Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill I had introduced during the 107th Congress, which will provide for the use and distribution of judgment funds awarded to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in northeast Montana. In 1987, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation brought suit against the United States to recover interest earned on their trust funds while those funds were in Special Deposit and IMPL-Agency accounts. The case was filed in the U.S. Claims court, and docketed as No. 773-87-L. After the court ruled that the United States was liable to the Fort Peck Tribes and individual Indians for interest on those funds, the tribes and the United States reached an agreement for settling the claims in the case, for the sum of $4,522,551.84. The court approved the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement further provided that the judgment be divided between the Fort Peck Tribes and those individual Indians who are found to be eligible to share in the judgment. On January 31, 2001, the court approved a stipulation between the parties that defined the procedures by which the Fort Peck Tribes' and individual Indians' respective shares in the judgment would be determined and distributed to them. Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation in the case, on February 14, 2001, a portion of the tribe's share of the judgment was deposited into an account in Treasury for the use of the Fort Peck Tribes. As provided by the court-approved stipulation, those funds are to be available for immediate use by the tribe pursuant to a plan adopted under the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, 25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The court-approved stipulation further recognized that the tribe will most likely receive additional payments from this settlement once the work identifying all individuals eligible to share in the judgment is complete and the pro rata shares are finally computed. Those funds, too, are to be available for use by the tribe in accord with a plan adopted under the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act. As required by the stipulation and the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, the tribe developed a plan for the use of the tribe's share of the settlement. Under the plan, the Tribe's share of the judgment will be used for tribal health, education, housing, and social services programs. The tribe submitted its plan to the Department of the Interior for review and approval. Public hearings were held during which the views and recommendations of tribal members were heard regarding the plan. The tribe has been advised that the Department of Interior has no objection to the tribe's plan and can approve it. However, although the plan was developed and public hearing held during 2001, the Interior Department did not complete its review of the plan, nor submit the approved plan to Congress within the 1-year deadline imposed by the Tribal Judgment Fund Use or Distribution Act. As a result, in order for the Fort Peck Tribe to make use of the judgment awarded to the tribe, it is necessary for Congress to formally adopt legislation approving the tribe's plan. The proposed bill language, would serve this purpose. This judgment is based on money that rightfully belongs to the Fort Peck tribes and should be moved expeditiously through Congress. I look forward to working with the Committee on Indian Affairs to move this legislation forward.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill I had introduced during the 107th Congress, which will provide for the use and distribution of judgment funds awarded to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in northeast Montana. In 1987, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation brought suit against the United States to recover interest earned on their trust funds while those funds were in Special Deposit and IMPL-Agency accounts. The case was filed in the U.S. Claims court, and docketed as No. 773-87-L. After the court ruled that the United States was liable to the Fort Peck Tribes and individual Indians for interest on those funds, the tribes and the United States reached an agreement for settling the claims in the case, for the sum of $4,522,551.84. The court approved the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement further provided that the judgment be divided between the Fort Peck Tribes and those individual Indians who are found to be eligible to share in the judgment. On January 31, 2001, the court approved a stipulation between the parties that defined the procedures by which the Fort Peck Tribes' and individual Indians' respective shares in the judgment would be determined and distributed to them. Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation in the case, on February 14, 2001, a portion of the tribe's share of the judgment was deposited into an account in Treasury for the use of the Fort Peck Tribes. As provided by the court-approved stipulation, those funds are to be available for immediate use by the tribe pursuant to a plan adopted under the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, 25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The court-approved stipulation further recognized that the tribe will most likely receive additional payments from this settlement once the work identifying all individuals eligible to share in the judgment is complete and the pro rata shares are finally computed. Those funds, too, are to be available for use by the tribe in accord with a plan adopted under the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act. As required by the stipulation and the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, the tribe developed a plan for the use of the tribe's share of the settlement. Under the plan, the Tribe's share of the judgment will be used for tribal health, education, housing, and social services programs. The tribe submitted its plan to the Department of the Interior for review and approval. Public hearings were held during which the views and recommendations of tribal members were heard regarding the plan. The tribe has been advised that the Department of Interior has no objection to the tribe's plan and can approve it. However, although the plan was developed and public hearing held during 2001, the Interior Department did not complete its review of the plan, nor submit the approved plan to Congress within the 1-year deadline imposed by the Tribal Judgment Fund Use or Distribution Act. As a result, in order for the Fort Peck Tribe to make use of the judgment awarded to the tribe, it is necessary for Congress to formally adopt legislation approving the tribe's plan. The proposed bill language, would serve this purpose. This judgment is based on money that rightfully belongs to the Fort Peck tribes and should be moved expeditiously through Congress. I look forward to working with the Committee on Indian Affairs to move this legislation forward.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Free Trade with Cuba Act of 2003. This legislation presents an important step toward normalizing United States economic relations with Cuba and opening a dialog between our two nations. Perhaps more importantly, the bill promotes human rights and democracy in a nation that has suffered under totalitarian rule for more than 4 decades, an objective central to the same democratic principles that have driven our foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. The Free Trade with Cuba Act contains three essential components. First, it lifts the trade embargo against Cuba and eliminates the travel ban that accompanies the embargo. Second, it graduates Cuba from Jackson-Vanik and authorizes the President to extend nondiscriminatory trade treatment to Cuba. Finally, it removes the restrictions on travel between our two countries. This legislation is similar to the legislation I introduced in the last Congress, S. 400 and S. 401. That legislation was referred to the Finance Committee. I am hopeful the committee can pass favorably on this legislation quickly so we can bring it to the floor and pass it. This legislation is long overdue. In 1962, the United States embargoed virtually all trade with Cuba as a response to the rise of the totalitarian regime and seizure of American property. Over the years, U.S. sanctions against Cuba were further tightened, culminating with restrictions on the rights of Americans to visit Cuba. Within the context of the cold war, many of these sanctions seemed to make sense. Yet throughout that time the embargo appeared to have little, if any, effect on the Castro regime. Forty years of the embargo, 4 decades of disengagement, have simply not worked. It is time to try a new approach. It is time for engagement. Supporters of the embargo throw out many arguments against the legislation. First, they will say that private property of U.S. citizens that was taken in the early days of the Castro regime compels us to refuse trade with Cuba until we get the property back. They point out horrendous treatment of Cuban citizens by Castro and denial of the most basic human rights is also a reason. Let us be clear. These are problems and they must be resolved. Yet, the debate is not whether these problems exist. They do exist, of course, they exist. That is not the issue. We all know that. The question, rather, is how to solve it. Forty years of embargo have done nothing to regain private assets taken so long ago by Castro and 40 years of embargo have done nothing to improve the living conditions and prospects for democratic reform in Cuba. I have been to Cuba and visited Cuba. The people are in terrible shape. If anything, the embargo has lessened the prospects for reform by giving Castro someone else to blame for the terrible economic plight of his people. This embargo, frankly, is something Castro loves. It is a foil. He can blame the United States for some of the ills of his citizens. It is working in the opposite direction. In other words, while the problems may seem complicated, the one thing we can say we do know for certain is this: Current policy is not the answer; the current policy is a failure. We must look to alternatives. How would this legislation resolve these problems? First, as to expropriation, the legislation I am proposing today calls for the President to undertake negotiations with the government of Cuba to settle this issue and make sure those harmed by this expropriation are fairly compensated. Second, as to the crucial issues of human rights and democratic reform, the legislation simply reflects the commonsense truth that engagement between the American and Cuban peoples will do much more to open Cuban society and help Cuban people, as it has around the world for 200 years, than silence and neglect--so similar to the question we had of China not too many years ago. What did we do with China? The answer was very simple: We engaged. We engaged without losing. China is a country. We are a country. Let's engage again. The same is true for Cuba: They are a country, we are a country, let's start talking and figure out how to solve things. We should not delude ourselves. Embargo is a word for neglect. By not engaging the Cuban people and opening our world and tradition to them, we are neglecting them. Last year we worked hard to further trade liberalization, passing the Trade Act of 2002. When the President signed that bill he said this: Free trade is also a proven strategy for building global prosperity and adding to the momentum of political freedom. Greater freedom for commerce across the borders eventually leads to greater freedom for citizens within the borders. I agree. This statement is as true for Cuba as it is for any other country. Third, on the economics of this, sure, we are in tough times. The economy is flat. Our farmers and workers are hurting, but there is a market worth up to $1 billion a year we are shutting ourselves out, denying ourselves. It makes no sense. The embargo against Cuba accomplishes nothing, and hurts our farmers and workers and companies by excluding them from a great potential market. Meanwhile, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Canada, dozens of other countries, are busy selling goods and building commercial relations in Cuba. We are not. They are. Ask me the rationale of that. There is a final point regarding the basic rights of freedoms of the American people. It is a fundamental violation of the spirit of our democratic principles to tell the American people they cannot travel to Cuba. What a sad irony is trying to promote freedom and democracy in another country by restricting it in our own. It is time to get real about this. It is time to get real about promoting freedom and democracy, it is time to get real regarding economic expansion, and it is time to end the embargo.