Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct and his reading is consistent with the provisions of this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Senate version of H.R. 4070, the ``Social Security Program Protection Act of 2002.'' H.R. 4070 is bipartisan legislation developed by Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Shaw and ranking member Matsui. H.R. 4070 passed the House unanimously by a vote of 425 to 0. In keeping with the bipartisan tradition of the Senate Finance Committee and with the bipartisan origins of this legislation, Senator Grassley and I have worked together to further refine this legislation for Senate consideration. The House-passed version of H.R. 4070 makes a number of important changes to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, programs. These changes will accomplish a number of important goals: they will enhance the financial security of some of the most vulnerable beneficiaries of these programs, increase protections to seniors from deceptive practices by individuals in the private sector, improve program integrity, thereby saving money for the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and taxpayers, and reduce disincentives to employment for disabled individuals. One of the most important results of this legislation will be to enhance the financial security of the almost 7 million Social Security and SSI beneficiaries who are not capable of managing their own financial affairs due to advanced age or disability. The Social Security Administration, SSA, currently appoints individuals or organizations to act as ``representative payees'' for such beneficiaries. Most of these representative payees perform their roles conscientiously. However, some do not. Indeed, there have even been instances of terrible abuse in this program. It is imperative that Congress take action to guard vulnerable seniors and disabled individuals from such abuse. This legislation increases requirements for SSA to provide restitution to beneficiaries when representative payees defraud the beneficiaries of their benefits. The legislation also tightens the qualifications for representative payees, increases oversight of the program, and imposes stricter penalties on those who violate their responsibilities. The legislation expands the protection to seniors and disabled individuals by increasing the list of references to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which cannot be used by private-sector individuals, companies and organizations to give a false impression of Federal endorsement. The legislation also protects seniors from those who deceptively attempt to charge them for services that the seniors could receive for free from SSA. H.R. 4070 improves program integrity by expanding the current prohibition against paying benefits to fugitive felons. As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress banned the payment of SSI benefits to these individuals. However, under current law, fugitive felons can still receive Social Security benefits under title II. This legislation prohibits the payment of title II Social Security benefits to fugitive felons. H.R. 4070 also includes technical amendments to improve the effectiveness of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, legislation passed in 1999 to help beneficiaries with disabilities become employed and move toward self-sufficiency. To these House-passed provisions, Senator Grassley and I have added some new provisions that we feel are very important. First, we added a program integrity provision which will give the SSA Inspector General additional tools to pursue individuals who commit fraud by concealing work activity while they are receiving disability benefits. Second, we included a provision to make uniform an exemption to the Government Pension Offset. The Government Pension Offset, GPO, was enacted in order to equalize the treatment of workers in jobs not covered by Social Security and workers in jobs covered by Social Security, with respect to spousal and survivors benefits. The GPO reduces the Social Security spousal or survivors benefit by an amount equal to two-thirds of the government pension. However, as a recent GAO report highlighted, State and local government workers are exempt from the GPO if their job on their last day of employment was covered by Social Security. In contrast, Federal workers who switched from the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, a system that is not covered by Social Security, to the Federal Employee Retirement System, FERS, a system that is covered by Social Security, must work for 5 years under FERS in order to be exempt from the GPO. Our Senate version of H.R. 4070 makes the exemption to the Government Pension Offset the same for State and local government workers as for Federal Government workers. Finally, we added four technical refinements to the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. These changes will help to promote the efficient implementation of that important legislation which became law last year. I believe that each of the provisions of H.R. 4070, as passed by the House, and each of the provisions that Senator Grassley and I have added deserve the support of the Senate. Moreover, in an attempt to expedite congressional passage of this legislation, the changes that Senator Grassley and I want to make to the House-passed bill have already been worked out with both the chairman and the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. Indeed, I have a statement that has been agreed to by the chairman and the ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee, as well as by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. This statement provides details about each of the provisions of the legislation, as well as the rationale behind each provision. I am submitting this full statement for the record. I would also like to point out that the legislation as a whole has net savings of more than $500 million over ten years for taxpayers, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund balances will increase by more than $500 million over that period, excluding increases from increased interest income. Moreover, over the next 75 years, this legislation will decrease--not increase--the long-run actuarial deficit for the Social Security Trust Funds, although by a negligible amount. This information comes from Office of the Independent Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration. I am submitting the estimate from the office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration for the Record. I will submit the official written estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for the Record as soon as I receive it. This legislation contains the types of improvements we can all agree on, as demonstrated by the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House, and the bipartisan, bicameral agreement of the chairman and ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction. I wholeheartedly urge my colleagues in the Senate to approve these sensible and important changes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and a memorandum from the Social Security Administration be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend from Iowa.

Mr. BAUCUS. The distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu has raised an issue with respect to the legislation before us. That legislation, H.R. 5557, deals with tax benefits for military service personnel. Senator Landrieu would like clarification from the Administration on the status of service men and women on the Island of Diego Garcia. These service personnel have participated in military operations as part of Operation Enduring Freedom and will participate in future military operations from that location. There is a question whether these members of the armed forces are entitled to be treated in the same manner as if such services were in a combat zone.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. This is a very important topic. As my good friend will recall, the Finance Committee held a hearing on this issue last July, which we followed up with a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. We stressed the importance of preserving the revenue collection and trade facilitation functions of the U.S. Customs Service, even as that agency moves into a Department with a national security focus. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy on this topic with the Senator form Iowa.

Mr. BAUCUS. I share the Senator's understanding on this point.

