Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, is this the victims relief bill, I ask the majority leader?

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, there is a disaster in the State of Montana and other higher plain States, which is a drought. I have been seeking agricultural disaster assistance. I see that is not going to happen. I ask my friend from South Dakota if he can assure me that at the first opportunity next year we will take up and consider the agricultural disaster assistance bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from South Dakota. I add that this bill is very necessary to the victims relief bill, as it was reported to the Committee on Finance. I will not belabor it by going through the provisions. According to the rules, there is not time to do so. Suffice to say, this bill must pass in the next several hours because it will give much-needed relief. I thank my friend.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. And strike out the substance of it; take it up and pass it back with these provisions. I might answer my friend, this is the procedure we have to follow in order to pass these extenders.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will respond to my colleague that my intention is to take up the bill that is already on the calendar.

Mr. BAUCUS. This is 1 year. There is no intention to repeal any of the tax provisions that passed earlier this year.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a few moments I am going to ask that the Senate take up and pass the tax extenders legislation. It is unfortunate that the Congress, along with the President, were unable to agree on a stimulus to the American economy that would provide not only a boost to the American economy, but also assistance to those who have lost unemployment compensation benefits as a consequence of the decline in the economy accelerated by the events of September 11, as well as those who have lost health insurance as a consequence of losing their jobs. It is almost axiomatic that the economy is in tough shape. I do not expect with a high degree of certainty that the Congress is going to come back to where we would like to be very quickly. There are some small points which I think we should keep in mind. One is that auto sales broke records with zero percent financing, and the auto companies get most of their income from financing. So they were not making any money these past couple of months, which means reports coming out next quarter and even this quarter will not be high. The same applies to retail sales. It is the Christmas season. We know stores across the country, in order to encourage more sales, are giving tremendous discounts, which clearly discounts that company's income. We are going to have to face a stimulus package and should this next year. I hope we do it in a much more accommodating manner than we have in the last several weeks. I am not going to get into the blame game. I am not going to say who caused this collapse. I have lots of ideas. That is history. What happened happened. It is now time to go forward. I urge my colleagues, after appropriate rest and a break over the holidays, when they are rested up, to come back with renewed vigor and renewed dedication and perseverance to working together and, most important, listening to the other side. Too often we tend to talk, and we do not listen enough. If we were to listen a little more, even for a nanosecond, I think that would be progress. I urge my colleagues to listen to different points of view next year. Nevertheless, I think we should salvage whatever we can, and part of that is what is called the tax extenders. These include matters that are very important for the economy and for people who are relying on them. One is the work opportunity tax credit which helps people find jobs. The Joint Committee on Tax estimates 450,000 to 525,000 will be hired with this credit next year. It expires this year. All provisions I mentioned expire this year, and I think it is important to keep those in existence so next year people can rely upon them. Another is extending the qualified zone academy bond that authorizes $400 billion in bonds to States in the calendar year 2002. That is to renovate schools and purchase equipment. That expires this year and will terminate unless this legislation I mentioned passes. A key point, and I urge my colleagues to listen to this, it is a matter of confidence and certainty. These are provisions upon which so many people in our country depend. Over the years, they have been on again, off again. It is like a yo-yo. It is no way to do business. People need certainty, a little more than they have today in these uncertain times, a little more ability to predict the future. If we could pass this legislation tonight, extending the extenders, that would enable people with more certainty to know they can count on an existing law. This is not new law. This is an extension of existing law. It is not right for us to be not continuing that legislation because, otherwise, we will wake up next year, January 1 or 2, and these are not in effect. There are many other of them that are very good and, again, it creates that uncertainty. One, for example, is AMT for individuals. That is the alternative minimum tax credit. That is an extender. According to the Joint Committee on Tax, 900,000 Americans will be subject to the AMT without this relief, as one of the extenders we have. Four hundred thousand of those will be taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000. Those are really middle-income Americans. If we do not extend this extender, then those people will be subject to the AMT tax. In addition, this package includes an extension of a GSP, that is a generalized preference for trade. That is a trade provision that is in the law today. The Andean Trade Preference Act extends that. It is in the law today, in addition to trade adjustment assistance. I strongly urge my colleagues to think of Americans and pass this request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 33, H.R. 8; that the Baucus substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is clear what is happening.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might answer the question posed, it is my intention that the matter I intend to bring up will probably consume 4, 5 minutes maximum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to share my dissappointment about the farm bill with you. It is vital that we get a strong bill passed before we adjourn this year and, unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. To put it simply: Our farmers and ranchers deserve more from their representatives. As long as I have been in the Senate, I have never seen the agricultural community more united than they were yesterday in invoking cloture and getting the Senate farm bill passed the floor this year. The farm bill we passed out of committee is a good bill. It is not a great bill. But it's a good step in the right direction. We had the opportunity to work together to make this bill as comprehensive, full of common sense, and strong as possible. My sleeves were rolled up and I was dedicated to passing the farm bill this year. And I'm still dedicated to passing a bill when we get back next month. We need to support our Nation's agricultural producers. Now. We can't wait until the current bill expires. We rely on our producers for a safe and affordable food supply. Now they are relying on us for survival. Our agricultural producers are suffering. Years of low prices and drought have made it nearly impossible for farmers and ranchers to break even. Low prices and drought have been disastrous not only to agricultural producers, but also to the surrounding rural communities. When producers are hurting, they can't invest in our economy. Agriculture is the backbone of Montana's economy. And the backbone of rural America's economy. The ripple effect is being felt throughout the country. To help with the ongoing drought, it is important that we provide our farmers and ranchers with natural disaster assistance. I included more than $2 billion towards disaster assistance in my economic stimulus bill, but that bill has fallen to the same fate as the farm bill--it's at a stalemate this year. I'm dedicated to including disaster assistance in the farm bill, in another economic stimulus bill, or any other vehicle I see available. The assistance isn't something our ag community can wait for and I'll keep working to see that they don't have to. The Senate's failure to pass a farm bill this year not only hurts our producers, it hurts our lenders and our rural businesses as well. The bill that we passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee includes a Rural Development Title that would have provided rural economies with much needed support. It's long overdue that we provide stability for our agricultural producers and our rural economies. Lenders in Montana and across the country are getting nervous as the lean years of production are starting to add up. Their nervousness is compounded now that we failed to act this year. The time has come. We can no longer wait to repair the current farm bill. The health and stability of our producers, of our rural communities, and of America is up to us. Our Nation depends upon our agricultural producers for a safe, affordable, and abundant food supply. Now our producers are depending on us to provide them with a safety net they can rely upon. The time is now. We must all dedicate ourselves to getting back to work on the farm bill in January. We must work together to pass a strong, stable, and comprehensive farm bill quickly.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I look forward to next year when the Senator from Delaware stands in the Chamber and gives a recitation of the Grizzlies' fight song. I hope we can come to that day. I thank all Senators for indulging me.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will bet they are the strongest, toughest Blue Hens that have ever existed on this Earth.