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Free Trade with Cuba Act of 2003. This legislation presents an important step toward normalizing United States economic relations with Cuba and opening a dialog between our two nations. Perhaps more importantly, the bill promotes human rights and democracy in a nation that has suffered under totalitarian rule for more than 4 decades, an objective central to the same democratic principles that have driven our foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. The Free Trade with Cuba Act contains three essential components. First, it lifts the trade embargo against Cuba and eliminates the travel ban that accompanies the embargo. Second, it graduates Cuba from Jackson-Vanik and authorizes the President to extend nondiscriminatory trade treatment to Cuba. Finally, it removes the restrictions on travel between our two countries. This legislation is similar to the legislation I introduced in the last Congress, S. 400 and S. 401. That legislation was referred to the Finance Committee. I am hopeful the committee can pass favorably on this legislation quickly so we can bring it to the floor and pass it. This legislation is long overdue. In 1962, the United States embargoed virtually all trade with Cuba as a response to the rise of the totalitarian regime and seizure of American property. Over the years, U.S. sanctions against Cuba were further tightened, culminating with restrictions on the rights of Americans to visit Cuba. Within the context of the cold war, many of these sanctions seemed to make sense. Yet throughout that time the embargo appeared to have little, if any, effect on the Castro regime. Forty years of the embargo, 4 decades of disengagement, have simply not worked. It is time to try a new approach. It is time for engagement. Supporters of the embargo throw out many arguments against the legislation. First, they will say that private property of U.S. citizens that was taken in the early days of the Castro regime compels us to refuse trade with Cuba until we get the property back. They point out horrendous treatment of Cuban citizens by Castro and denial of the most basic human rights is also a reason. Let us be clear. These are problems and they must be resolved. Yet, the debate is not whether these problems exist. They do exist, of course, they exist. That is not the issue. We all know that. The question, rather, is how to solve it. Forty years of embargo have done nothing to regain private assets taken so long ago by Castro and 40 years of embargo have done nothing to improve the living conditions and prospects for democratic reform in Cuba. I have been to Cuba and visited Cuba. The people are in terrible shape. If anything, the embargo has lessened the prospects for reform by giving Castro someone else to blame for the terrible economic plight of his people. This embargo, frankly, is something Castro loves. It is a foil. He can blame the United States for some of the ills of his citizens. It is working in the opposite direction. In other words, while the problems may seem complicated, the one thing we can say we do know for certain is this: Current policy is not the answer; the current policy is a failure. We must look to alternatives. How would this legislation resolve these problems? First, as to expropriation, the legislation I am proposing today calls for the President to undertake negotiations with the government of Cuba to settle this issue and make sure those harmed by this expropriation are fairly compensated. Second, as to the crucial issues of human rights and democratic reform, the legislation simply reflects the commonsense truth that engagement between the American and Cuban peoples will do much more to open Cuban society and help Cuban people, as it has around the world for 200 years, than silence and neglect--so similar to the question we had of China not too many years ago. What did we do with China? The answer was very simple: We engaged. We engaged without losing. China is a country. We are a country. Let's engage again. The same is true for Cuba: They are a country, we are a country, let's start talking and figure out how to solve things. We should not delude ourselves. Embargo is a word for neglect. By not engaging the Cuban people and opening our world and tradition to them, we are neglecting them. Last year we worked hard to further trade liberalization, passing the Trade Act of 2002. When the President signed that bill he said this: Free trade is also a proven strategy for building global prosperity and adding to the momentum of political freedom. Greater freedom for commerce across the borders eventually leads to greater freedom for citizens within the borders. I agree. This statement is as true for Cuba as it is for any other country. Third, on the economics of this, sure, we are in tough times. The economy is flat. Our farmers and workers are hurting, but there is a market worth up to $1 billion a year we are shutting ourselves out, denying ourselves. It makes no sense. The embargo against Cuba accomplishes nothing, and hurts our farmers and workers and companies by excluding them from a great potential market. Meanwhile, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Canada, dozens of other countries, are busy selling goods and building commercial relations in Cuba. We are not. They are. Ask me the rationale of that. There is a final point regarding the basic rights of freedoms of the American people. It is a fundamental violation of the spirit of our democratic principles to tell the American people they cannot travel to Cuba. What a sad irony is trying to promote freedom and democracy in another country by restricting it in our own. It is time to get real about this. It is time to get real about promoting freedom and democracy, it is time to get real regarding economic expansion, and it is time to end the embargo.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding for the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax by eliminating the assessment of the tax against custom gunsmiths. The creation of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund is one of the great success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry. Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat conservation. Under the tax code, all manufacturers of firearms must pay an excise tax of 10 percent or 11 percent of the retail price, depending on the type of firearm. For more than 25 years custom gunsmiths have sought to clarify that they were not intended to be subject to this tax. Many custom gunsmiths do not actually make new guns, rather they remodel or refurbish existing firearms. The proposal establishes an exemption from the excise tax for manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms per year. This issue is important to individuals in Montana. Steven Dodd Hughes, a custom gunmaker in Livingston, MT, pays this tax. He has a sole proprietorship, a one man shop. Steven's business is generated from outside of Montana and brings in much needed revenue to his community. He agrees with the tax as it was intended, on manufacturers. It was not intended to be applied to one man operations such as his. The American Custom Gunmakers Guild and the NRA agree with Mr. Hughes. In summary, the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003 would accomplish two worthy objectives. First, this proposal will eliminate the assessment of the excise tax on custom gunmakers, which is fair. Second it eliminates the significant administrative burden placed on small businesses, such as determining who the manufacturer is and who is going to assess and collect the tax. These custom gunmakers rebuild and update the firearms, they don't administer tax laws. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the proposal will decrease revenues by less than $10 million over ten years, resulting in minimal reduction of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill entitled ``The Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding for the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax by eliminating the assessment of the tax against custom gunsmiths. The creation of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund is one of the great success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry. Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat conservation. Under the tax code, all manufacturers of firearms must pay an excise tax of 10 percent or 11 percent of the retail price, depending on the type of firearm. For more than 25 years custom gunsmiths have sought to clarify that they were not intended to be subject to this tax. Many custom gunsmiths do not actually make new guns, rather they remodel or refurbish existing firearms. The proposal establishes an exemption from the excise tax for manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms per year. This issue is important to individuals in Montana. Steven Dodd Hughes, a custom gunmaker in Livingston, MT, pays this tax. He has a sole proprietorship, a one man shop. Steven's business is generated from outside of Montana and brings in much needed revenue to his community. He agrees with the tax as it was intended, on manufacturers. It was not intended to be applied to one man operations such as his. The American Custom Gunmakers Guild and the NRA agree with Mr. Hughes. In summary, the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003 would accomplish two worthy objectives. First, this proposal will eliminate the assessment of the excise tax on custom gunmakers, which is fair. Second it eliminates the significant administrative burden placed on small businesses, such as determining who the manufacturer is and who is going to assess and collect the tax. These custom gunmakers rebuild and update the firearms, they don't administer tax laws. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the proposal will decrease revenues by less than $10 million over ten years, resulting in minimal reduction of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill entitled ``The Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, one of the great privileges of being a Member of the Senate is to recommend to the President names of people who should be members of the Federal judiciary--that is either the Federal district court, circuit court of appeals, but certainly not the U.S. Supreme Court because that is out of the purview of recommendations by a single Senator. Since I have been in the Senate, I have been able to recommend to a Democratic President at least two. We are not a large State so we have the opportunity to only recommend two people to the Federal bench. The first one I was able to recommend was a circuit court of appeals judge and the second was a district court judge. This decision was so important to me that I went out of my way to make sure whoever I recommended to President Clinton at the time would be someone the President would want to nominate to be confirmed as a member of the circuit court of appeals. In this case it was the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Montana is included in the Ninth Circuit. What did I do? First, I went out of my way to put together a group of Montanans--6, 7, 8, 10 Montanans--and I selected the best folks I could find in my home State to represent a cross-section, a broad array of interests and points of view. Some were lawyers; some were not lawyers. I said to each one of them: I want you to suggest to me the very best three people in the State of Montana who should serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I do not care whether they are Republicans. I do not care whether they are Democrats, liberals, conservatives; I just want the best, the most solid people, the people who have deep common sense, have a tremendous sense of history in our country, the highest integrity. I just want the best. The committee I appointed came back to me several weeks, maybe a month later with three names. I sat down with each of the three for an interview, and I spent about 3 hours with each of the three to try to determine for myself who was the best person that President Clinton could nominate from Montana to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was a very difficult process. It was very difficult because the three the group suggested to me were all very good. I made a selection finally. It was Mr. Sid Thomas, who President Clinton appointed and who now sits on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has been a tremendous credit to not just the State of Montana and the Ninth Circuit, but the Nation. In fact, many members of the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court, talked to me specifically about Judge Thomas and indicated to me they are very proud of him. He is a ``solid person,'' a very solid man, a solid judge. The second instance was virtually the same. I put together another group. There was an opening in the Federal district court in Montana. I put together seven, eight, to nine people I thought would do a terrific job in coming up with the very best person to sit on the Federal district court in Montana. I interviewed each of the three persons the group gave me. I had the same criteria for the committee: I want the best. I do not care if they have brown eyes or blue eyes. I do not care if there is any acid test. That is not relevant to me. I want the very best, most solid, thoughtful people with the highest integrity and a deep sense of the law and history of our State and our Nation. I