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with the Senator from Iowa. This bill should not be read as permission for the Secretary of the Treasury to undertake a wholesale or large-scale transfer of revenue-related authorities to the Secretary of Homeland Security. That would be an abdication of the responsibility that this bill assigns to the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. BAUCUS. I fully agree with the Senator's observation. The Congress has taken a different approach from the one originally proposed by the Administration. Under the approach in this bill, significant revenue-related authorities remain at the Treasury Department. It would not make sense to take this different approach if the result would be a wholesale delegation of these authorities after enactment. Accordingly, the bill should be interpreted as establishing a presumption that those authorities should not be delegated in the absence of a compelling reason for their delegation. Moreover, while delegations in this area are indeed allowable under the legislation, it is fair to conclude that they will be scrutinized closely by those of us responsible for these provisions.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to thank Ted Posner, who has worked for me for a year-and-a-half as Trade Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee. Ted joined my staff in April 2001 after working for 2 years for Congressman Sandy Levin, who is the Ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on International Trade. There, Ted established himself as a nuts-and-bolts expert on trade laws. He earned the respect not only of his colleagues in the House and Senate, but also in the business community, and in the environmental and labor communities. Perhaps Ted's biggest achievement in the House was his work to help pass permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. Most people are aware of the strong efforts of the House Democrats to forge a compromise that would help pass this important legislation. But few recognize the behind-the-scenes efforts of staff. Ted's work on this issue was tireless, and all who support trade with China owe Ted their gratitude. Here in the Senate, Ted has continued his outstanding work--and helped us pass the most comprehensive trade bill in more than 14 years. The Trade Act of 2002, as most people know, included not only Trade Promotion Authority and Trade Adjustment Assistance, but also an extension and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized System of Preferences. Ted worked on most of these issues, but his work on the Andean trade bill and the provisions in TPA dealing with investor-state dispute settlement deserve particular mention. Especially on the issue of investment, Ted deserves great praise. This is a complicated and divisive issue. And Ted worked with all parties to come up with ideas that could win bipartisan support. Like many staff on Capitol Hill, Ted is an extraordinarily hard worker. But the consistent thread in all of Ted's work that separates him from so many is that he constantly strives for perfection. That is something that is rare, and it is something that has earned him my great respect. Now Ted is moving on to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, where he will be Associate General Counsel. I have no doubt that Ted will be a great litigator, and I have full confidence in his representing the United States at the World Trade Organization. I thank Ted for his efforts and wish him good luck in the future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, as I have said on numerous occasions, I am extremely pleased with the health care provisions in the Trade Act of 2002. The advanceable, refundable 65 percent tax credit toward the purchase of health insurance premiums for TAA workers and PBGC retirees represents a monumental precedent. It is an important precedent for Democrats because, for the first time, the federal government will extend assistance for health coverage to laid-off workers. And the provisions are also important for Republicans and others who believe that the best way to help the uninsured is through tax credits for the purchase of health insurance. This program is an important test case, if you will, to determine whether this approach is viable and workable. It is the viability and workability of the tax credit that I wish to address today. Our negotiations on the Trade Act health credits were really a continuation of discussions that started around this time last year-- during the debate over economic stimulus. Democrats had proposed including a 75 percent subsidy for COBRA premiums coupled with Medicaid expansions as part of our economic stimulus package. Republicans initially proposed a limited block grant for health care assistance and later altered their package to include individual tax credits for health insurance. It goes without saying that Republicans preferred a tax credit approach rather than a subsidy approach, and the Democrats expressed a strong preference for group-based insurance over individual insurance. The resulting compromise that was reached as part of the trade deal truly was a delicately-crafted bipartisan effort. Democrats moved from a premium subsidy to a tax credit, dropped the Medicaid expansion, and yielded on the issue of requiring those eligible for COBRA to purchase only COBRA coverage. Republicans got their tax credit, but it does not allow new individual market policies to be purchased with the tax credit except for those who had such coverage while they were working. The health insurance options available to TAA workers and PBGC retirees include COBRA and state-based COBRA, as well as: state high risk pools; state employee benefit plans--or comparable programs established by a state; direct purchasing arrangements between states and insurers; a state-operated health plan; coverage purchased through a private purchasing pool; and coverage under a spouse's employer group plan. In other words, eligible workers and retirees will be given a wide range of health insurance choices--depending on which options their state has adopted. Having a number of choices is important to Republicans and will be appreciated by TAA workers and PBGC retirees as well. I understand that some might try to read the legislative language regarding these options in a way that would allow broader access to insurance purchased in the individual market. That was not our intention. As I mentioned above, the Senate bill and conference report explicitly agreed to include individual health insurance as qualified health insurance, but only for individuals who had such coverage for one month prior to separation from employment. We did not intend to allow states to enter into arrangements with individual insurers through the state-based coverage options. The second point I would like to make addresses the insurance protection provisions--guaranteed issue, a bar against pre-existing condition limitations, and premium and benefit protections. This language was part of the Senate bill, only we applied the protections to all of the state pooling options. The conference report required workers to have had three months of previous health care coverage in order for these important protections to apply. The language is vague, however, and does not specify when the three months of aggregate coverage had to occur. I'd like to clarify here that this coverage should occur for three months prior to employment separation necessary to attain eligibility for assistance under this law. A more narrow reading of the three-month coverage requirement would disqualify those who have had lapses of coverage between the loss of job-based or retiree coverage and application or eligibility determination for assistance under this program. After all, the goal of the health provisions was to ensure access to coverage and to prevent the loss of health coverage. On that same point, the language on premium protections could be read to allow insurers to charge different rates to individuals participating in the TAA program. That was not our intention. The Senate language was intended to mean that TAA workers, as a group, should be charged the same premiums when states choose to enroll these individuals in existing insurance arrangements--for example in state employee health plans. Individual workers should not be charged higher premiums based on their health status in these plans. And, if a State elects to create a new insurance pooling arrangement--in which case it is not possible to compare premiums for TAA workers to anyone else--we had intended that States would not allow premium rating on an individual basis but rather as a group. To make my views known to the agencies that will administer the new tax credit, last week I sent letters to the Treasury Department, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human services regarding congressional intent in the TAA health insurance tax credit. It is my sincere hope that we can bring the same willingness to work together and compromise to other important health care issues. I ask unanimous consent that letters I previously referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise today to introduce a bill to help rural America. Now I am always trying to help Montana, but this bill will help every State. Today I introduce the MEGA RURAL ACT, Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Rural Transportation Investment. Quite simply, there are rural transportation needs not being met nationwide. This bill addresses those needs. This is the eighth bill in a series of bills that Senator Crapo and I are introducing to highlight our proposals on reauthorization of TEA 21--the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. So far we've introduced a series of MEGA ACTs, Maximum Economic Growth for America Through different types of investments and policy changes. In the past 6 months I have introduced MEGA TRUST, MEGA RED TRANS, MEGA FUND, Parts I and II, MEGA SAFE, MEGA STREAM and MEGA INNOVATE. Today it's the MEGA RURAL ACT. The first provision in the MEGA RURAL Act will help states overcome certain rural hardships. In the same manner as the MEGA FUND ACT addresses this, the MEGA RURAL ACT would create a new program, at $2 billion annually, to assist States in dealing with certain economic and demographic barriers. This would be a new type of program, not subject to the minimum guarantee, that is not keyed to specific project types but to types of problems facing States. States with low population