struggling because of trade assistance for workers who are struggling because of trade by expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. Many Montana workers are now back at work and many firms are still in business thanks to TAA. Take for example, Montola Growers which is researching new markets for its safflower oil, Thirteen Mile Lamb and Wool Company which is designing new garments for manufacture by contract knitters, and Pyramid Lumber, which is improving its milling efficiency. Expanded trade adjustment assistance will help Montana workers by streamlining the process and expanding the net of eligibility. More will be eligible. In addition, a new program will provide up to $10,000 in cash assistance to Montana farmers and ranchers injured by imports. This should be a good incentive to keep Montana farmers and ranchers, their families, and future generations on the land. Good jobs will be created in Montana if we are willing to give our negotiators the strong hand needed to secure sound trade agreements, open those markets, and knock down those barriers. I hope my colleagues will feel the same about their own constituencies and lend their support to this very important matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter I quoted be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Idaho speaks, I want to thank him for all his hard work on trade remedies. And I thank him, too, for the support and for being a very strong advocate of checking American trade laws. I thank him for all that he has done.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I introduce a resolution to designate the fourth Sunday of each September as National Good Neighbor Day. Back in the 1970's, a wonderful lady from Montana named Becky Mattson came up with the idea of National Good Neighbor Day. She observed that technology was allowing the world to grow closer together. Television allowed individuals to learn about new cultures and ways of life. Wide use of the telephone was allowing people to communicate from across the globe. However, people were becoming less likely to get to know their next-door neighbor. She concluded that, as a nation, we should place greater emphasis on the importance of community and being a good neighbor. Becky believed that kids who were taught to be good neighbors would become adults who were good neighbors and that a day dedicated to this cause would be a catalyst to encourage families to be good neighbors. Becky was successful in her efforts and with the help of the late Senator Mansfield, three presidents--President Carter, President Ford, and President Nixon proclaimed the fourth Sunday of September National Good Neighbor Day. Now, in the aftermath of the events of September 11, Americans have united in an unprecedented way. Strangers, friends, colleagues, classmates, and family have exhibited the best of the human spirit in the face of enormous tragedy. From the firefighters and rescue workers in New York City and at the Pentagon to the second graders who have held bake sales to raise money for the families of victims, Americans have defined the meaning of a good neighbor. Now, when illustrating the definition of a good neighbor means more than ever before, both Becky and I believe that National Good Neighbor Day should be made permanent. Having a day designated to being a good neighbor will reinforce the strength of our communities and show our resolve to be united as a nation. I thank the co-sponsors to this resolution--Senators Burns, Miller, Levin, Cochran, Clinton, Landrieu, and Johnson and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I introduce a bill to help rural America. Now I am always trying to help Montana, but this bill will help every state. Today I introduce the MEGA RED TRANS Act. Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled Transit. Quite simply, there are transit needs not being met nationwide. This bill addresses those needs. This is the second bill in a series that I am introducing to highlight my proposals on reauthorization of TEA 21--the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Last month I introduced the MEGA TRUST Act--Maximum Growth for America Through the Highway Trust Fund. Today its MEGA RED TRANS. The Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled Transit Act or MEGA RED TRANS Act would ensure, that as Federal transit programs are reauthorized, increased funding is provided to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled and of rural and small urban areas. There is no question that our nation's large metropolitan areas have substantial transit needs that will receive attention as transit reauthorization legislation is developed. But the transit needs of rural and smaller areas, and of our elderly and disabled citizens, also require additional attention and funding. The bill would provide that additional funding in a way that does not impact other portions of the transit program. For example, while the bill would at least double every State's funding for the elderly and disabled transit program by FY 2004, nothing in the bill would reduce funding for any portion of the transit program or for any State. To the contrary, the bill would help strengthen the transit program as a whole by providing that the mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is credited with the interest on its balance. This is a key provision in the MEGA TRUST Act and is also included here in the MEGA RED TRANS Act. Specifically, the bill would set modest minimum annual apportionments, by State, for the elderly and disabled transit program, the rural transit program, and for urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000. It would ensure that each state gets a minimum of $11 million for these three programs. For my state of Montana that is double what we get for those programs currently. For some other states it is more than four times what they receive. The bill would