do not care whether they are Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives--that does not mean anything to me. I just want the best. They came up with three names. I interviewed the three people. I, again, had the excruciating choice to make because they were all very good. I made a selection finally, and I recommended to President Clinton a person who I think has done great credit to the U.S. Federal district court in Montana, Judge Don Malloy. I can tell you, the bar in Montana thinks he is terrific. The plaintiffs bar, the defense bar--they all have the highest regard for him. Why? Because he is smart, he is hard working, and he does not play favorites. He is what a Federal district court judge should be. Why do I say all that? I say that because we are now faced with whether or not the Senate should confirm to the DC Court of Appeals Miguel Estrada. Should we or should we not? Let me roll back history a bit. Several years ago, I was on the Judiciary Committee. In fact, it was quite a few years ago. At that time, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not then a Justice, was nominated by the President to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. With all deference to Justice O'Connor, that was the first time, at least in my memory, when a nominee essentially did not answer very many questions. I asked her questions, other members of the committee asked her questions, and she essentially began this tradition of not answering the questions. Again, I have the highest regard for Justice O'Connor. I think she has been a great Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It bothered me as a member of the Judiciary Committee that a nominee was not answering questions. It just did not seem right. We at that time decided, OK, she seems like a very good person. She was in the State senate in her home State of New Mexico, so let's vote to confirm her. We are now faced with the situation where Mr. Estrada is not answering any questions whatsoever, and he is not providing other information to the committee. I am not now on the Judiciary Committee but I take this responsibility of whether or not the Senate should confirm a nominee to the circuit court of appeals, Federal district court, or the U.S. Supreme Court very seriously. I know all of us in this body do. There are not very many decisions we can make that will be more important. There are not very many. Why is that? That is because these are lifetime appointments. Mr. President, you run for reelection, I do, everybody in this body, every few years, every 6 years. Everybody in the other body runs for reelection every 2 years. Every Governor runs every 4 years, sometimes 2 years. Every President runs every 4 years, except those who cannot run because of the constitutional requirement. We face voters. We are held accountable. Voters have a chance to either reelect us or not. But boy, once someone is put in the U.S. Federal judiciary, an article III position, that is for life. I believe that is the way it should be. Why? Because these are the people we want to be totally impartial to do what is right and not be swayed by temporary whims and vogues of the moment. We try not to as elected officers. It is our job to represent people in our State. If they want something, we should give that to people, given what we think makes sense and is right for our home States and right for the country. Federal judges are held to a different standard. State judges are not lifetime appointments. I do not know any who are. Federal judges are appointed for life. That is a huge responsibility they have. We have to make sure we get the right people. It is our responsibility. When voters elect us, they basically say: Senator, we do not know all the ins and outs of what goes on in Washington, DC, but we want you to do the right thing. Just do not do something nutty or crazy, but, basically, do the right thing. Most people give us a lot of latitude. So long as it sounds right, fits right, and smells right, it really is all right. It does not sound right, it does not fit right, it does not smell right, it does not seem right, for this body to confirm somebody who will not answer any questions, who will not give us relevant information, and who has no prior history so it is hard for us to know. I will bet this: At that Justice Department and perhaps at the White House, they sat down with Mr. Estrada and asked him a lot of questions. I bet he gave them a lot of answers. I bet there is somebody in this operation who is supporting his nomination in the executive branch who knows a lot about Mr. Estrada, who had long conversations with him. If they did, which is entirely proper--in fact, it is imperative and an obligation they have to ask him questions, particularly before the President suggests a nominee for the DC Court of Appeals. If they do, so should we have the information in the Senate. We have an equal responsibility to know how he feels about certain issues. I am not saying he should address how he feels about certain cases decided by the Supreme Court or cases decided by even the court of appeals. I am not asking for that because judges have to be impartial. I am saying we have a responsibility to know who this fellow is: What makes him tick? What does he really think about? What are his values? What does he stand for? Will he be impartial? What does he think about our Constitution? What does he think about the court as the third branch of Government? There are tons of questions one could come up with, and we have that responsibility. Why do I say we have that responsibility? I have already said it is a lifetime appointment, but in addition the Constitution tells us we have that responsibility. The advice and consent provision is in the U.S. Constitution. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they debated the advice and consent clause. They did not know what it should provide. There are various interpretations, but they knew it was very serious. One interpretation, that is one view, that was advanced very seriously when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, was this: That the Senate should send a selection of three, four, or five names to the President and then the President makes the decision. The Senate would give the names to the President and then the President would decide. It is kind of like what I did a little bit when I was interviewing people in Montana. I got a bunch of names of the best people, and I made a decision who I thought was the best person. Why did our Founding Fathers really wrestle over this question over what the proper mechanism would be for the Senate to jointly decide with the President who should or should not be on the Federal judiciary? It is pretty simple. It is our third branch of Government. It is the third of the three branches of Government, and it is not right that one branch of Government should dictate who does or who does not sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. That is not right. Rather, it is a joint decision. It is a decision which, just as the President took very seriously, we have an obligation to take equally seriously. It reminds me a little bit of a number of years ago when an earlier President, President Franklin Roosevelt, decided he did not agree with the Supreme Court decisions. What did he do? He came up with an idea to add more Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is colloquially referred to as court packing by President Roosevelt. The Senate stood up. It said: No, that is the wrong thing to do. I am very proud to say that the Senator who stood up was from Montana. It was Senator Burton Kendall Wheeler. He said: No, it is not the right thing to do. Just as he stood up, I think we have an obligation in the Senate to stand up when it is the wrong thing to do; that is, to pass judgment on--to agree with the President's nominee where we have no information, where he will not answer questions, he will not tell us what he thinks. What is this person really all about? What is the sense of the man? Where is he? Where is his soul? Who is he? That is what we have to determine in deciding whether he should be placed on the DC Court of Appeals. And I say that very respectfully. I might add that the DC Court of Appeals is no ordinary, garden variety appellate court. It is a special appellate court, and that is because so many decisions made by Federal agencies go to the DC Court of Appeals as opposed to the Ninth Circuit or the Fourth Circuit. There are so many of them. There are environmental laws, for example, and labor laws that go primarily to the DC Court of Appeals, for which Mr. Estrada has been nominated, much more than to other courts. These decisions affect all of us around the country. They do not just affect the DC Circuit or people who reside in the DC Circuit. They affect all Americans. The DC Court of Appeals jurisdiction extends to the National Labor Relations Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Elections Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency. Obviously, decisions made by those agencies have a great effect on all Americans. When they are reviewed by the DC Court of Appeals, the decisions the DC Court of Appeals makes certainly have the same effect upon all Americans. Those rulings affect our workers, our businesses, our national environment, our families, and our homes. They affect political elections. They affect directly the present occupant of the chair, just as they affect me directly. About 50 percent of the DC Court's caseload consists of appeals from regulations or decisions made by Federal agencies. Fifty percent of the DC Court of Appeals caseload is appeals of Federal agencies. In many cases, the DC Court of Appeals is the last word, too, on Federal decisions. We all know this. The U.S. Supreme Court is taking fewer cases on appeal. The caseload of the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen off dramatically in the last couple or 3 years, which means that the courts of appeals' rulings are that much more important. They are almost like a supreme court in many respects because the U.S. Supreme Court is taking fewer cases. I will give an example of the power of the DC Court of Appeals in my State of Montana. This is Montana. Don't forget we are in the Ninth Circuit--not the DC Circuit--as is the State of the Presiding Officer. The DC Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over cases brought against the Environmental Protection Agency, particularly regarding the Superfund. I know in the Presiding Officer's State there are huge Superfund issues. They are dramatic. Superfund is tremendously important to my home State of Montana as well. In the town of Libby, MT, for example, they have suffered from decades of asbestos contamination at the hands of W.R. Grace. It is just tragic. It happened to the people of Libby, MT. As a result, Superfund cleanup efforts are now taking place in an attempt to make the town and its residents whole again. It is a gigantic undertaking. Libby is not the only Superfund site. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have Superfund sites around the country. In Montana, for example, we have the largest Superfund site in the Nation. It is called the Clark Fork Basin. It starts up in Butte and ends up eventually down in the State of the Presiding Officer. It is huge. These sites threaten the health and well-being of so many people not only in my State but in other States as well. When Congress created the Superfund, our goal was to ensure that the public health and environment were protected and made whole, particularly the cleanup. So decisions made by the DC Court of Appeals overseeing the Environmental Protection Agency obviously greatly influence whether the intent of the law is actually fulfilled on the ground; that is, in Montana or any other State in the Nation, because EPA is all over America. It is not only the Ninth Circuit where the Presiding Officer and I live. There is no question that in the State of Montana we have a terrific interest, a big interest, in who sits on the DC Circuit Court, given that court's influence over our Nation's health, safety, and welfare laws. Different Members may disagree with different decisions made by the DC Court of Appeals, but we do agree we want a very thoughtful, fully considered, and impartial decision. That is what we want. That is what we expect. That is why, in my judgment, this body has to go to extraordinary lengths to determine whether nominees to the courts of appeals, district courts, and the Supreme Court, are the right people. It is our duty. We cannot just pass it off and say, oh, the President appointed him. We cannot stop there. It would be irresponsible. When we are elected, we are elected by people in our States to hold up the Constitution of the United States. Certainly the President can appoint, but just as certainly the Senate has the right and, indeed, the obligation to advise and consent and, given the tradition of the advice and consent clause and balance of powers, give it the same weight as the President. That is why I think at the bare minimum the Senate has the right to ask for more information. Who is this