density, or low per capita incomes, for example, face real challenges. While the provision also addresses some problems faced by non-rural States, this new section will give real help to rural States. The different approach of this program lets States facing those problems receive funds and pick the projects. Every one of the 50 States would receive significant funding under this program every year. The second issue that the MEGA RURAL ACT addresses is that of rural roads. I've been hearing from County Commissioners from Montana as well as other States, about how much they need direct funding for local roads. These localities are hard pressed for funds and many of these roads are unsafe. This bill, just as the MEGA SAFE ACT does, would establish a pilot program, at $200 million annually from FY 2004-2009, to address safety on rural local roads. Funds could be used only on local roads and rural minor collectors, roads that are not Federal-aid highways. The program does not affect distribution of funds among States, as funds will be distributed to each of the 50 States in accord with their relative formula share under 23 U.S.C. 105. Funds could be used only for projects or activities that have a safety benefit. By January 1, 2009 the Secretary of Transportation is to report on progress under the provision and whether any modifications are recommended. Finally, just as the MEGA RED TRANS ACT does, the MEGA RURAL ACT would ensure that, as Federal transit programs are reauthorized, increased funding is provided to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled and of rural and small urban areas. There is no question that our nation's large metropolitan areas have substantial transit needs that will receive attention as transit reauthorization legislation is developed. But the transit needs of rural and smaller areas, and of our elderly and disabled citizens, also require additional attention and funding. The bill would provide that additional funding in a way that does not impact other portions of the transit program. For example, while the bill would at least double every State's funding for the elderly and disabled transit program by FY 2004, nothing in the bill would reduce funding for any portion of the transit program or for any State. To the contrary, the bill would help strengthen the transit program as a whole by providing that the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is credited with the interest on its balance. This is a key provision in the MEGA TRUST Act the MEGA RED TRANS Act, and now the MEGA RURAL ACT. Specifically, the bill would set modest minimum annual apportionments, by State, for the elderly and disabled transit program, the rural transit program, and for States that have urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000. It would ensure that each State that has a small urbanized area receives a minimum of $11 million for these three programs. It is not a large amount of money but, for my State of Montana it is double what we get for those programs currently. For some other States it is more than four times what they receive. The bill would also establish a $30 million program for essential bus service, to help connect citizens in rural communities to the rest of the world by facilitating transportation between rural areas and airports and passenger rail stations. I am very aware of the role that public transit plays in the lives of rural citizens and the elderly and disabled. When most people hear the word ``transit'' they think of a light rail system. But in rural areas transit translates to buses and vanpools. Its about time that these issues are being addressed for rural America. Thank You. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills, the Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Highway Funding Act'', or ``MEGA FUND ACT''--Parts one and two. The MEGA FUND ACT is intended to do exactly what its name suggest, increase Federal investment in our Nation's highway system. That is an important objective. Highway investments create jobs, increase the productivity of our economy, and improve the quality of life for all Americans. In 1998 Congress passed one of the most successful and bipartisan bills in recent memory, the ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century'', better known as ``TEA-21.'' I am honored to have been an author of that piece of legislation. The MEGA FUND ACT builds on the success of the highway elements of TEA-21, keeping nearly all of its structure in place and increasing funding levels. There are several major aspects of this legislation. First, the MEGA FUND ACT significantly increases highway program levels. The principal feature of the bill is its increased funding for the program, something that will help all States and all citizens. Under TEA-21, as amended, the total obligation authority for FY 2003 is $28.485 billion. Under the 6 years of the MEGA FUND ACT, the comparable program level would grow to $34.839 billion in FY 2004 and to $41.839 billion by FY 2009. These funding increases will be enabled by enactment of legislation that I have already introduced with Senator Crapo, S. 2678, the Mega Trust Act and S. 3097, MEGA INNOVATE ACT. While these program levels represent a substantial increase, the needs of our highway system are even greater. So, the program levels in the bill represent only a down payment on the investment in highways that is needed to improve our economy through commerce and job creation, increase personal mobility and make our roads safer. Second, the MEGA FUND ACT continues the basic program structure and formulas from TEA-21. The current TEA-21 minimum guarantee formula is extended. Also, the bill would continue to focus funding on the core programs administered by the States: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and the Minimum Guarantee. These key programs would constitute approximately the same proportion of the overall program as under TEA-21. Third, a new category is added to aid states in overcoming economic and demographic barriers. The bill would create a new program, at $2 billion annually, to assist States in dealing with certain economic and demographic hardships. This would be a new type of program, not subject to the minimum guarantee. It is not keyed to specific project types but to types of problems facing States. States with very high growth rates, high population density, low population density, or low per capita incomes, for example, face real challenges. This different approach lets States facing those problems receive funds and pick the projects. Every one of the 50 States would receive significant funding under this program every year. The MEGA FUND ACT continues firewalls and improves RABA. One of the great contributions of TEA-21 is that it provides the highway program protection under the budget procedures of Congress. These ``firewall'' provisions enable our citizens to be confident that highway taxes will be invested in highways, not saved or diverted. TEA-21 also established Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA. The principle of RABA is that, if funds available for the highway program exceed expectations, then additional money can be put to work in the highway program. This bill would continue those important provisions with improvements. One key improvement is the elimination of so-called ``negative RABA.'' Under the bill, there are only automatic upward adjustments in obligation levels under RABA. These adjustments would still take place when the Highway Account balance is financially stronger than initially estimated. Another key reform would focus RABA calculations on the actual balance in the Highway Account, rather than on annual revenues. This important reform will help ensure that monies in the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund are invested and not allowed to build up to a large balance. Today's RABA did not preclude a build up of funds in the Highway Account, delaying the delivery of needed highway investments to our citizens. The MEGA FUND ACT increased the stability of distributions to states under the allocation programs. The bill includes proposed revisions to several so-called ``allocation'' programs that will increase funding for all States. Today, large portions of the program funds that are not apportioned to States are distributed on a discretionary basis. This bill would leave portions of the program subject to discretion, but move the allocation programs, collectively, in a general direction that would provide States greater certainty that they will be participating in allocation program funds. Specifically, the bill makes modest changes to the Intelligent Transportation System, ITS, program and to the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot, TCSP, program, to ensure that some of those funds find their way into every State. Another modest change will ensure that each State with a border receives at least some funding under the borders and corridors programs, and that States with significant public lands receive at least some public lands discretionary funding. Let me say a few things about what is not addressed in this bill. The MEGA FUND ACT sets forth an outline for the highway program. It does not address the transit program that is within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, or the highway safety programs within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, or the revenue for the highway program that is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. My proposals for those issues are in previous bills that I have introduced--MEGA RED TRANS, MEGA SAFE, MEGA STREAM, MEGA TRUST, MEGA INNOVATE and today, MEGA FUND, Part II. Those are important matters that also must be addressed as part of the final overall legislation that will extend and build upon TEA-21. As for MEGA FUND Part II, this bill although short and simple, actually represents the most important step in any reauthorization bill. MEGA FUND, Part II allows the funding program set forth in MEGA FUND Part I to be spend from the Highway Trust Fund. Without this important step, Congress can write formulas until Christmas, but no money can actually be sent to the states and spent. The ability to spend this money requires a change to the Internal Revenue Code that makes those Highway Trust Funds available for payment. MEGA FUND PART II takes care of that. In summary, the MEGA FUND ACT stays close to the successful program structure of TEA-21 and maintains its apportionment formulas. It would significantly increase funding for the program as a whole, continue budgetary firewalls and strengthen RABA, and provide some extra funds to all States through the economic and demographic barriers program and through some innovations in other programs not subject to the minimum guarantee. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise today to introduce a bill to help rural America. Now I am always trying to help Montana, but this bill will help every State. Today I introduce the MEGA RURAL ACT, Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Rural Transportation Investment. Quite simply, there are rural transportation needs not being met nationwide. This bill addresses those needs. This is the eighth bill in a series of bills that Senator Crapo and I are introducing to highlight our proposals on reauthorization of TEA 21--the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. So far we've introduced a series of MEGA ACTs, Maximum Economic Growth for America Through different types of investments and policy changes. In the past 6 months I have introduced MEGA TRUST, MEGA RED TRANS, MEGA FUND, Parts I and II, MEGA SAFE, MEGA STREAM and MEGA INNOVATE. Today it's the MEGA RURAL ACT. The first provision in the MEGA RURAL Act will help states overcome certain rural hardships. In the same manner as the MEGA FUND ACT addresses this, the MEGA RURAL ACT would create a new program, at $2 billion annually, to assist States in dealing with certain economic and demographic barriers. This would be a new type of program, not subject to the minimum guarantee, that is not keyed to specific project types but to types of problems facing States. States with low population density, or low per capita incomes, for example, face real challenges. While the provision also addresses some problems faced by non-rural States, this new section will give real help to rural States. The different approach of this program lets States facing those problems receive funds and pick the projects. Every one of the 50 States would receive significant funding under this program every year. The second issue that the MEGA RURAL ACT addresses is that of rural roads. I've been hearing from County Commissioners from Montana as well as other States, about how much they need direct funding for local roads. These localities are hard pressed for funds and many of these roads are unsafe. This bill, just as the MEGA SAFE ACT does, would establish a pilot program, at $200 million annually from FY 2004-2009, to address safety on rural local roads. Funds could be used only on local roads and rural minor collectors, roads that are not Federal-aid highways. The program does not affect distribution of funds among States, as funds will be distributed to each of the 50 States in accord with their relative formula share under 23 U.S.C. 105. Funds could be used only for projects or activities that have a safety benefit. By January 1, 2009 the Secretary of Transportation is to report on progress under the provision and whether any modifications are recommended. Finally, just as the MEGA RED TRANS ACT does, the MEGA RURAL ACT would ensure that, as Federal transit programs are reauthorized, increased funding is provided to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled and of rural and small urban areas. There is no question that our nation's large metropolitan areas have substantial transit needs that will receive attention as transit reauthorization legislation is developed. But the transit needs of rural and smaller areas, and of our elderly and disabled citizens, also require additional attention and funding. The bill would provide that additional funding in a way that does not impact other portions of the transit program. For example, while the bill would at least double every State's funding for the elderly and disabled transit program by FY 2004, nothing in the bill would reduce funding for any portion of the transit program or for any State. To the contrary, the bill would help strengthen the transit program as a whole by providing that the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund is credited with the interest on its balance. This is a key provision in the MEGA TRUST Act the MEGA RED TRANS Act, and now the MEGA RURAL ACT. Specifically, the bill would set modest minimum annual apportionments, by State, for the elderly and disabled transit program, the rural transit program, and for States that have urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000. It would ensure that each State that has a small urbanized area receives a minimum of $11 million for these three programs. It is not a large amount of money but, for my State of Montana it is double what we get for those programs currently. For some other States it is more than four times what they receive. The bill would also establish a $30 million program for essential bus service, to help connect citizens in rural communities to the rest of the world by facilitating transportation between rural areas and airports and passenger rail stations. I am very aware of the role that public transit plays in the lives of rural citizens and the elderly and disabled. When most people hear the word ``transit'' they think of a light rail system. But in rural areas transit translates to buses and vanpools. Its about time that these issues are being addressed for rural America. Thank You. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills, the Maximum Economic Growth for America Through Highway Funding Act'', or ``MEGA FUND ACT''--Parts one and two. The MEGA FUND ACT is intended to do exactly what its name suggest, increase Federal investment in our Nation's highway system. That is an important objective. Highway investments create jobs, increase the productivity of our economy, and improve the quality of life for all Americans. In 1998 Congress passed one of the most successful and bipartisan bills in recent memory, the ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century'', better known as ``TEA-21.'' I am honored to have been an author of that piece of legislation. The MEGA FUND ACT builds on the success of the highway elements of TEA-21, keeping nearly all of its structure in place and increasing funding levels. There are several major aspects of this legislation. First, the MEGA FUND ACT significantly increases highway program levels. The principal feature of the bill is its increased funding for the program, something that will help all States and all citizens. Under TEA-21, as amended, the total obligation authority for FY 2003 is $28.485 billion. Under the 6 years of the MEGA FUND ACT, the comparable program level would grow to $34.839 billion in FY 2004 and to $41.839 billion by FY 2009. These funding increases will be enabled by enactment of legislation that I have already introduced with Senator Crapo, S. 2678, the Mega Trust Act and S. 3097, MEGA INNOVATE ACT. While these program levels represent a substantial increase, the needs of our highway system are even greater. So, the program levels in the bill represent only a down payment on the investment in highways that is needed to improve our economy through commerce and job creation, increase personal mobility and make our roads safer. Second, the MEGA FUND ACT continues the basic program structure and formulas from TEA-21. The current TEA-21 minimum guarantee formula is extended. Also, the bill would continue to focus funding on the core programs administered by the States: Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and the Minimum Guarantee. These key programs would constitute approximately the same proportion of the overall program as under TEA-21. Third, a new category is added to aid states in overcoming economic and demographic barriers. The bill would create a new program, at $2 billion annually, to assist States in dealing with certain economic and demographic hardships. This would be a new type of program, not subject to the minimum guarantee. It is not keyed to specific project types but to types of problems facing States. States with very high growth rates, high population density, low population density, or low per capita incomes, for example, face real challenges. This different approach lets States facing those problems receive funds and pick the projects. Every one of the 50 States would receive significant funding under this program every year. The MEGA FUND ACT continues firewalls and improves RABA. One of the great contributions of TEA-21 is that it provides the highway program protection under the budget procedures of Congress. These ``firewall'' provisions enable our citizens to be confident that highway taxes will be invested in highways, not saved or diverted. TEA-21 also established Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA. The principle of RABA is that, if funds available for the highway program exceed expectations, then additional money can be put to work in the highway program. This bill would continue those important provisions with improvements. One key improvement is the elimination of so-called ``negative RABA.'' Under the bill, there are only automatic upward adjustments in obligation levels under RABA. These adjustments would still take place when the Highway Account balance is financially stronger than initially estimated. Another key reform would focus RABA calculations on the actual balance in the Highway Account, rather than on annual revenues. This important reform will help ensure that monies in the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund are invested and not allowed to build up to a large balance. Today's RABA did not preclude a build up of funds in the Highway Account, delaying the delivery of needed highway investments to our citizens. The MEGA FUND ACT increased the stability of distributions to states under the allocation programs. The bill includes proposed revisions to several so-called ``allocation'' programs that will increase funding for all States. Today, large portions of the program funds that are not apportioned to States are distributed on a discretionary basis. This bill would leave portions of the program subject to discretion, but move the allocation programs, collectively, in a general direction that would provide States greater certainty that they will be participating in allocation program funds. Specifically, the bill makes modest changes to the Intelligent Transportation System, ITS, program and to the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot, TCSP, program, to ensure that some of those funds find their way into every State. Another modest