also establish a $30 million program for essential bus service, to help connect citizens in rural communities to the rest of the world by facilitating transportation between rural areas and airports and passenger rail stations. I am very aware of the role that public transit plays in the lives of rural citizens and the elderly and disabled. When most people hear the word ``transit'' they think of a light rail system. But in rural areas transit translates to buses and vanpools. Take Elaine Miller for example. Elaine is 73 years old and lives in Missoula, MT. She depends upon the city's Mountain Line public transit system for virtually all of her transportation needs. ``It's my car!'' she says. Twelve years ago, Elaine suffered a stroke and decided that it was simply too dangerous to drive anymore. Today she takes transit to the doctor and to shop. She gets her prescriptions and meets family and friends, all using public transit. As a regular rider, however, Elaine also understands the current limitations of transit in Missoula. ``Our bus service here needs to offer more service, particularly on the weekends and the evenings. I'd like to be able to take the bus to church,'' she says. The frequency of bus service in Missoula, too, can often be an issue for Elaine. Last week, for example, she was left waiting more than two hours at a local store for the next bus to take her home. ``We seniors know how important the bus is to our quality of life. We really need more bus service. Without the bus, I know that myself and others would just have to stay home,'' says Elaine. For Elaine, increased Federal investment in public transit in Montana would mean increased bus service in Missoula. Weekend service and increased frequency on current routes, she believes, are a great need. I'd like to discuss another example of how rural transit and transit for the elderly and disabled is crucial to Montana. And I am sure we could easily find similar examples in every state. Let's talk about Kathy Collins of Helena, MT. Kathy moved to Helena in 1982 from Butte, MT, an area with no accessible transportation. In Helena, she discovered the Dial-A-Ride system, where lift-equipped vehicles could easily transport her in her wheelchair. ``It was terrific. I could get to work on time. And I could even get home on time!'' lauds Collins. While she owns a minivan that she can drive to the middle school where she teaches, she is thankful to have a transportation option in inclement weather. ``Transit gets me to and from work in the winter time. I couldn't do it without them,'' she says, ``And for people who don't work, it's a godsend. They can't afford a taxi.'' While the Dial-A-Ride system provides Collins with dependable employment transportation on weekdays, she would like to see operations expanded to evenings and weekends. ``The service is essential. You need to give people access. You need to give people control over their lives. You need to give people the mobility that the rest of the country enjoys. Just because we live in the boondocks doesn't mean we don't need to go anywhere.'' she says. I couldn't agree with her more. The MEGA RED TRANS Act will help these people and millions of others around the country. Considering the enormous impact the MEGA RED TRANS Act will have on the country, it is actually a very modest proposal. The bill would not set funding levels for the transit program as a whole, or for large transit systems. Moreover, the call for increases in the elderly and disabled, rural, and small urban area programs are not made in a static setting, but in the context of reauthorization. In reauthorization the overall transit program undoubtedly will grow by more than the modest increases required by the provisions of this bill. So, nothing in the bill would preclude growth in other aspects of the transit program. In sum, the bill stands for the proposition that, as the transit program is likely to continue to grow, no less than the funding increases proposed in this bill should be provided in order to better meet the needs of rural and small urban area transit systems and the transit needs of the elderly and disabled. I would like to thank Senators Crapo, Thomas, Johnson, Enzi, Conrad, Bingaman and Craig for joining me on this important piece of legislation. I'd also like to thank both the members and staff of the American Bus Association, The Community Transportation Association and the Amalgamated Transit Union, for their assistance with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and to work to include it in the highway and transit reauthorization, next year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I introduce a bill to help rural America. Now I am always trying to help Montana, but this bill will help every state. Today I introduce the MEGA RED TRANS Act. Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled Transit. Quite simply, there are transit needs not being met nationwide. This bill addresses those needs. This is the second bill in a series that I am introducing to highlight my proposals on reauthorization of TEA 21--the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Last month I introduced the MEGA TRUST Act--Maximum Growth for America Through the Highway Trust Fund. Today its MEGA RED TRANS. The Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Investment in Rural, Elderly and Disabled Transit Act or MEGA RED TRANS Act would ensure, that as Federal transit programs are reauthorized, increased funding is provided to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled and of rural and small urban areas. There is no question that our nation's large metropolitan areas have substantial transit needs that will receive attention as transit reauthorization legislation is developed. But the transit needs of rural and smaller areas, and of our elderly and disabled citizens, also require additional attention and funding. The bill would provide that additional