man? Find out more about him. Look at his writings. What is he hiding? What is there to hide? We all know the more information in the public arena, the more likely it is we will make the right decision. We know that. It is only proper the White House ask Mr. Estrada to answer some questions and give some information. This is not rocket science. This is pretty easy. This is simple stuff. I do not feel it is proper for the Senate to confirm Mr. Estrada. This is very important. I cannot think of many decisions we make that are ultimately more important, particularly regarding the DC Court of Appeals. We may have different conclusions when he gives us information, but at least he should talk to us. (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the submission of S. 396 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my good friend and colleague, Senator Bunning today in introducing legislation that will repeal the Special Occupational Tax, (SOT), on taxpayers who manufacture, distribute, and sell alcoholic beverages. The special occupational tax is not a tax on alcoholic products, but rather operates as a license fee on businesses. The tax is imposed on those engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages. Believe it or not, this tax was originally established to help finance the Civil War. That war is over, and this inequitable tax has outlived its original purpose. Clearly an example of an anticipated approach to Federal taxation, repealing the SOT has an element of simplification in it. The SOT on alcohol dramatically increased during the budget process in 1988 and has unfairly burdened business owners across the country since. From Thompson Falls to Sidney, from Chinook to Billings, small businesses are burdened with yet another tax in the form of the SOT. According to the ATF, there are 480,427 locations nationwide that pay SOT's every year, including 485,603 retailers. These retail establishments account for $114 million out of $126 million in SOT revenues. In Montana, there are 3,378 locations, including 3,254 restaurants and 494 convenience stores, which pay nearly $2 million dollars in the SOT every year. Seasonal resorts in Whitefish and Yellowstone, ``mom and pop'' convenience stores in Butte, and allowing alleys, flower shops, and restaurants across Montana, and the United States, pay the Federal Government almost $100 million per year for the privilege of running businesses that sell beer, wine, or alcoholic beverages. The SOT is extremely regressive. Retailers must annually pay $250 per location; wholesalers pay $500; vintners and distillers pay $1000. Because the SOT is levied on a per location basis, a sole proprietorship must pay the same amount as one of the Nation's largest retailers, and locally-owned chains having to pay per location, would have to pay as much as, if not more than, the Nation's largest single site brewery. In testimony before the Finance Committee last spring, a small business owner from Helena, MT who runs four convenience stores and three restaurants said it best. ``Whether it's a seasonal restaurant, an Elks Lodge or American Legion, a bowling center, campground, a florist who delivers gift baskets containing wine, or a convenience store operator, no one is spared from the tax.'' This is not what Congress had in mind 150 years ago, and I don't believe it's a situation we want today. Repealing the SOT on alcohol is supported by a broad-based group of business organizations and enjoys wide-spread bipartisan support on Capital Hill. Similar legislation is being introduced in the House today, and a bill, identical to this one, was introduced in the previous Congress, but for one reason or another, the law was not enacted. The legislation preserves ATF's record-keeping requirements, while removing the agency's enforcement burden, and will save up to $2 million per year. The GAO examined SOT efficacy several times, and found it fundamentally flawed. The Joint Committee on Taxation called for the elimination of SOT in its June 2001 simplification study. More than 90 percent of all SOT revenue comes from retailers--a great majority of that number are small businesses. Recently, President Bush met with a group of small business owners and employees in St. Louis. He said, ``The best way to encourage job growth is to let [small businesses] keep more of their own money, so they can invest in their business and make it easier for somebody to find work.'' Repealing the SOT would provide an immediate and visible tax cut to small business owners. Now, as the Federal Government considers ways to provide additional economic stimulus to the people who need it most, the time is right for us to move forward and enact this legislation to repeal the SOT an alcohol. We urge our colleagues to join us in this endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my good friend and colleague, Senator Bunning today in introducing legislation that will repeal the Special Occupational Tax, (SOT), on taxpayers who manufacture, distribute, and sell alcoholic beverages. The special occupational tax is not a tax on alcoholic products, but rather operates as a license fee on businesses. The tax is imposed on those engaged in the business of selling alcohol beverages. Believe it or not, this tax was originally established to help finance the Civil War. That war is over, and this inequitable tax has outlived its original purpose. Clearly an example of an anticipated approach to Federal taxation, repealing the SOT has an element of simplification in it. The SOT on alcohol dramatically increased during the budget process in 1988 and has unfairly burdened business owners across the country since. From Thompson Falls to Sidney, from Chinook to Billings, small businesses are burdened with yet another tax in the form of the SOT. According to the ATF, there are 480,427 locations nationwide that pay SOT's every year, including 485,603 retailers. These retail establishments account for $114 million out of $126 million in SOT revenues. In Montana, there are 3,378 locations, including 3,254 restaurants and 494 convenience stores, which pay nearly $2 million dollars in the SOT every year. Seasonal resorts in Whitefish and Yellowstone, ``mom and pop'' convenience stores in Butte, and allowing alleys, flower shops, and restaurants across Montana, and the United States, pay the Federal Government almost $100 million per year for the privilege of running businesses that sell beer, wine, or alcoholic beverages. The SOT is extremely regressive. Retailers must annually pay $250 per location; wholesalers pay $500; vintners and distillers pay $1000. Because the SOT is levied on a per location basis, a sole proprietorship must pay the same amount as one of the Nation's largest retailers, and locally-owned chains having to pay per location, would have to pay as much as, if not more than, the Nation's largest single site brewery. In testimony before the Finance Committee last spring, a small business owner from Helena, MT who runs four convenience stores and three restaurants said it best. ``Whether it's a seasonal restaurant, an Elks Lodge or American Legion, a bowling center, campground, a florist who delivers gift baskets containing wine, or a convenience store operator, no one is spared from the tax.'' This is not what Congress had in mind 150 years ago, and I don't believe it's a situation we want today. Repealing the SOT on alcohol is supported by a broad-based group of business organizations and enjoys wide-spread bipartisan support on Capital Hill. Similar legislation is being introduced in the House today, and a bill, identical to this one, was introduced in the previous Congress, but for one reason or another, the law was not enacted. The legislation preserves ATF's record-keeping requirements, while removing the agency's enforcement burden, and will save up to $2 million per year. The GAO examined SOT efficacy several times, and found it fundamentally flawed. The Joint Committee on Taxation called for the elimination of SOT in its June 2001 simplification study. More than 90 percent of all SOT revenue comes from retailers--a great majority of that number are small businesses. Recently, President Bush met with a group of small business owners and employees in St. Louis. He said, ``The best way to encourage job growth is to let [small businesses] keep more of their own money, so they can invest in their business and make it easier for somebody to find work.'' Repealing the SOT would provide an immediate and visible tax cut to small business owners. Now, as the Federal Government considers ways to provide additional economic stimulus to the people who need it most, the time is right for us to move forward and enact this legislation to repeal the SOT an alcohol. We urge our colleagues to join us in this endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Miller, Bayh and Grassley, I am pleased to introduce the Archery Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding for the Wildlife Restoration Program, the Pittman-Robertson fund, by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax and closing an unintended loophole that allows arrows assembled outside the United States to avoid the excise tax imposed on domestic manufacturers. The creation of the Wildlife Restoration Program is one of the great success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women, State fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry. Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat conservation. Originally the archery industry did not participate in this program. However, the growth of bow hunting in the '60s and '70s led the archery industry to decide they would support the excise tax that funds State game agencies. As a result, the tax was extended to archery equipment in 1975. The tax on archery equipment was meant to parallel the tax that hunters were paying on firearms and ready-to-fire ammunition. The archery industry and bow hunters are pleased to contribute to the success of the Wildlife Restoration Program. Because current law taxes components and not arrows, foreign manufacturers are selling arrows in the United States without paying the excise tax that is imposed on arrows made in the United States. Not only are these untaxed imports unfair to American workers, they threaten the integrity of the Wildlife Restoration Fund. This issue is important to companies in Montana. Mike Ellig, a manufacturer of archery products in Bozeman, MT, pays this tax. He supports the tax, but asks that it be fair. Mike's company, Montana Black Gold, and the archery industry want to support the Wildlife Restoration Program. But the way the tax works today, American manufacturers are at a competitive disadvantage. That is why the 800 members of the Montana Bowhunters Association support this measure. This legislation will close the loophole that allows imported arrows to avoid the excise tax paid by domestic manufacturers. While keeping the current 12.4 percent tax on arrow components, the proposal will impose a tax of 12 percent on the first sale of an arrow assembled from untaxed components. U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers will be treated equally. Since this loophole was inadvertently created in 1997, archery imports, mostly finished arrows, increased from $430,000 in 1998, to $1.6 million in 1999, to $3.2 million in 2000, to $7.8 million in 2001 and to $11.0 million in 2002, through November. If Congress does not act quickly to close this loophole, domestic manufacturers will be forced to relocate outside of the United States. They simply cannot afford to lose market share for a fifth year to competitors who do not pay the same tax they pay. If a few more move overseas, the rest will follow. The result will be a catastrophic loss of revenue for the Federal Wildlife Restoration Fund. Current law also taxes non-hunters, contrary to Congressional intent. To relieve non-hunters from the requirement to pay for wildlife management, the legislation would eliminate the current-law tax on bows with draw weights of less than 30 pounds. Those bows are not suitable or, in many states, legal for hunting. To preserve the revenue for the Wildlife Restoration Fund, the bill would retain the current tax on bows that are suitable for hunting. The proposal would also clarify that broadheads are an accessory taxed at 11 percent rather than as an arrow component taxed at 12.4 percent. This will correct the ambiguity in the 1997 Act that led to the misclassification of broadheads. In summary, the Arrow Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2001 would accomplish worthy objectives. It would close the loophole that allows foreign imported arrows to escape the tax and remove the tax on youth and recreational archery equipment that were never meant to be taxed. We will accomplish these goals while protecting the Wildlife Restoration Program by ensuring that there is no significant diminution of revenues collected by the archery excise tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the proposal will decrease revenues by $5 million over ten years resulting in small changes in outlays from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Fund. Failure to close the import loophole will eviscerate the archery tax base resulting in devastating losses to the Fund. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Miller, Bayh and Grassley, I am pleased to introduce the Archery Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding for the Wildlife Restoration Program, the Pittman-Robertson fund, by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax and closing an unintended loophole that allows arrows assembled outside the United States to avoid the excise tax imposed on domestic manufacturers. The creation of the Wildlife Restoration Program is one of the great success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women, State fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry. Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat conservation. Originally the archery industry did not participate in this program. However, the growth of bow hunting in the '60s and '70s led the archery industry to decide they would support the excise tax that funds State game agencies. As a result, the tax was extended to archery equipment in 1975. The tax on archery equipment was meant to parallel the tax that hunters were paying on firearms and ready-to-fire ammunition. The archery industry and bow hunters are pleased to contribute to the success of the Wildlife Restoration Program. Because current law taxes components and not arrows, foreign manufacturers are selling arrows in the United States without paying the excise tax that is imposed on arrows made in the United States. Not only are these untaxed imports unfair to American workers, they threaten the integrity of the Wildlife Restoration Fund. This issue is important to companies in Montana. Mike Ellig, a manufacturer of archery products in Bozeman, MT, pays this tax. He supports the tax, but asks that it be fair. Mike's company, Montana Black Gold, and the archery industry want to support the Wildlife Restoration Program. But the way the tax works today, American manufacturers are at a competitive disadvantage. That is why the 800 members of the Montana Bowhunters Association support this measure. This legislation will close the loophole that allows imported arrows to avoid the excise tax paid by domestic manufacturers. While keeping the current 12.4 percent tax on arrow components, the proposal will impose a tax of 12 percent on the first sale of an arrow assembled from untaxed components. U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers will be treated equally. Since this loophole was inadvertently created in 1997, archery imports, mostly finished arrows, increased from $430,000 in 1998, to $1.6 million in 1999, to $3.2 million in 2000, to $7.8 million in 2001 and to $11.0 million in 2002, through November. If Congress does not act quickly to close this loophole, domestic manufacturers will be forced to relocate outside of the United States. They simply cannot afford to lose market share for a fifth year to competitors who do not pay the same tax they pay. If a few more move overseas, the rest will follow. The result will be a catastrophic loss of revenue for the Federal Wildlife Restoration Fund. Current law also taxes non-hunters, contrary to Congressional intent. To relieve non-hunters from the requirement to pay for wildlife management, the legislation would eliminate the current-law tax on bows with draw weights of less than 30 pounds. Those bows are not suitable or, in many states, legal for hunting. To preserve the revenue for the Wildlife Restoration Fund, the bill would retain the current tax on bows that are suitable for hunting. The proposal would also clarify that broadheads are an accessory taxed at 11 percent rather than as an arrow component taxed at 12.4 percent. This will correct the ambiguity in the 1997 Act that led to the misclassification of broadheads. In summary, the Arrow Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2001 would accomplish worthy objectives. It would close the loophole that allows foreign imported arrows to escape the tax and remove the tax on youth and recreational archery equipment that were never meant to be taxed. We will accomplish these goals while protecting the Wildlife Restoration Program by ensuring that there is no significant diminution of revenues collected by the archery excise tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the proposal will decrease revenues by $5 million over ten years resulting in small changes in outlays from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Fund. Failure to close the import loophole will eviscerate the archery tax base resulting in devastating losses to the Fund. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would just like to follow up on the statements regarding asbestos-contaminated insulation made by my good friend from Washington, Senator Murray. The issues she raises are extremely important, and I applaud her for her determined efforts on behalf of her constituents, and her dedication to raising the profile of the continued hazards associated with asbestos. I was very moved by Senator Murray's description of what happened to her constituent in Spokane, WA. I agree with her 100 percent that the Government should not be in the business of keeping important health- related information from the public, including information about the health risks posed by Zonolite insulation. Again, I commend the Senator from Washington for her leadership in championing this important public health and safety issue. I just believe it is important for me to speak directly to the experience of my constituents in Libby, MT, to put some of this into perspective. The experience of the residents of Libby is truly, tragically, unique. This little town in northwestern Montana, surrounded by millions of acres of Federal forest lands, has lost over 200 people to asbestos-related diseases and cancers. Hundreds more are sick, and thousands more may become sick. Libby doesn't have that many people. The magnitude of this tragedy is staggering. The vermiculite mining and milling operations of W.R. Grace belched thousands and thousands of pounds of asbestos-contaminated dust into the air in and around Libby, coating the town and its inhabitants with the deadly substance. Folks used raw vermiculite ore or expanded vermiculite to fill their gardens, their driveways, the high school track, the little league field, in their homes and attics. W.R. Grace mineworkers brought the dust home with them on their clothing and contaminated their own families, without knowing the dust was poison. Asbestos was absolutely everywhere in Libby, for decades. It is also becoming more and more clear that the fibers unique to Libby, including tremolite asbestos fibers, are particularly deadly-- more so than other forms of asbestos, such as chrysotile asbestos. Senator Murray is absolutely right to be concerned about insulation manufactured from vermiculite ore mined and milled in Libby. But let me also be clear, that the situation in Libby demanded a unique, determined, and coordinated response from the Environmental Protection Agency, other Federal agencies, the State, and the community itself just to address the enormous task of cleaning up the town because, as I just mentioned, the contaminated vermiculite was everywhere. Because of the extraordinary levels of asbestos contamination in Libby, an important part of this clean-up effort included removing asbestos-contaminated materials from Libby homes. People in Libby used vermiculite insulation, raw vermiculite tailings, or other vermiculite material that they brought home from W.R. Grace to fill their walls and attics. Last year, I personally urged the EPA to leave no stone unturned as it sought to determine how to best begin an expeditious removal of contaminated materials from homes in Libby, in an effort to continue to reduce the exposure of Libby residents to deadly tremolite asbestos. The EPA responded admirably to my requests, and as Senator Murray mentioned, the agency is currently removing asbestos-contaminated vermiculite material from homes in Libby. I only highlight these issues because I believe the timing and scope of the EPA's decision to go into Libby homes and remove the vermiculite in their walls and ceilings was absolutely appropriate and necessary given the sheer volume of asbestos to which the people in Libby have been exposed. Should the EPA have issued a public health emergency declaration in Libby prior to taking that action? I don't know. What I do know is that the decision was made and the correct on-the-ground result is happening in Libby. I have recently written to Administrator Whitman asking her to explain to me any health care benefits that may or may not be available to the people of Libby in the event that a public health emergency is declared in Libby. At this point, that is the most important issue to the people in Libby. In fact, the Montana delegation, the State of Montana, the community of Libby, and many concerned private citizens have been working hard to bring new economic development and much-needed health care resources to Libby. It is amazing to see how everyone has come together to create something positive from a terrible situation. The people in Libby are proud folks. They have had more than their share of hard knocks, and they just keep on going--getting up and trying. They are survivors, and I am privileged to know them so well. In January of 2000, I traveled to Libby to meet with 25 extremely ill people for the first time. I had been briefed a number of times on what I might expect to hear that night. These kind men and women--some whom are no longer with us-- gathered to share huckleberry pie and coffee in the home of Gayla Benefield. They opened their hearts and poured out unimaginable stories of suffering and tragedy on a scale I was absolutely stunned and unprepared to hear: entire families--fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, sons, and daughters all dead and all bound by their exposure to tremolite asbestos, mined by W.R. Grace in this isolated, community of several thousand--located as far away from Washington, DC, as one can be, with a foot still in Montana. I will never forget meeting another gentleman who has become my dear friend, Les Skramstad. Les watched me closely all evening. He was wary and approached me after his friends and neighbors had finished speaking. He said to me, Senator, a lot of people have come to Libby and told us they would help, then they leave and we never hear from them again. ``Max,'' he said, ``please, as a man like me--as someone's father too, as someone's husband, as someone's son, help me. Help us. Help us make this town safe for Libby's sons and daughters not even born yet. They should not suffer my fate too. I was a miner and breathed that dust in. And what happened to me and all the other men who mined wasn't right--but what has happened to the others is a sin. ``Every day, I carried that deadly dust home on my clothes. I took it into our house, and I contaminated my own wife and each of my babies with it, too. Just like me, they are sick, and we will each die the same way. I just don't know how to live with the pain of what I have done to them. If we can make something good come of this, maybe I'll stick around to see that, maybe that could make this worthwhile. ``Find someone to use me, to study me, to learn something about this dust that is still in my lungs right now.'' I told him I would do all that I could and that I wouldn't back down and that I wouldn't give up. Les accepted my offer and then pointed his finger and said to me, ``I'll be watching Senator.'' Les is my inspiration. He is the face of hundreds and thousands of sick and exposed folks in this tiny Montana community. When I get tired, I think of Les, and I can't shake what he asked me to do. In all of my years as an elected official, this issue of doing what is right for Libby is among the most personally compelling things I have ever been called on to do. Doing what is right for the community and making something good come of it, is my mission in Libby, and I thank Les Skramstad every day for handing me out my marching orders. My staff and I have worked tirelessly in Libby--not for thanks or recognition but because the tragedy is just that gripping. The ``something good,'' Les challenged me to deliver keeps our eye on the ball. I secured the first dollars from HHS 3 years ago to establish the Clinic for Asbestos Related to Disease, to allow the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to begin the necessary screening of folks who had been exposed to Libby's asbestos. Federal dollars have flowed to Libby for cleanup, healthcare, and revitalizing the economy. Last Congress, I was pleased to introduce the Libby Health Care Act, to secure longterm health funding for sick people in Libby, and I will introduce similar legislation this year. We seek ongoing funding for asbestos patient care and continue to closely monitor and support asbestos cleanup efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency. At the first field hearing I held in Libby of the Committee for Environment and Public Works, Dr. Blad Black, now the director of the