change will ensure that each State with a border receives at least some funding under the borders and corridors programs, and that States with significant public lands receive at least some public lands discretionary funding. Let me say a few things about what is not addressed in this bill. The MEGA FUND ACT sets forth an outline for the highway program. It does not address the transit program that is within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, or the highway safety programs within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, or the revenue for the highway program that is within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. My proposals for those issues are in previous bills that I have introduced--MEGA RED TRANS, MEGA SAFE, MEGA STREAM, MEGA TRUST, MEGA INNOVATE and today, MEGA FUND, Part II. Those are important matters that also must be addressed as part of the final overall legislation that will extend and build upon TEA-21. As for MEGA FUND Part II, this bill although short and simple, actually represents the most important step in any reauthorization bill. MEGA FUND, Part II allows the funding program set forth in MEGA FUND Part I to be spend from the Highway Trust Fund. Without this important step, Congress can write formulas until Christmas, but no money can actually be sent to the states and spent. The ability to spend this money requires a change to the Internal Revenue Code that makes those Highway Trust Funds available for payment. MEGA FUND PART II takes care of that. In summary, the MEGA FUND ACT stays close to the successful program structure of TEA-21 and maintains its apportionment formulas. It would significantly increase funding for the program as a whole, continue budgetary firewalls and strengthen RABA, and provide some extra funds to all States through the economic and demographic barriers program and through some innovations in other programs not subject to the minimum guarantee. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Florida. The tribe he is referring to is the Salish Kooteenai Tribe in northwestern Montana. That tribe, along with a couple others in Montana, is proudly doing great work with defense contracts and NASA contracts. The Senator is exactly right. This is a program that is almost all-encompassing for almost the entire country. There are so many different States. We are particularly proud in Montana because of the Native Americans who work at it. It is good work. It is top quality work. I appreciate the Senator coming to Montana, visiting the Salish Kooteenai, seeing their good work. I am sure it adds more meaning and context to the Senator's experience in the space program and even new meaning to the Senator's experience of the space program. We are happy to be able to help in that regard.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to address a natural disaster that is occurring in America. That is the unrelenting drought. For my State of Montana and many States this year, particularly in Colorado and other Western States, it has brought economic hardship to our agricultural producers and to our rural communities. In 1996, before the drought began, Montana wheat producers made $847 million from their wheat sales, close to $1 billion. In 2001, 4 years into the drought, Montana producers made just $317 million from wheat sales. That is a 62-percent decline. Let me add a new context to that figure. Agriculture is more than 50 percent of my State's economy. It is truly the backbone of our State. I ask those who oppose natural disaster assistance one question: How is a State like Montana supposed to survive a loss of that magnitude, 62 percent, without assistance, when half the economy is agriculture? The most efficient, the most effective, the most successful businesses in the world could not absorb that kind of a loss. That 62-percent decline in sales for Montana wheat farmers--and I might add, the same devastating effect is felt by livestock producers because of lack of pasture and feed--is through absolutely no fault of those producers. These farmers haven't been cooking the books. They haven't been taking exorbitant bonuses at the expense of shareholders. No, our Nation's farmers and ranchers are hard working, dedicated, good, honest people, trying to make a living, trying to make ends meet. They need our help. The drought is no longer touching only the pockets of our country. The drought has become an epidemic. It has affected a majority of our Nation. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 1,470 counties in 45 States have been designated drought disaster regions in 2002. As you can tell from this map, dated October 1 of this year, there isn't one State west of the Mississippi that has been receiving the rain they need. Just look west of the Mississippi, and clearly, by the dark brown and the reds, you can see the center of America is experiencing deep drought. Drought is affecting States up and down the east coast as well, as we can see from this map. That is just part of it. That is just this year. In most regions of the country, certainly in the West, we are now in our fourth or fifth year. It is cumulative. It adds up. This map alone doesn't tell the whole story. On October 3 of this year, President Bush provided FEMA Federal disaster funds and resources for people victimized by Hurricane Lili. Those people, those small businesses, those rural communities have been devastated by an unpredictable and uncontrollable natural phenomenon--a hurricane. They deserve our assistance, and we, very generously and proudly, support that assistance the President provided for those parts of the country devastated by hurricanes. But where is the assistance for people suffering from drought? In reality, the only real difference between a hurricane and a drought is that a majority of people don't understand the impact of 4 consecutive years of drought the same way they understand the impact of a hurricane. Drought is a silent killer. It is not on TV. It is not headlined in the news. It is a silent killer that slowly builds up and accumulates. The pictures of drought on CNN are not as immediate and terrifying as are the photographs of hurricanes. But the effects can be just as serious for the people in both events. They can both lose their homes and livelihoods. Our agricultural producers are holding their breath. They are waiting for natural disaster assistance because if they don't receive our help, many will not make it. In Montana, and in other States across the country, small businesses are closing their doors and families are losing their futures because of the drought. It is happening. School districts no longer have enough children to conduct classes, so they have to consolidate schools, forcing kids to travel hours by bus. Why are they losing children? Because of the effect of the drought. Parts of my State are just drying up. Those people, small businesses, and rural communities have been devastated by unpredictable and uncontrollable natural phenomenon. On September 3 of this year, the Wall Street Journal printed this: The U.S. may be looking at its most expensive drought in its history, inflicting economic damage far beyond the farm belt. Think of that, Mr. President. A quote by the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. may be looking at the most expensive drought in our Nation's history, inflicting economic damage far beyond the farm belt. I will share a few stories that have been shared with me over the last couple of weeks. In north-central Montana, the bread basket of my State, a producer and his family have been living off of their farm for several generations. After 4 years of valiant fighting against the drought, they have been forced to give up. The question is, What do they do now? Because of the drought, they have no crop and cannot pay off their outstanding operating loans. Don't forget, that is how farmers do business. They get operating loans before they get their crop. If they get no crop, they cannot pay off the loans. More than 3 months ago, this family put their farm, their machinery, everything they have dedicated a lifetime to, up for sale. They have yet to receive a single offer in more than 90 days. A producer in the same region had five hired hands just 5 years ago. Now he has none. Due to the cost of feed and the condition of his pastures, he has had to cut down his herd to one-fourth of what he used to own. Over the last 3 years, he has lost several hundred thousand dollars because the drought has killed his crops and he cannot afford cattle feed. He and his family rely on the income from his wife. But to make a bad situation worse, his wife's job is now in jeopardy because of the negative impact of the drought on her employer. She is not sure she can keep her job. Dale Schuler, past president of Montana Grain Growers Association, and a farmer in Choteau County, had this to say, and I know Dale. He is a rock-solid man. He has been farming for years: Nearly 2,000 square miles of crop in my area of central Montana went unharvested in 2001. That is an area equal to the size of the State of Rhode Island. Farmers and our families haven't had the means to repay our operating loans, let alone buy inputs to plant the crop for the coming here. Don't forget, agriculture is 50 percent of the economy in Montana. There is a decline in income over several years of 62 percent. Continuing his quote: Choteau 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 about to see a mass exodus from Montana that has not been seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. That is no small statement, Mr. President. Another farmer from Choteau County, Darin Arganbright, pointed out that enrollment in local schools has decreased by 50 percent in the past few years. Young families are not able to stay in the area because of the lack of work and the lack of opportunity. It is not only agriculture that is gone; businesses in the community are being devastated. According to the New York Times, an article of May 3 of this year: 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. That is the fourth year of drought. That is not 1 year; that is 4. I remind colleagues that Federal crop insurance is perverse because, with each year the coverage decreases while premiums increase compared to the prior year. It is a negative vicious cycle. Don Wilhite, director of the National Drought Mitigation Center, describes drought in the following manner: Drought is the Rodney Dangerfield of natural disasters. In most cases, it causes the most