funding in a way that does not impact other portions of the transit program. For example, while the bill would at least double every State's funding for the elderly and disabled transit program by FY 2004, nothing in the bill would reduce funding for any portion of the transit program or for any State. To the contrary, the bill would help strengthen the transit program as a whole by providing that the mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is credited with the interest on its balance. This is a key provision in the MEGA TRUST Act and is also included here in the MEGA RED TRANS Act. Specifically, the bill would set modest minimum annual apportionments, by State, for the elderly and disabled transit program, the rural transit program, and for urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000. It would ensure that each state gets a minimum of $11 million for these three programs. For my state of Montana that is double what we get for those programs currently. For some other states it is more than four times what they receive. The bill would also establish a $30 million program for essential bus service, to help connect citizens in rural communities to the rest of the world by facilitating transportation between rural areas and airports and passenger rail stations. I am very aware of the role that public transit plays in the lives of rural citizens and the elderly and disabled. When most people hear the word ``transit'' they think of a light rail system. But in rural areas transit translates to buses and vanpools. Take Elaine Miller for example. Elaine is 73 years old and lives in Missoula, MT. She depends upon the city's Mountain Line public transit system for virtually all of her transportation needs. ``It's my car!'' she says. Twelve years ago, Elaine suffered a stroke and decided that it was simply too dangerous to drive anymore. Today she takes transit to the doctor and to shop. She gets her prescriptions and meets family and friends, all using public transit. As a regular rider, however, Elaine also understands the current limitations of transit in Missoula. ``Our bus service here needs to offer more service, particularly on the weekends and the evenings. I'd like to be able to take the bus to church,'' she says. The frequency of bus service in Missoula, too, can often be an issue for Elaine. Last week, for example, she was left waiting more than two hours at a local store for the next bus to take her home. ``We seniors know how important the bus is to our quality of life. We really need more bus service. Without the bus, I know that myself and others would just have to stay home,'' says Elaine. For Elaine, increased Federal investment in public transit in Montana would mean increased bus service in Missoula. Weekend service and increased frequency on current routes, she believes, are a great need. I'd like to discuss another example of how rural transit and transit for the elderly and disabled is crucial to Montana. And I am sure we could easily find similar examples in every state. Let's talk about Kathy Collins of Helena, MT. Kathy moved to Helena in 1982 from Butte, MT, an area with no accessible transportation. In Helena, she discovered the Dial-A-Ride system, where lift-equipped vehicles could easily transport her in her wheelchair. ``It was terrific. I could get to work on time. And I could even get home on time!'' lauds Collins. While she owns a minivan that she can drive to the middle school where she teaches, she is thankful to have a transportation option in inclement weather. ``Transit gets me to and from work in the winter time. I couldn't do it without them,'' she says, ``And for people who don't work, it's a godsend. They can't afford a taxi.'' While the Dial-A-Ride system provides Collins with dependable employment transportation on weekdays, she would like to see operations expanded to evenings and weekends. ``The service is essential. You need to give people access. You need to give people control over their lives. You need to give people the mobility that the rest of the country enjoys. Just because we live in the boondocks doesn't mean we don't need to go anywhere.'' she says. I couldn't agree with her more. The MEGA RED TRANS Act will help these people and millions of others around the country. Considering the enormous impact the MEGA RED TRANS Act will have on the country, it is actually a very modest proposal. The bill would not set funding levels for the transit program as a whole, or for large transit systems. Moreover, the call for increases in the elderly and disabled, rural, and small urban area programs are not made in a static setting, but in the context of reauthorization. In reauthorization the overall transit program undoubtedly will grow by more than the modest increases required by the provisions of this bill. So, nothing in the bill would preclude growth in other aspects of the transit program. In sum, the bill stands for the proposition that, as the transit program is likely to continue to grow, no less than the funding increases proposed in this bill should be provided in order to better meet the needs of rural and small urban area transit systems and the transit needs of the elderly and disabled. I would like to thank Senators Crapo, Thomas, Johnson, Enzi, Conrad, Bingaman and Craig for joining me on this important piece of legislation. I'd also like to thank both the members and staff of the American Bus Association, The Community Transportation Association and the Amalgamated Transit Union, for their assistance with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and to work to include it in the highway and transit reauthorization, next year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Parliamentary inquiry: When may Senators speak after the vote?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be the first to be able to speak afterwards for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.