Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk with Senator Grassley about the trade adjustment assistance bill and the important amendments that have been offered by Senators Bayh and Edwards. These amendments would provide automatic certification for trade- affected industries. I believe that the Secretary of Labor already has the discretion to certify particular industries under the TAA program. And I believe that she would have the discretion under the TAA bill we are now considering.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send a technical amendment to the desk amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BAUCUS. I can confirm the Senator's understanding, and I would like to express my personal support with respect to preventing the unfair practices that have threatened our U.S. catfish industry. Our clear intent is that U.S. law be fully enforced, not only as it concerns our catfish farmers but all U.S. producers, to ensure that trade is fair. Certification of Trade-Affected Industries

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also agree with my colleagues, views on this important issue. The intention of the members on this matter is clear: The definition of perishable and cyclical agricultural products includes livestock and meat production. Enforcement of Proper Labeling of Basa Fish

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is perfectly correct. I might add that the TPA bill includes several additional provisions designed to ensure a forceful U.S. response to the WTO dispute settlement problem, and section 2(c)(9) presents no barrier whatsoever in that regard. livestock and meat products as perishable and cyclical products

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, those are certainly changes that would weaken our current remedies, and which would fail the test set out in section 2(c)(9). I also understand that my colleague and friend, Senator Rockefeller, who has worked very closely with me on the defense of our trade remedy laws over the years, has some points to add concerning section 2(c)(9).

Mr. BAUCUS. In closing, let me add that I appreciate the help of you and your staff in working to reach a bipartisan compromise on this package. I hope we can continue to move together in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year, nearly two-thirds of the Senate sent a letter to President Bush emphasizing that new trade agreements must not weaken trade remedy laws such as antidumping and countervailing duty law. The fast track bill we are considering today reemphasizes that point. Section 2(c)(9) of the bill instructs the President 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. Today, I would like to make two key points about this provision. First, the Committee on Finance regards strict adherence to the section 2(c)(9) directive as critical in advancing the economic interests of the United States in future trade agreements. The bill's language here is unambiguous in the sense that, rather than establishing preservation of our trade remedy laws as simply a ``negotiating objective,'' it bluntly states that the President ``shall'' preserve those laws. Second, the negotiating instruction encompasses any weakening of the existing remedies, whether at the level of statute, regulation or agency practice. This means that the President ``shall'' 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 am very concerned about the Administration's decision in Doha last year to put U.S. trade laws on the negotiating table. Many of our trading partners have only one goal to weaken our trade laws so they can gain an unfair competitive advantage. A number of WTO Members have put forward some specific proposals. I want to highlight today a few 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, including: One, a ``public interest'' rule politicizing and encumbering the administrative processes under which these laws are currently applied; two, a requirement to exempt from trade remedy measures items alleged to be in ``short supply'' in the domestic market; three, a so-called ``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; and four, any extension of faulty dispute resolution models such as Chapter 19 of the NAFTA. Mr. President, there are other examples, but these are some of the key concerns that I have and I know many of my colleagues share. I also want to emphasize that this is very much a bipartisan issue. Members on both sides of the aisle feel strongly about protecting U.S. trade laws. And along those lines, I believe my good friend and ally in protecting U.S. trade laws, would like to express some of his concerns about this issue.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. President. What is the regular order? Amendment No. 3470