significant losses, but it is harder to convince policymakers and others to deal with it. That is what is happening, Mr. President. The White House is turning a deaf ear to this. They put their blinders on. The majority party in the other body is doing the same thing, putting blinders on, closing their ears, not paying attention. Producers pray every day that they can hang on until the U.S. Congress--all of us elected to represent the people--works together to pass agricultural disaster assistance. Our producers are praying that we act now so their children have the opportunity to continue what they and generations before them have fought so hard to sustain. We cannot and must not continue to ignore the impact 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 a small business owner from Louisiana suffering from the hurricane. In a speech to the Cattle Industry Annual Convention and Trade Show in Denver in February, President Bush emphasized the need for a strong rural economy: Our farm economy, our ranchers and farmers provide an incredible part of the Nation's economic vitality. That is what he said in February. The President continued by saying if the agricultural economy is not vital, the Nation's economy will suffer. Those are the President's own words. I could not agree more with the President. The Nation's economy is directly tied to our agricultural economy. Unless we take action, the drought will have a permanent impact on our agricultural producers, on our small rural towns, and on our national economy. I urge my colleagues in the House and the Senate, and the President, to work together to pass natural disaster assistance before it is too late--and in many cases, for thousands of families who have pulled up stakes, it is already too late. I ask the President to live up to the words he spoke in February. If the agricultural economy is vital to the national economy--and it is--then it is vital that we pass agricultural disaster assistance immediately. Our agricultural producers have never let us down--never. They do not let us down. They continue to fill our tables with safe and abundant supplies of food. Now it is time for us to work together to provide them with immediate assistance so they can continue to fill their own tables. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to my remarks because we have a problem. We have to work this out together. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from West Virginia. On May 23, during the debate of the trade bill, Senator Rockefeller spoke on some of the provisions in the Trade Promotion Authority provisions relating to trade remedy laws. There has been continued discussion of these issues over the past several months, so I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that the points we made in discussing the Senate bill apply equally to the Conference Bill. Section 2102(b)(14) of the TPA bill states that it is a ``principal'' U.S. negotiating objective to preserve, in all trade negotiations, the ability of the United States to enforce rigorously its trade remedy laws and to avoid any agreement that would require weakening of the current U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard remedies. The Committee on Finance regards strict adherence to this directive as critical in advancing the economic interests of the United States in future trade agreements. The directive encompasses any weakening of the existing remedies, whether at the level of statute, regulation or agency practice. This means that the Administration must reject any new international rule or obligation whose acceptance would lead to relief under our existing trade laws becoming more difficult, uncertain, or costly for domestic industries to achieve and maintain over time. I want to highlight again some examples of new international obligations that have been proposed by WTO members, and that would obviously result in a weakening of U.S. trade laws and therefore must be rejected under the standard set out in section 2102(b)(14). These include: No. 1, a ``public interest'' rule politicizing and encumbering the administrative processes under which trade remedy laws are currently applied; No. 2, a requirement to exempt from trade remedy measures items alleged to be in ``short supply'' in the domestic market; No. 3, a ``lesser duty'' rule limiting antidumping and countervailing duties to some amount less than the calculated margin of dumping or subsidy, such as the amount supposedly necessary to offset the injury; No. 4, any extension of faulty dispute resolution models such as Chapter 19 of the NAFTA; No. 5, changes to the rules for ``sunset'' reviews of antidumping and CVD measures which would make it more difficult to keep relief in place; No. 6, additional constraints or criteria for dumping calculations, in areas where current WTO rules and U.S. law vest discretion in the administering authority; and No. 7, special rules and standards that would make it easier for a particular group of countries, such as developing countries, to utilize injurious dumping or subsidies as a means of getting ahead in international trade.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is exactly right. As explained in the Finance Committee's report on the TPA measure, in a series of decisions involving trade remedy measures, the WTO Appellate Body and lower dispute settlement panels have fabricated obligations which our negotiators never accepted and blatantly disregarded the discretion which the Uruguay Round negotiators intended national investigating authorities to retain. These WTO tribunals have violated their mandate not to increase or reduce the rights and obligations of WTO Members; have imposed their preferences and interpretations, and those of a biased WTO Secretariat, on the United States and on other WTO Members; and have issued decisions with no basis in the legal texts they supposedly were interpreting. The effect has been to upset the careful balance achieved in the Uruguay Round by adding new, and wholly unwarranted, constraints on the use of trade remedies. The no-weakening directive presents no impediment to the pursuit of a forceful U.S. agenda to address the problems plaguing WTO dispute settlement.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the coming weeks, the Finance Committee will be working closely with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to develop written Guidelines on consultations between the Administration and Congress in trade negotiations. These Guidelines will be our roadmap for collaboration between the Executive and Legislative Branches on trade negotiations for the next five years. They will be the basis for the partnership of equals called for by the Trade Act of 2002. The trade negotiation agenda promises to be busy. Even before passage of the Trade Act, work was under way in the Doha Round of WTO negotiations and in the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations. USTR also was busy concluding free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Since passage of the Trade Act, USTR has expressed the Administration's interest in beginning FTA negotiations with Morocco, Central America, the Southern African Customs Union, and Australia. This busy agenda requires maximum clarity in the rules governing interaction between the Administration and Congress. Clear rules will form a foundation for a common understanding of how we bring trade agreements from the concept phase to the implementation phase. This common understanding will help ensure a smooth process, with few if any surprises or bumps in the road. The Trade Act defines the scope of coverage of the contemplated Guidelines on trade negotiations. Specifically, the Guidelines are required to address: the frequency and nature of briefings on the status of negotiations; Member and staff access to pertinent negotiating documents; coordination between the Trade Representative and the Congressional Oversight Group at all critical periods during negotiating sessions, including at negotiation sites; and consultations regarding compliance with and enforcement of trade agreement obligations. The Guidelines also must identify a time frame for the President's transmittal of labor rights reports concerning the countries with which the United States concludes trade agreements. The Trade Act contemplates collaboration among USTR, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee in developing the Guidelines. I would like to use this opportunity to propose specific provisions that should be included in the Guidelines to maximize the potential for a true partnership between the Legislative and Executive branches. The first issue that needs to be addressed is access to negotiating documents. When U.S. negotiators prepare to make an offer to their foreign counterparts, Congressional trade advisers and staff must be able to review the proposed offer in time to provide meaningful input. In general, trade advisers and staff should be able to see such documents not less than two weeks before U.S. negotiators present their offer to our negotiating partners. This will give trade advisers time to convey comments and make recommendations, with a reasonable expectation that their comments and recommendations will receive serious consideration. By the same token, when another country makes an offer during the course of a negotiating session, that offer should promptly be made available to Congressional trade advisers and staff. This will enable trade advisers to keep abreast of the give-and-take of negotiations and to provide intelligent input into the development of the U.S. position. Second, Congressional trade advisers and staff should have access to regularly scheduled negotiating sessions. I know that some in the Administration will bridle at this suggestion, citing separation of powers concerns. However, I do not think those concerns are warranted. I am not suggesting that trade advisers or staff actually engage in negotiations. I am suggesting only that they attend as observers. This level of Congressional involvement in negotiations has well established precedents. A recent study by the Congressional Research Service on the role of the Senate in treaties and other international agreements catalogued instances of Congressional inclusion in delegations stretching back to negotiations with Spain in 1898 and continuing to the present day. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant pages of this lengthy CRS study be printed in the Record at the conclusion of this statement.