Libby Clinic for Asbestos Related Disease, called for developing a research facility so that Libby's tragedy could be used to protect the health of men, women, and children. The wheels are on the cleanup and health screening, and the time for making Brad's vision a reality is here. Working together with Montana Congressional delegation and our State's Governor to develop a leading edge, world class research facility with the mission of one day developing cures for asbestos-related disease is exactly what Les called for that evening more than 3 years ago as well. He and the hundreds and thousands who suffer like Les and his family have my commitment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment and dismay that the Secretary of Agriculture has failed to meet the deadline mandated by Congress to establish a program of Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers. In the Trade Act of 2002, Congress directed the Secretary to get this program running by no later than this week, February 3, 2003. It is running? No. Is it even close to running? No. In fact, the Department of Agriculture tells me that their anticipated startup date is still another six months away. Meanwhile, the $90 million that Congress set aside for this program in fiscal year 2003 has no way of reaching its intended beneficiaries. This is simply unacceptable. Senators Grassley and Conrad recently joined me in a letter making this very point to secretary Veneman. We told her then--and I repeat it now--that we hold her personally accountable for dropping the ball on TAA for Farmers. Frankly, I expected better. The Trade Act of 2002 renewed the President's trade promotion authority after a lapse of 8 years. In exchange for Congress', and the Nation's, renewed commitment to trade liberalization, the President agreed to expand the trade adjustment assistance program to better meet the needs of those who might be negatively impacted by trade. A critical part of the President's commitment was the creation of a trade adjustment assistance program for farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural producers. We all know that opening foreign markets to American agricultural products can provide great advantages to U.S. farmers and ranchers. Already, nearly one-fifth of Montana's agricultural production is exported. For Montana wheat, a full two-thirds is exported. And opening foreign markets is the best way to create new opportunities for our farmers and ranchers. This is one reason I have always been a strong supporter of trade liberalization and an equally strong advocate for a level playing field for our farmers in world markets. But trade liberalization can have a downside as well. It can leave our farmers and ranchers more vulnerable to sudden import surges, devastating commodity price swings, and other countries' unfair trading practices. That is why they need this TAA program. The Department of Labor's TAA program for workers has nominally covered family farmers, ranchers, and fishermen all along. But hardly any have participated. They usually can't qualify because they don't become unemployed in the traditional sense. After decades of trying without success to squeeze farmers into eligibility rules designed for manufacturing workers, it was time to try something new, something that would help farmers adjust to import competition before they lost their farms. What the Trade Act does is create a TAA program tailored to the needs of farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. Basically, the program creates a new trigger for eligibility. Instead of having to show a layoff, the farmer, rancher, or fisherman has to show commodity price declines related to imports. The trigger is different, but the program serves the same purpose as all our trade adjustment programs. It assists the farmer, rancher, or fisherman to adjust to import competition, to retrain, to obtain technical assistance, and to have access to income support to tide them over during the process. And the income support is capped to make sure that the program is not being abused. So last summer the President made a commitment--to the Congress and to the American agricultural community--to make this program a reality. I think it is fair to say that this was one of just a few key elements that got the President those critical few votes he needed to pass TPA in the House and the pass it with a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate. And now I say to the President, and to Secretary Veneman: the farmers and ranchers of Montana--and indeed throughout America--continue to wait for your administration to fulfill this commitment. I hope this will happen sooner, rather than later. Indeed, there is absolutely no excuse for a 6-month delay in getting this program off the ground. There certainly wasn't a 6-month delay in launching negotiations for four new free-trade agreements under TPA. There shouldn't be a delay here either. My staff and I stand ready to assist in any way we can to kick start this process. But Secretary Veneman needs to do the heavy lifting here. And that is my challenge to her today.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Saturday, February 1 was a sad day for America, and a sad day for the world. In the blink of an eye, we lost the cream of our astronaut corps when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Our Nation and the world mourns the loss of these heroes: Lt. Col. Michael P. Anderson, U.S. Navy Capt. David Brown, U.S. Navy Commander Laurel Clark, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, U.S. Air Force Col. Rick Husband, Naval Commander William McCool, and Israeli Air Force Colonel Ilan Ramon. The loved ones they left behind mourn the loss of fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, sisters, brothers, and friends. We have a duty to those who lost their lives for the advancement of science and increasing our knowledge of the world we live in: a duty first to find out what went wrong and make sure it never goes wrong again, a duty to take up where they left off and continue exploring the unknowns of the universe, and just as importantly, a duty to help take care of the loved ones they left behind. After the horrible day of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress paid tribute to the lives lost in those attacks, and in the bombing in Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks, by expanding certain tax benefits previously only available to soldiers who had been killed in combat zones. The benefits include income tax relief, an exclusion of death benefit payments, estate tax relief and a streamlining of the rules governing the distribution of funds by charitable organizations. I believe the families of the heroes of the Columbia Shuttle mission, and families of astronauts that may be lost in the future, deserve no less. Military or civilian employees of the U.S. who die as a result of terrorist or military activity outside the U.S., victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, of the Oklahoma City bombing and of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, are generally exempt from income tax for the year of death and the year prior to death. For those that have little income tax liability, a minimum tax relief benefit of $10,000 is provided. Current law exempts from income tax certain death benefits paid by the U.S. government to soldiers killed in the line of duty. The law also generally excludes from income payments made by an employer to the families of the victims of the terrorist attack of 9/11, Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks. The exclusion does not apply to amounts that would have been payable if the individual had died for a reason other than the attack. Current law also provides a reduction in Federal estate tax for soldiers who are killed in action while serving in a combat zone, or as a result of wounds, disease or injury suffered while serving in the combat zone. Comparable benefits are also provided to the victims of 9/ 11, Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks. The amount of benefit is equal to 125 percent of the 2001 State death tax credit amount, which effectively establishes a 20 percent estate tax bracket for those who qualify for this benefit. And finally, we have a streamlined process for the distribution of charitable donations to the families of the victims of 9/11, Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks. The key element of this process allows organizations that make payments in good faith using a reasonable and objective formula which is consistently applied not to make a specific assessment of need prior to distributing funds so long as the payments serve a charitable class. My legislation, the Assistance for Families of Space Shuttle Heroes Act, makes all of the above benefits available to the families of the fallen Columbia crew, as well as to other astronauts that may be killed in the line of duty in future years. The seven members of the Columbia crew were true heroes. They are deeply missed by their family and friends. Through their dedication to space exploration, they lived their lives to the fullest and made long- lasting contributions to the nation and to the world. Tax relief will never fill the hole that has been left in the lives and hearts of their families by Saturday's explosion. But astronauts have trouble obtaining private life insurance policies given the high-risk nature of their jobs, so their families face an uncertain future even as they mourn the loss of loved ones that will never be replaced. This legislation is especially critical for their future. It is one small step we can make as Americans to help these families get through these dark days, and the challenges they will face in the years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Saturday, February 1 was a sad day for America, and a sad day for the world. In the blink of an eye, we lost the cream of our astronaut corps when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Our Nation and the world mourns the loss of these heroes: Lt. Col. Michael P. Anderson, U.S. Navy Capt. David Brown, U.S. Navy Commander Laurel Clark, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, U.S. Air Force Col. Rick Husband, Naval Commander William McCool, and Israeli Air Force Colonel Ilan Ramon. The loved ones they left behind mourn the loss of fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, sisters, brothers, and friends. We have a duty to those who lost their lives for the advancement of science and increasing our knowledge of the world we live in: a duty first to find out what went wrong and make sure it never goes wrong again, a duty to take up where they left off and continue exploring the unknowns of the universe, and just as importantly, a duty to help take care of the loved ones they left behind. After the horrible day of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress paid tribute to the lives lost in those attacks, and in the bombing in Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks, by expanding certain tax benefits previously only available to soldiers who had been killed in combat zones. The benefits include income tax relief, an exclusion of death benefit payments, estate tax relief and a streamlining of the rules governing the distribution of funds by charitable organizations. I believe the families of the heroes of the Columbia Shuttle mission, and families of astronauts that may be lost in the future, deserve no less. Military or civilian employees of the U.S. who die as a result of terrorist or military activity outside the U.S., victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, of the Oklahoma City bombing and of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, are generally exempt from income tax for the year of death and the year prior to death. For those that have little income tax liability, a minimum tax relief benefit of $10,000 is provided. Current law exempts from income tax certain death benefits paid by the U.S. government to soldiers killed in the line of duty. The law also generally excludes from income payments made by an employer to the families of the victims of the terrorist attack of 9/11, Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks. The exclusion does not apply to amounts that would have been payable if the individual had died for a reason other than the attack. Current law also provides a reduction in Federal estate tax for soldiers who are killed in action while serving in a combat zone, or as a result of wounds, disease or injury suffered while serving in the combat zone. Comparable benefits are also provided to the victims of 9/ 11, Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks. The amount of benefit is equal to 125 percent of the 2001 State death tax credit amount, which effectively establishes a 20 percent estate tax bracket for those who qualify for this benefit. And finally, we have a streamlined process for the distribution of charitable donations to the families of the victims of 9/11, Oklahoma City and the anthrax attacks. The key element of this process allows organizations that make payments in good faith using a reasonable