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Congress has its hands full with health policy issues this year, ranging from health insurance for workers displaced by trade policies, to the Patients' Bill of Rights, to Medicare prescription drugs. All of these issues are pressing. But Congress must not lose sight of another pressing issue in health policy: supporting patients in rural America and the health care providers who care for them. Under current law, rural areas are confronted with a series of inequities in Medicare payment policy. Few of these inequities have any basis in sound policy; and all of them take away precious resources from rural communities. Today, I am introducing legislation to level the rural playing field. The Revitalizing Underserved Rural Areas and Localities Act, the RURAL Act, would fix many of the inequities that exist under the current system and offer extra help to certain providers who struggle to operate in a rural, low-volume environment. Many of these changes would impact Medicare payments to hospitals. First, the bill provides a full inflation update for small urban and rural hospitals. Under current law, hospitals are scheduled to receive a payment increase that is 0.55 percent less than the rate of inflation next year. The RURAL Act would erase that reduction in Fiscal Year 2003. My bill would also equalize the base payment amount for hospital inpatient services. Under current law, the base payment amount, also known as the ``standardized amount,'' is lower for rural and small urban hospitals than for urban providers. This system unfairly penalizes smaller facilities, and I want to change to a single, equal rate. The RURAL Act would also make gradual changes to the hospital wage index, so that the true cost of providing care in rural areas can be more accurately measured. And the bill recognizes the special needs of providers with low patient volumes, by giving them incremental payment increases based on their patient volume. My bill also addresses several ambulance issues that I've heard a lot about from the rural health care community. It makes clear that when providers have a reasonable medical basis for using an air ambulance, they should receive proper payment for that service. And it would allow hospitals with 25 beds or less to be reimbursed on a cost basis for ambulance services. The bill contains special provisions for the roughly 600 critical access hospitals, or CAHs, nationwide. First, it says that when a patient is referred to a CAH for lab services, the hospital is reimbursed on a cost basis. It would also modify the emergency room on- call rules to allow reimbursements to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists. And it would remove CAHs' 35-mile requirement for cost-based ambulance reimbursement. I also recognize the enormous challenges of delivering home health services in rural and frontier areas, where distance and volume constantly work against the provider. That's why my bill would extend the 10 percent add-on for home health services delivered in rural areas for another three years. And for agencies in so-called ``frontier'' areas, there would be a 20 percent add-on. Finally, my bill includes provisions aimed at helping physicians who practice in rural areas. Under the existing system, payments under the physician fee schedule are reduced for rural doctors, often substantially, by a factor known as the Geographic Practice Cost Index, or GPCI. My bill would put a floor on this factor, increasing payments to rural physicians. The bill would also improve the Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, an important initiative intended to facilitate recruitment and retention of physicians in rural areas. Finally, while the sustainable growth rate payment formula is not addressed in this legislation, I believe it is critical that Congress act this year to mitigate the drastic cuts in payments under the Medicare physician fee schedule. This bill represents a starting point, a first step towards correcting flawed policies that punish rural areas. As the Finance Committee considers Medicare legislation in the coming months, I urge my colleagues to support these important rural provisions.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Congress has its hands full with health policy issues this year, ranging from health insurance for workers displaced by trade policies, to the Patients' Bill of Rights, to Medicare prescription drugs. All of these issues are pressing. But Congress must not lose sight of another pressing issue in health policy: supporting patients in rural America and the health care providers who care for them. Under current law, rural areas are confronted with a series of inequities in Medicare payment policy. Few of these inequities have any basis in sound policy; and all of them take away precious resources from rural communities. Today, I am introducing legislation to level the rural playing field. The Revitalizing Underserved Rural Areas and Localities Act, the RURAL Act, would fix many of the inequities that exist under the current system and offer extra help to certain providers who struggle to operate in a rural, low-volume environment. Many of these changes would impact Medicare payments to hospitals. First, the bill provides a full inflation update for small urban and rural hospitals. Under current law, hospitals are scheduled to receive a payment increase that is 0.55 percent less than the rate of inflation next year. The RURAL Act would erase that reduction in Fiscal Year 2003. My bill would also equalize the base payment amount for hospital inpatient services. Under current law, the base payment amount, also known as the ``standardized amount,'' is lower for rural and small urban hospitals than for urban providers. This system unfairly penalizes smaller facilities, and I want to change to a single, equal rate. The RURAL Act would also make gradual changes to the hospital wage index, so that the true cost of providing care in rural areas can be more accurately measured. And the bill recognizes the special needs of providers with low patient volumes, by giving them incremental payment increases based on their patient volume. My bill also addresses several ambulance issues that I've heard a lot about from the rural health care community. It makes clear that when providers have a reasonable medical basis for using an air ambulance, they should receive proper payment for that service. And it would allow hospitals with 25 beds or less to be reimbursed on a cost basis for ambulance services. The bill contains special provisions for the roughly 600 critical access hospitals, or CAHs, nationwide. First, it says that when a patient is referred to a CAH for lab services, the hospital is reimbursed on a cost basis. It would also modify the emergency room on- call rules to allow reimbursements to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse specialists. And it would remove CAHs' 35-mile requirement for cost-based ambulance reimbursement. I also recognize the enormous challenges of delivering home health services in rural and frontier areas, where distance and volume constantly work against the provider. That's why my bill would extend the 10 percent add-on for home health services delivered in rural areas for another three years. And for agencies in so-called ``frontier'' areas, there would be a 20 percent add-on. Finally, my bill includes provisions aimed at helping physicians who practice in rural areas. Under the existing system, payments under the physician fee schedule are reduced for rural doctors, often substantially, by a factor known as the Geographic Practice Cost Index, or GPCI. My bill would put a floor on this factor, increasing payments to rural physicians. The bill would also improve the Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, an important initiative intended to facilitate recruitment and retention of physicians in rural areas. Finally, while the sustainable growth rate payment formula is not addressed in this legislation, I believe it is critical that Congress act this year to mitigate the drastic cuts in payments under the Medicare physician fee schedule. This bill represents a starting point, a first step towards correcting flawed policies that punish rural areas. As the Finance Committee considers Medicare legislation in the coming months, I urge my colleagues to support these important rural provisions.