Mr. BAUCUS. In the early part of the last century, Presidents Harding and Hoover actually designated Senators as delegates, not merely observers, to arms limitation negotiations. President Truman included Members of Congress in the delegations that negotiated the establishment of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty. More recently, a special Senate Arms Control Observers Group was created in 1985 to oversee negotiations that led to the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It included distinguished members of this body, including Senators Lugar, Stevens, Nunn, Pell, Wallop, Moynihan, Kennedy, Gore, Warner, and Nickles. President Reagan embraced this endeavor, precisely because he knew that a close working relationship with the Senate at the beginning of negotiations would increase the likelihood of ratification at the conclusion. Indeed, the history of Congressional involvement in the negotiation of treaties and other international agreements has its roots in the very origins of our Nation. Until the closing days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Framers had intended for the Senate to have the sole authority to make treaties. And in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton acknowledged that treaty making ``will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the executive character . . .'' The well-recognized utility of Congressional involvement in treaty and international agreement negotiation applies with even greater force when it comes to international trade. For here, the making of international agreements intersects with the Constitution's express grant of authority to Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The statute that framed trade negotiations for the last quarter century, the Trade Act of 1974, contemplated a close working relationship between Congress and the Administration. Thus, during the Tokyo Round and Uruguay Round of multinational trade negotiations, staff of the Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee traveled regularly to Geneva. They were included in U.S. Trade Representative staff meetings and observed negotiations of plurilateral and multilateral agreements. They had regular access to cable traffic and other negotiating documents. By all accounts, this process worked well. Staff, and, in turn, Members were kept well informed of the progress of negotiations, which helped to secure Congressional support for the resulting agreements. In fact, there are numerous illustrations of close interaction between Executive and Legislative Branches in the trade negotiation arena. I myself have attended trade negotiating sessions on a number of occasions. Just last year, my staff and I attended a session of the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations in Quebec City. Before that, I attended some sessions of the mid-term meeting of the Uruguay Round negotiations in Montreal. I know that Members of Congress also have been included in delegations to WTO Ministerial meetings in Singapore and Seattle. And, I understand that during the Uruguay Round, Members traveled to Geneva at key junctures in negotiations on trade remedy laws, and were included in the official delegation to a Ministerial meeting in Brussels. Even in the period from 1994 to 2002, when fast track negotiating authority lapsed along with the express mandate for a Congressional- Executive partnership on trade, Members of Congress sought to remain closely involved. For example, I understand that my friend Senator Grassley sought permission for staff of the General Accounting Office to attend certain negotiations, in order to keep Congress well informed. Now, fast track has been renewed. Once again, we have an express mandate for a Congressional-Executive partnership on trade. Indeed, the Trade Act of 2002 contemplates an even closer working relationship between Congress and the Administration than the Trade Act of 1974. It is time to revive and strengthen the practices that solidified a close, robust working relationship in the past. Given the long history of Legislative-Executive partnership in negotiating in a whole host of sensitive areas, given the constitutional role of Congress when it comes to regulation of commerce with foreign nations, and given the policy articulated in the Trade Act of 2002, I see little basis for excluding Congressional observers from trade negotiations. Third, the Guidelines should set forth a clear schedule and format for consultations in connection with negotiating sessions. At a minimum, negotiators should meet with Congressional advisers' staff shortly before regularly scheduled negotiating sessions and shortly after the conclusion of such sessions. To the extent practicable, the Administration participants in these consultations should be the individuals negotiating on the subjects at issue, as opposed to their supervisors. Consultations should be an opportunity for negotiators to lay out, in detail, their plan of action for upcoming talks and to receive and respond to input from Congressional advisers. Whenever practicable, consultations should be accompanied by documents pertaining to the negotiation at issue. If advisers of staff make recommendations during consultation sessions, arrangements should be made for negotiators to respond following consideration of those recommendations. Additionally, to the extent that Congressional advisers or staff are unable to attend negotiating sessions, arrangements should be made to provide briefings by phone during the negotiations. The key point here is that it is the quality as much as the quantity of negotiations that counts. It matters little that the Administration briefed Congressional advisers a hundred times in connection with a given negotiations, if the briefings amount to impressionistic summaries with no meaningful opportunity for advisers to offer input. Fourth, the Guidelines must set forth a plan to keep Congressional advisers fully and timely informed of efforts to monitor and enforce trade agreements. In any trade agreement, follow up is critical. If compliance is spotty, the agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Also, monitoring and enforcement help to identify provisions that might be modified in future trade agreements. Currently, Congressional advisers get briefed when a formal dispute arises or sanctions are threatened or imposed. Keeping Congressional advisers in the monitoring and enforcement loop tends to be episodic. It should be systematic. The Guidelines should provide for consultations with Congressional advisers on monitoring and enforcement at least every two months. These consultations should not just highlight problems. They should provide a complete picture of how the Executive Branch is deploying its monitoring and enforcement resources. They should identify where these efforts are succeeding, as well as where they require reenforcement. In conclusion, the Trade Act of 2002 represents a watershed in relations between the Executive and Legislative Branches when it comes to trade policy and negotiations. Before the Trade Act, the Executive Branch generally took the lead, and the involvement of Congressional advisers tended to be cursory and episodic. In the Trade Act, Congress sent a clear message that the old way will not do. From now on, the involvement of Congressional advisers in developing trade policy and negotiations must be in depth and systematic. Congress can no longer be an afterthought. The Trade Act establishes a partnership of equals. It recognizes that Congress's constitutional authority to regulate foreign trade and the President's constitutional authority to negotiate with foreign nations are interdependent. It requires a working relationship that reflects that interdependence. Our first opportunity to memorialize this new, interdependent relationship is only weeks away. I am very hopeful that the Administration will work closely with us in developing the Guidelines to make the partnership of equals a reality. Exhibit 1 Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate On occasion Senators or Representatives have served as members of or advisers to the U.S. delegation negotiating a treaty. The practice has occurred throughout American history. In September 1898, President William McKinley appointed three Senators to a commission to negotiate a treaty with Spain. President Warren G. Harding appointed Senators Henry Cabot Lodge and Oscar Underwood as delegates to the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments in 1921 and 1922 which resulted in four treaties, and President Hoover appointed two Senators to the London Naval Arms Limitation Conference in 1930. The practice has increased since the end of the Second World War, in part because President Wilson's lack of inclusion of any Senators in the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference was considered one of the reasons for the failure of the Versailles Treaty. Four of the eight members of the official U.S. delegation to the San Francisco Conference establishing the United Nations were Members of Congress: Senators Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg and Representatives Sol Bloom and Charles A. Eaton. There has been some controversy over active Members of Congress serving on such delegations. When President James Madison appointed Senator James A. Bayard and Speaker of the House Henry Clay to the commission that negotiated the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, both resigned from Congress to undertake the task. More recently, as in the annual appointment of Senators or Members of Congress to be among the U.S. representatives to the United Nations General Assembly, Members have participated in delegations without resigning, and many observers consider it ``now common practice and no longer challenged.'' One issue has been whether service by a Member of Congress on a delegation violated Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. This section prohibits Senators or Representatives during their terms from being appointed to a civil office if it has been created or its emoluments increased during their terms, and prohibits a person holding office to be a Member of the Senate or House. Some contend that membership on a negotiating delegation constitutes holding an office while others contend that because of its temporary nature it is not. Another issue concerns the separation of powers. One view is that as a member of a negotiating delegation a Senator would be subject to the instructions of the President and would face a conflict of interest when later required to vote on the treaty in the Senate. Others contend that congressional members of delegations may insist on their independence of action and that in any event upon resuming their legislative duties have a right and duty to act independently of the executive branch on matters concerning the treaty. A compromise solution has been to appoint Members of Congress as advisers or observers, rather than as members of the delegation. The administration has on numerous occasions invited one or more Senators and Members of Congress or congressional staff to serve as advisers to negotiations of multilateral treaties. In 1991 and 1992, for example, Members of Congress and congressional staff were included as advisers and observers in the U.S. delegations to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and its preparatory meetings. In 1992, congressional staff advisers were included in the delegations to the World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) of the International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) of the International Telecommunications Union. In the early 1990s, Congress took initiatives to assure congressional observers. The Senate and House each designated an observer group for strategic arms reductions talks with the Soviet Union that began in 1985 and culminated with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) approved by the Senate on October 1, 1992. In 1991, the Senate established a Senate World Climate Convention Observer Group. As of late 2000, at least two ongoing groups of Senate observers existed: 1. Senate National Security Working Group.