and objective formula which is consistently applied not to make a specific assessment of need prior to distributing funds so long as the payments serve a charitable class. My legislation, the Assistance for Families of Space Shuttle Heroes Act, makes all of the above benefits available to the families of the fallen Columbia crew, as well as to other astronauts that may be killed in the line of duty in future years. The seven members of the Columbia crew were true heroes. They are deeply missed by their family and friends. Through their dedication to space exploration, they lived their lives to the fullest and made long- lasting contributions to the nation and to the world. Tax relief will never fill the hole that has been left in the lives and hearts of their families by Saturday's explosion. But astronauts have trouble obtaining private life insurance policies given the high-risk nature of their jobs, so their families face an uncertain future even as they mourn the loss of loved ones that will never be replaced. This legislation is especially critical for their future. It is one small step we can make as Americans to help these families get through these dark days, and the challenges they will face in the years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee approved the nomination of John Snow as the next Secretary of the Treasury. I thank my colleagues for this support of the confirmation of Mr. Snow. The confirmation process is never easy. Nor should it be, as it is part of the constitutional advice and consent function to review of the nominee's experience, qualifications and suitability to serve in the position to which he or she has been nominated. The Senate Finance Committee asked Mr. Snow hundreds of questions over a period of weeks. We sought his views on tax policy, prescription drugs, and budget deficits. We asked about matters involving corporate governance and executive compensation. He has responded to all of our questions. The American people are anxious about the flagging economy and the prospect of war. With the future uncertain, it is important for our country to have a Treasury Secretary in place to help tackle the difficult challenges ahead. The President has selected a man who is well qualified. I remain concerned about how we handle the upcoming debates about the budget, taxes and healthcare. We need to get to work. But we need to work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to address these important issues. I am committed to working with the administration to try to find common ground. The new Secretary shares this commitment. I look forward to working with him.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a much-needed clarification of current trade law. Misinterpretation of the current law hurts hundreds of American companies and thousands of American workers. It is a misinterpretation that results in the understatement both of the degree of foreign unfair trade and the amount of duties necessary to offset it. The legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing would clarify that, in an antidumping proceeding, countervailing duties paid by a foreign seller should be deducted from the U.S. price. This legislation would rectify the current understatement of unfair trade and ensure that the true expenses of selling in the United States are recognized in the calculation of duties. Now, I am here today because this issue is of particular importance to Montana's softwood lumber industry. For more than 20 years, I have stood beside our lumber industry as they have fought massive illegal subsidies by the Canadian government. All they are asking for is a level playing field. Unfortunately for everyone, this process has been stuck in an endless cycle of litigation. I hope we can end that, and get to a place where there is real market-based competition. But until we do, we must ensure that our fair trade laws are as strong as possible. We have countervailing duty laws that offset unfair foreign subsidies. We also have antidumping laws that help ensure that foreign products are sold for a ``fair price'' in the United States, a price that is comparable to the foreign price, and that reasonably reflects the cost of production. But we can't make a fair comparison unless we factor in the cost of countervailing duties. It's that simple. We are letting unfair traders off the hook. And we're doing so simply because of a misinterpretation of current law by the Department of Commerce. There is no sensible policy or legal rationale for this practice. And I would note here that adopting this legislation would make our practice consistent with the practices of Canada and the European Union. For the life of me, I can't understand we wouldn't give our companies and workers trade laws that are as strong as those in the countries we compete against. That is just common sense. I would also emphasize that Commerce itself could fix this problem if it were so inclined. Commerce could, for example, announce in an ongoing administrative review its intention to reconsider treatment of countervailing duties as a cost. The Department has often used such cases as a means to review policy. The current policy makes no sense. It violates the statute. It fails to redress continued dumping. And it effectively discourages negotiations to end unfair trade. Most importantly, correcting the current policy would force Canadian mills to make a clear choice, negotiate a long-term resolution or face higher duties. In the absence of a voluntary change in policy by Commerce, I offer this legislation to clarify the statute. This will ensure a fair comparison of prices and a more accurate measurement of the amount of dumping. It is just the right thing to do.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a much-needed clarification of current trade law. Misinterpretation of the current law hurts hundreds of American companies and thousands of American workers. It is a misinterpretation that results in the understatement both of the degree of foreign unfair trade and the amount of duties necessary to offset it. The legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing would clarify that, in an antidumping proceeding, countervailing duties paid by a foreign seller should be deducted from the U.S. price. This legislation would rectify the current understatement of unfair trade and ensure that the true expenses of selling in the United States are recognized in the calculation of duties. Now, I am here today because this issue is of particular importance to Montana's softwood lumber industry. For more than 20 years, I have stood beside our lumber industry as they have fought massive illegal subsidies by the Canadian government. All they are asking for is a level playing field. Unfortunately for everyone, this process has been stuck in an endless cycle of litigation. I hope we can end that, and get to a place where there is real market-based competition. But until we do, we must ensure that our fair trade laws are as strong as possible. We have countervailing duty laws that offset unfair foreign subsidies. We also have antidumping laws that help ensure that foreign products are sold for a ``fair price'' in the United States, a price that is comparable to the foreign price, and that reasonably reflects the cost of production. But we can't make a fair comparison unless we factor in the cost of countervailing duties. It's that simple. We are letting unfair traders off the hook. And we're doing so simply because of a misinterpretation of current law by the Department of Commerce. There is no sensible policy or legal rationale for this practice. And I would note here that adopting this legislation would make our practice consistent with the practices of Canada and the European Union. For the life of me, I can't understand we wouldn't give our companies and workers trade laws that are as strong as those in the countries we compete against. That is just common sense. I would also emphasize that Commerce itself could fix this problem if it were so inclined. Commerce could, for example, announce in an ongoing administrative review its intention to reconsider treatment of countervailing duties as a cost. The Department has often used such cases as a means to review policy. The current policy makes no sense. It violates the statute. It fails to redress continued dumping. And it effectively discourages negotiations to end unfair trade. Most importantly, correcting the current policy would force Canadian mills to make a clear choice, negotiate a long-term resolution or face higher duties. In the absence of a voluntary change in policy by Commerce, I offer this legislation to clarify the statute. This will ensure a fair comparison of prices and a more accurate measurement of the amount of dumping. It is just the right thing to do.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the most dedicated public servants and loyal staff members I have had the privilege to work with. Mike Evans has served me with deliberation, dedication, and distinction for 18 years and I, the people of Montana, the United States Senate, and our Nation are the better for it. Mike began his career as my legislative assistant for tax policy in 1983. As many in this Chamber will recall, that was a time of great debate in the Finance Committee. We had passed a major tax cut in 1981. The following year, a soaring budget deficit was demanding attention. By the time Mike came on board, not only was the Finance Committee dealing with ``revenue raisers,'' to use the language of the day, but tax simplification was the hottest topic on the Finance Committee's agenda. Mike guided me through the controversies with his usual enthusiasm and attention to detail. In fact, he was so impressive that he soon became my legislative director, and expanded his responsibilities to include overseeing my work on the Agriculture and Environment and Public Works Committees. Perhaps his most significant accomplishment during his time with the EPW Committee was seeing the Clean Air Act of 1990 through the legislative process and into law. I was chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee then and Mike was my right arm--and sometimes my eyes and ears, too! Getting that bill through the EPW Committee, the Senate floor, and then conference with the House was an arduous task. But Mike was there all the way. Through the seemingly endless markups, through the backroom negotiations off the Senate floor, and through the midnight conferences with the House, Mike was always ready with the right arguments, the necessary supporting materials, and, most important, his sage advice. That bill was a significant advance in the protection of public health and the cleanup of our environment. Mike's contributions to the bill will be long remembered. In 1991, the lure of the Preston Gates law firm proved too much and he returned to the firm from whence he came. But when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 1993, I succeeded in luring him back into public service. Mike became my general counsel on the EPW Committee, integrally involved with the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, the Superfund law, and the Endangered Species Act. We weren't always successful, but Mike provided the legal underpinnings of our efforts. It is as a lawyer that Mike's true talents show through. He not only masters the statutory construction and case law on any point with ease--or at least so it seems to me--but he is renowned among the staff for his ability to footnote material. I recall on several occasions getting memos from him where there was not a word of the memo on a page. Rather, the page was filled with footnotes. I told him that I appreciated a good footnote or two as much as the next lawyer, but next time he should save them for our opponents. Mike is respected and admired by his colleagues. He was always willing to spend time with other staff to review legal arguments, provide advice and direction, and sometimes just be a sounding board. I was told that Mike's stature among his peers increased beyond measure when he revealed to the other staff that when reading bill language, subclause two is pronounced ``subclause two'' and not, as was the apparent custom, ``two little eye.'' Mike's attention to detail was perhaps most apparent when it came to the rules. First, he updated the EPW Committee rules and religiously filed away each application so that the Committee would have a file of precedents on which to refer. It was in the defense of those EPW Committee rules that Mike became a small legend. In particular, he staunchly defended the Committee rule that prohibited the naming of public buildings for any living individual under the age of 70. But, lest you think Mike is perfect, even his best oratorical skills and most reasoned argument in defense of the rule were never a match for the political imperative involved in a naming bill. Mike lost every single one of those arguments. When I took over as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2001, Mike moved over as the Deputy Chief of Staff and General Counsel. Once again, Mike took responsibility for updating the Committee rules and establishing