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank all Senators who worked so hard on this trade bill. I particularly thank the majority leader, Senator Daschle. I think he is one of the main architects of the key provision, trade adjustment assistance. He and Senator Bingaman have worked long and hard to help forge that portion of the bill. So I thank him and Senator Bingaman. Also, I thank my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid. I don't know how we would be here at this point without him. He has worked tirelessly and has done a super job with such equanimity and an even temper. I don't know how he does it. Also, I want to point out that a lot of work has gone into this bill. I don't think many people realize just how much work and dedication goes into something such as this. There are a lot of people whose names are not well known. A lot of us here on the floor get some gratification from seeing our names in newspapers and on TV when something is accomplished. But the fact is the real work is done by people who perform the most noble human endeavor--which is service to their country--virtually all day long, and many times with sleepless nights. Many are here tonight. I want people to know how hard they have worked. I especially want to say thanks to Greg Mastel. I hired Greg specifically to help get this legislation passed--and he has done a tremendous job. I also want to thank many other committee staff, who have worked tirelessly on this legislation--John Angell, Mike Evans, Timothy Punke, Ted Posner, Angela Marshall, Shara Aranoff, Andy Harig, Liz Fowler, Kate Kirchgraber, and Mitchell Kent. Senator Grassley also has a great team, and I thank them: Kolan Davis, Everett Eissenstat, and Richard Chriss. And finally, it is an understatement to say that we all appreciate the efforts of our skilled and patient legislative counsel--Polly Craighill, Stephanie Easley, and Ruth Ernst. Although he is not here, I compliment my colleague, Senator Grassley, who did a tireless job. This is the most progressive and far-reaching trade bill that this Senate has passed in 15 years. This is a landmark bill. It is also very well balanced. It modernizes fast-track trade promotion procedures, brings them up to date. On the other hand, it includes very significant assistance to people who were dislocated under trade. I think it will be a bill that, when looked back upon several years from now, is one of the landmarks and major benchmarks that has moved the United States more directly and appropriately to engage the world in trade. I am proud of all the efforts of those here on the floor. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. on ``Promoting Local Telecommunications Competition: The Means to Greater Broadband Deployment.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, Senator Nelson from Florida is ready to go with his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Nelson to call up his amendment No. 3440.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think we can clear this up. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank our colleagues from Florida, Senator Graham and, in particular in this case, Senator Nelson. They are really good Senators. Senators are elected to defend the interests of their State and defend their people and try to help economic growth and development in their States. We all do that, all of us as Members of the Senate. For those folks in Florida who may be watching and are interested in this subject, I want them to know that their two Senators are doing a great job. I hear from Senator Nelson and Senator Graham constantly on this issue: What we can do; how can we work this out; how can we compromise; what can we do to help here. I commend the two of them for their very strong, valiant effort. This is a subject with which we are wrestling. We have to make a judgment as to where we draw the line with respect to helping protect industries and products in our own country and States. The real question is, What about agricultural products which are by their nature sensitive? Under current law, the President does not on his own have the authority to reduce tariffs on such products. He has to get the approval of Congress. That is current law. The other body passed legislation which basically gives the President the authority to reduce tariffs on certain products by proclamation, up to 50 percent of the current tariff rate. The other body added that the President may not reduce tariffs by proclamation with respect to import-sensitive agricultural products; not only not by 50 percent, but not a single percentage point in reduction of tariffs for these products. Our underlying bill has those same provisions; namely, the President has the authority, by proclamation, to reduce tariffs by up to 50 percent on most products, but not with respect to import-sensitive agricultural products. There are other provisions in this bill which help address the concerns raised by the Senators from Florida. For example, the bill provides a special consultation procedure for negotiations on import- sensitive agricultural products. That is, before initiating negotiations on these products, the U.S. Trade Representative is required, under the provisions of this bill, to engage in special consultations with the Finance Committee and with the Ways and Means Committee in the other body and also with the Agriculture Committees in both bodies. This measure is designed to help give that extra protection for those very sensitive industries. I know the Senators from Florida would like to go further. They would like the legislation to provide that the President may not come back to Congress with tariff reductions. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter from which I quoted in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Can we get a copy of the amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Under the Nelson amendment, not only can the President not proclaim tariff reductions on import-sensitive agricultural products, he cannot even negotiate a new agreement reducing tariffs on those products. To be truthful, that presents a lot of problems. It violates the principles of MFN--most-favored-nation trading status-- which is, whenever we grant a tariff reduction to one country, it is granted to all countries. That is the basic underlying principle of GATT and WTO for all countries. What you give to one, you give to all. Otherwise, there would be this crazy system where it would be virtually impossible to trade. This amendment would violate MFN, because, if the United States were trying to negotiate tariff reductions on a certain product in various countries, but at the same time there was an outstanding order on the same product with respect to one particular country, this amendment would say the President cannot reduce tariffs because of that one country. If one particular country were under restrictions, this amendment would prevent the tariff from being reduced on that product for all countries. Therefore, it violates the principles of MFN. Madam President, I very much understand the efforts of the Senators. They make some good points. I just don't know that it is proper to tie the President's hands to such a great degree. This amendment will prevent the President from coming back to Congress in negotiating tariff reductions when there is an outstanding order. I urge Senators not to support this amendment. We have given a lot to import-sensitive agricultural products in this bill. The pending amendment goes too far. I think it should be rejected.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.