--This is a bipartisan group of Senators who ``act as official observers to negotiations * * * on the reduction or limitation of nuclear weapons, conventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction; the reduction, limitation, or control of missile defenses; or related export controls.'' 2. Senate Observer Group on U.N. Climate Change Negotiations.--This is a ``bipartisan group of Senators, appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders'' to monitor ``the status of negotiations on global climate change and report[ing] periodically to the Senate * * *.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am thankful the Senator from Maine is still on the floor. I wish to respond to a couple points she made. I do not know that there is anybody in the Senate who wants to get a prescription drug benefit for seniors more than the Senator from Maine. Believe me, I understand that. I have been at many meetings with the senior Senator from Maine where she has made that very clear. There is also no one on the floor who wants to pass a prescription drug bill more than the senior Senator from Montana. The same is true of the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Nebraska, and the Senator from West Virginia, as well as the current occupant of the chair, the Senator from Wisconsin. We all want to get a prescription drug benefit passed. On the one hand, there is the so-called tripartisan bill, which the Senator from Maine supports, and which is basically the insurance company model. On the other hand, there is the bill that would use pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, to administer a drug benefit. This is essentially the Medicare model. Reducing it to its basic simplicity, that is the argument. The Senator says she wants a prescription drug benefit passed, but she slyly indicates she wants hers passed. But her bill did not get a majority vote in the Senate. There are others who want to get prescription drug benefits passed who have a different view of what a prescription drug benefit should be, and that is the problem. Neither side wants to give in. Both sides think they are right. We just witnessed a good example of that. The Senator from Maine says: Bring up a prescription drug bill, but bring up hers, the way she wants it. She does not agree to bring up the other bill, apparently, that the Senator from Nevada suggested, the one that received a majority vote. That is the problem. Neither side agrees. Each side wants its bill passed. I say to my good friend--and she well knows this--I have worked so hard with her to get a prescription drug benefit passed. I called the meeting in my office with the Senator from Maine and with other Senators who were key Senators on this subject as a last-ditch effort to get a bill passed because I share with her the view we owe it to our seniors to get a prescription drug benefit bill passed. I understand that. But the Senator knows well that there are huge differences of agreement. The issue is basically, should we have a more privatized system or not? That is basically the argument. The Senator from Maine suggests the approach that privatizes prescription drugs to seniors with insurance companies. That is basically her bill. There are others who say: No, do not do that; that is wrong because insurance companies will take too much for themselves; the insurance companies will not give the benefits to the seniors, and besides that, insurance companies are not sure they want to do it, anyway. It is very easy for a Senator to stand up and say: Let's do prescription drug benefits. The hard part is actually coming up with a compromise so we can reach a solution and pass a bill that does give benefits to our seniors. To be frank, I have not heard the Senator from Maine come forth to me or anybody with a reasonable compromise. She has been pushing for this insurance company model, and she is not coming up with a compromise. I say that because that indicates the degree of separation and the division in this Senate over how to get prescription drug benefits to seniors. But while we all want to pass a benefit, we also want to make sure it is done right. If we are going to pass legislation on the order of $400 billion over 10 years, we have to make sure it is done right and that it works for seniors. It does not make sense just to pass a bill. It makes sense to pass a bill that works. I could not agree more with the Senator that we should pass a bill, but in all candor, at this late moment, coming up to the Chamber without first suggesting an honest-to-goodness compromise sounds as if this is obfuscation. On the surface, it sounds good: Let's pass a prescription drug benefit. I know she means well, but there are others on her side of the aisle for whom this is an obfuscation, a desire not to get an underlying give-back bill passed. The reason the Medicare give-back bill is here is because there is agreement. There is agreement on almost all of the provisions: an agreement that we should not allow the home health cut go into effect; agreement on what the restoration for physicians should be; agreement on hospital payments, the so-called standardized amount. There is agreement. But there is not agreement on how to provide prescription drug benefits, and the Senator from Maine well knows that. Her argument is: Let's just try; let's try it. Sometimes we have to tell it like it is. The fact is, both sides are so stuck in their ways that I have made the judgment that it is nearly impossible in the remaining days to reach agreement because we are in such a political season. If the Senator from Maine wants to come forth and give me a legitimate compromise, then maybe we can get a bill passed. She says she wants the tripartisan bill up for consideration. She does not say: let's sit down and work out a legitimate agreement and see if we can put something together. I would like to sit down with the Senator from Maine and see if we can reach agreement. I know the Senator from Maine would like to do so. To be honest, she has not suggested anything except the tripartisan insurance company model. And that plan did not even get a majority vote in the Senate. The approach by Senator Graham received a majority of votes in the Senate. Mr. President, if we don't pass this bill to restore Medicare payments, we should consider all of the seniors who may get less care in nursing homes, and seniors who may get less care because doctors will no longer provide Medicare services to patients. My good friend from Maine points out that the Medicare payment bill will increase costs to seniors. She does not tell us that of the increased cost to seniors 90 percent is caused by a restoration of payments to physicians. This restoration is needed to ensure that physicians will still provide care to seniors. If she wants doctors to continue to withdraw from Medicare, that is her right, that is her choice, when she complains about the amount of the increase seniors will have to pay. It is true that they will have to pay a little more. We have to figure out a solution to that. I am hopeful we can do it next year, and I am hopeful there will be more of a bipartisan mood around here. I know the Senator's motives are pure. Hers are pure, but I cannot say that for the majority of the Members on the other side of the aisle on this issue at this moment. I have been around here a while and know how this place works. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Maine. She has pure motives, but her offering this unanimous consent request at this time is clearly an effort on the part of others--not her--on the part of others to try to slow down and prevent the Medicare give-back bill from passing.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in responding to my good friend from Oklahoma, I have a couple points. First, as my good friend well knows, since he is a member of the committee, this issue, the Medicare provider bill, has been discussed for many weeks. It was in the Finance Committee informally, with several discussions and meetings. In order to prevent the harm that these Medicare cuts represent, I believe, and I think Senator Grassley believes--we should check with him and make doubly certain--that we should pass this bill now. It makes more sense to pass this consensus bill than to go back and try to make it perfect in the view of some other Senators. Second, there are very few days remaining in the session. There are very few days remaining before the election occurs. What does that mean? It means under the Senate rules, anybody who wants to frustrate the will of the majority, frustrate the will of 99 Senators, can essentially do so by objecting or by offering amendments. The Senator knows this because we have had four separate votes on the issues he is indirectly referring to. Any attempt to refer legislation back to a committee for the purpose of offering amendments is really a veto tactic. It is an indirect way of accomplishing the same objective by objecting. As the Senator well knows, the amendments he is thinking of will not pass the Finance Committee, will not pass the floor, and will have the effect of preventing the Medicare provider bill from being enacted. So in good faith, in order to help millions of Americans, particularly the millions of seniors who need help right away, I could not agree to that modification. If there are other amendments on other issues such as prescription drug benefits, which I know the Senator is indirectly referring to, let us try at a later date to get that passed. We have tried for months, almost a year, to get prescription drug benefits passed, but there has been no breakthrough, there has been no agreement. But there has been agreement on this Medicare provider bill, basic agreement within the committee and basic agreement between myself, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the committee. Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the good. Seniors need help. They need help right now. The cuts have already started to take effect. So let's pass this legislation, and then we can deal at a later date with the issues to which the Senator is referring. Let us get this bill passed so the seniors can get some help.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. I might ask the question--the reason is because I checked with Senators who were at that meeting and they said: No, sorry, I am not going to agree with that. They are going backwards. They were going in the other direction. They didn't want to meet. It is unfortunate, it is so unfortunate. To be candid, Senator, you and I know you and I were the last two standing on this issue. Basically you are the last one standing on this issue trying to find agreement. But it is clear there are not enough Senators in this body who also want agreement at this time. That is why I think we cannot let the Medicare provider legislation be held hostage to another bill which does have an agreement. It is very unfortunate we could not get agreement. But it is partly because the Senate, as well as the House, is still a bit too partisan on all matters--not all matters, but most matters. Particularly on this issue, because it gets to a very fundamental question which this body and the other body will have to address, the whole country is going to have to address, and that is: What is the future of health care in this country? To what degree is it going to be privatized, to what degree not? That is a huge question. The prescription drug benefit debate is really the opening shot of that larger debate. I wish that were not so. I wish we could pass the prescription drug benefit quickly this year, but it is the judgment of this Senator, and I think it is the judgment of virtually every other Senator in this body, that it is not going to happen now. I wish that were not true. Therefore, I think let discretion be the better part of valor and let this Medicare payment bill pass.