a record of precedents. Mike not only mastered committee rules, he mastered the Senate rules. On his last day in the Senate, the Senate Parliamentarian noted that Mike was always prepared when he made a parliamentary inquiry. And, for the record, I have to warn the Senate Parliamentarian that Mike prepared comprehensive, annotated references for the Finance Committee staff and provided what is now affectionately known as ``The Mike Evans' Procedure Seminar.'' Ironically, despite his respect of the rules, last year he was thrown off the Senate floor with a bipartisan gaggle of Finance Committee staff for being too noisy. I believe Senator Dayton presided over the ouster. I have always respected a person who can manage both the demanding responsibilities of Senate staff while also caring for a growing family. And Mike has certainly done both. We were fortunate to be part of Mike's life as his family expanded from two--he and his wife Maureen--to six, with the addition of their four beautiful children: Sean, Christopher, Aselefech and Adanech. We have watched their children grow up and every step has been a reflection of their incredible parents. Mike also found time to be one of the best read staffers I have ever known. I have no doubt that his counsel has been greatly strengthened by his acquaintanceship with thoughts and history beyond the reach of a single individual. And his literary interests are not limited to reading. He is a most prolific author. As with most staff, he has done more than his share of floor statements. And as a lawyer, he has drafted the occasional law review article. But his talents also extend to poetry, including the occasional rhyming remembrance of triumphs and things best left unsaid when a staff member departs. Suffice it to say, Mike fancies himself a music impresario. He feels it is his duty to bring music to ``the people.'' Some of that music is even good. Mike has been known to wear Bob Marley T-shirts in the office over the weekend and sing Bruce Springstein lyrics at the drop of a hat. In fact, when he discovered that one of the Finance Committee interns house-sat for Bob Dylan, the intern was suddenly spending more time in intense discussions with Mike. Mike truly believes in the dignity and responsibilities of public service. He understands that when it comes to working in the Senate, as Bruce Springstein would say, ``the door's open but the ride ain't free.'' So, while he leaves the Senate staff to return to private practice at Preston Gates, I know that he will retain his commitment to service, to his family, to his colleagues, and to his country. Every President, every member of Congress, every staff person in the United States Congress must first swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office. Mike Evans lived by this oath every day of his public service in the Senate. Mike follows the rules: The Senate rules. The Committee rules. And the rules by which he lives his life--loyalty, diversity, fairness, honesty, and compassion, coupled with an unexpected, yet sharp sense of humor. I thank Mike for his dedication and the nearly two decades for which I have been fortunate enough to benefit his counsel and friendship. May we all follow his example, to have the wit to discover what is true and the fortitude to practice what is good.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is the same issue which the Senator from Arizona raised not too long ago. It has serious deficiencies: No. 1, that it only applies, as I understand it, to one carrier and not to other carriers, which on its face raises many serious questions. No. 2, I said to the Senator from Pennsylvania at that time, if I were in the position to influence whether we would have hearings on this subject in the near future, I would certainly do so. Time has passed. We have a new chairman of the Finance Committee. But I still hold the same view; namely, that we should have a good opportunity to address this issue more broadly and more fairly and deal with other airlines that face, to some degree, the same issues; otherwise, this is a single-shot amendment. It is unfair to other airlines. We should have more time to consider the right way to deal with this issue. I respectfully urge Senators not to adopt this amendment so we can more appropriately deal with the matter at an appropriate time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point about the public policy argument?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last week, I saw that $3.1 billion was included for drought assistance in the omnibus funding bill. It was a good way to start the day, until I started to dig deeper. Montana producers will not receive meaningful relief from these funds. I am fighting today for full funding for both 2001 and 2002 for the crop disaster program, livestock assistance program, and the American Indian livestock feed program that 79 Members of the Senate agreed to on September 10, 2002. I have spent a lot of time visiting producers on their farms and ranches in Montana. And each time I am stunned by the desperation in their voices and in their eyes, stunned by the way the winds are blowing away their topsoil and their herds are getting smaller and smaller. I cannot stress how important it is that we quickly pass meaningful drought disaster assistance. The unrelenting drought in Montana has brought economic hardship to our agriculture producers and our rural communities. The same way we use emergency funds to rebuild communities hurt by tornadoes and hurricanes, we should use emergency funds to rebuild our communities hurt by drought. There is no reason that a double standard should apply to agriculture. And the situation has become even more devastating, since many of these regions are suffering their third, fourth, or fifth year of consecutive drought conditions. According to the New York Times on May 3, 2002, ``In eastern Montana, more than a thousand wheat farmers have called it quits rather than trying to coax another crop out of the ground that has received less rain over the last 12 months than many deserts get in a year.'' It is anticipated that another 1,300 Montana wheat producers will call it quits if disaster assistance is not provided. The effects of the drought have gone beyond our farmers and ranchers. Businesses are closing their doors, employees are being laid off, and main streets are literally drying up. According to Dale Schuler, past president of Montana Grain Growers and a farmer in Choteau County, MT, nearly 2,000 square miles of crop in his area of central Montana have gone unharvested. That is an area the size of Delaware. ``Farmers and our families have not had the means to repay our operating loans, let alone buy inputs to plant the crop for the coming year.'' Dale added, ``Chouteau County is the largest farming county in Montana, and yet our last farm equipment dealer had no choice but to close his doors, our local co-op closed its tire shop, one farm fuel supplier quit, and the fertilizer dealers and grain elevators are laying off workers. I believe that we are set to see a mass exodus from Montana that has not been seen since the Great Depression of the 1930's. On September 3, 2002, the Wall Street Journal printed an article that stated that, ``the U.S. may be looking at the most expensive drought in its history, inflicting economic damage far beyond the Farm Belt.'' Loans have been made with the understanding that Congress was going to provide disaster assistance because as a country and a Government that is what we as Americans do. We rush to provide assistance to victims of hurricanes and tornadoes. As we all know, that is not what has occurred with the drought. Now we have bankers who are desperately trying to not call loans due and producers who are desperately trying to scrape enough together to make the bank hold on just a little longer. Producers are considering selling parcels of land or pieces of equipment that they have considered vital to their operation. They will do it if it means that they can keep the farm or ranch that their family has been working for generations. Scraping that money together has never been more difficult as most of the potential buyers are in similar financial straits. The devastation of this drought does not end at the front door of our rural homes. The enormous economic toll of this relentless drought on our communities will take years to recover. However, the toll on our rural families is irreparable. Incidents of domestic abuse, suicides, and alcoholism have increased significantly in the past 2 years. We must not continue to let our inability to uphold our responsibilities cripple rural communities any longer. We cannot and must not continue to ignore the impacts of drought and the effect it has on our agricultural producers and our rural communities. Agricultural producers are every bit as deserving of assistance for their suffering from the drought as the small business owner in Louisiana suffering from a hurricane. I cannot urge more strongly my colleagues in the House and Senate to work together to pass full funding for natural disaster assistance for both 2001 and 2002. I, again, ask the President to live up to the words he spoke almost a year ago when he said that the agriculture economy is vital to the national economy. It is vital that we pass agriculture disaster assistance immediately to help our producers, to help our economy, and to help our Nation.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator agree, strong public policy, which this body has adopted, is that a company does not borrow from their pension funds for their own corporate purposes? That is a strong public policy point.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I hope my colleagues listen to what I have to say. We all are talking about the need for disaster assistance. That is undisputed. There are provisions in the Cochran amendment which do partially address natural disaster, particularly drought disaster, in our country. I say partially. That is wonderful. That is fine. I am quite confident the provisions that have helped Texas producers are needed. I also understand in some parts of the country a natural disaster occurred, say, in 2002--not 2001. And the amendment before the Senate, the Cochran amendment, provides 1 year, for 2002. I can understand why some of my colleagues are in favor of the Cochran amendment because it helps them, it helps their producers. Madam President, I can understand why there are tobacco provisions in the Cochran amendment. I am sure the producers in North Carolina and South Carolina will get significant benefit from the tobacco provisions. For all I know, it is well intended and deserved and they should have it. We are talking here about a natural disaster. Mother Nature does not pick and choose years--2001 or 2002. Mother Nature does not choose which parts of the country it will affect or not affect. Mother Nature does not choose which farms in a certain county will be hit by disaster and which farms in the county are not hit. I start with the good news. Fortunately, the Cochran amendment provides assistance to those parts of America that have experienced natural disasters. That is good. Unfortunately, the Cochran amendment does not provide assistance to those other farmers who have experienced disaster in a different way, those who got hit by disaster in 2001. Nebraska is 2002. Kansas is 2002. My State of Montana is 2002, but it is also 2001. There are several years of disaster. The amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota is designed to help fairly producers across the country who have experienced natural disasters, irrespective of where they are, irrespective of whether they are in a certain county which on average may have 35-percent loss or not. The Cochran amendment is unfair. It helps some producers who have not experienced disasters. That is wrong. The Daschle amendment helps producers who have experienced disasters. That is fair. That is right. I only wish the Senators from Mississippi, North Carolina, and other Senators would come to the high plain States and see what a disaster we have. It is sad. It is stunning. It is despairing. It is so sad, looking in people's eyes. Thousands are leaving their places; they are drying up. It is worse this year even than last year, thus far. It may rain some more; we do not know. We, across America, have a big heart. We help Americans who need help. We have helped those who have experienced hurricane losses. We helped those with earthquake damage, say, in California or New York in the Trade Towers. We knew intuitively that is what you do. I say to my colleagues and all those who are helped, remember those who are not sufficiently helped. To sum up in one sentence, we are talking about a few billion. That does not affect the outyear budget deficit. We can always make adjustments. We are all concerned about the deficit. Help our people who need help. In many parts of our country we need help desperately. I urge colleagues to put aside the partisanship and do what is right for America and vote for farmers who need the help, help offered in the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.