Mr. BAUCUS. If I may ask the indulgence of my good friend, one of the teams in the home State of the Presiding Officer, of course, is the Badgers. For the previous occupant of the chair, it was the Wolverines, and the Grizzlies of Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. So we have the Gophers, Wolverines, Panthers, Grizzlies, and Maine has the Black Bears. I am going to ask my good friend from Delaware, whom do we have in Delaware?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to express a little hometown and a little home State pride. Last Saturday, the University of Montana Grizzlies defeated the Northern Iowa Panthers, I say to my very good friend from Iowa who attended Northern State, and is the strongest northern State booster I have ever run across. I will not embarrass my good friend by giving the score of that game, but I will say to my good friend from Iowa and to the world that we are proud that the University of Montana Grizzlies prevailed. It was a hard fought football game, and I give utmost credit to the Panthers, who were terrific. This win gave the Grizzlies the privilege of going to the 1-AA championship game in Chattanooga, TN. They will play the Furman University Paladins Friday at 5:30 eastern time. Everyone tune in. In Montana, folks travel from every corner of our big State. We call ourselves the big sky State. We are a pretty large State, at close to 149,000 square miles. People around Montana come from all corners of our State to see the University of Montana Grizzlies, the Montana State University Bobcats. There is a fierce rivalry between the Cat fans and the grizzly fans. From Eureka to Ekalaka, from Havre to Virginia City, in buses, vans, cars, and trucks, Montanans travel great distances to cheer on their sons and daughters, their friends and neighbors. When our team, the Grizzlies, made it to the national championship, understandably we were a little bit excited. We are very proud of our team. I wish you could feel the energy and excitement going on in Montana right now. We are very excited. This is not new for the Grizzlies. They have been to the I-AA playoffs 8 out of the last 9 years. Friday's championship game will be the fourth the Grizzlies have been to since 1995 when they won the championship. I will never forget. I was there. Man, did we have fun. It is also important to note that most of the UM players are from Montana. We are proud of that. They are great athletes, but they are also good students first. The team averages a 2.9 GPA, virtually a 3.0 team average. They are from small towns, rural communities. Some of them came up playing 6- and 8-man ball--football in small towns known as ``iron man'' ball. They are excellent student athletes, like big sky defense man of the year and Academic All-American Vince Huntsberger from Libby, MT. I was talking to Vince the other day after a game, and Vince remembers when I walked throughout the State of Montana running for office. He even told me he carried a sign in a parade I was in when he was a little kid. We have Brandon Neil from Great Falls, T.J. Olkers from my hometown of Helena. Our star quarterback, John Edwards, is from Billings. Then there is Spencer Frederick from a little town called Scobey in the northeastern part of our State. These young people and all the others make us very proud. If you ask anyone who follows I-AA football, they will tell you that the Washington Grizzly stadium is the premier place to play in the country. I commend the UM president, George Dennison, for his leadership at the university and for investing in the program. Also, congratulations to UM athletic director, Wayne Hogan, and his staff. He came about 7 or 8 years ago and is doing a great job. He is from Florida. And Grizzly coach Joe Glenn, with his vision, his leadership, that has earned him the big sky coach of the year for the second straight year. I think all of these individuals have done so well. I thank them for the pride we have. Finally, I have a wager with my very good friend from South Carolina, Senator Hollings. If the Paladins win--he went to the University of Furman--I will come to the floor and recite the words of the Furman fight song. If the Grizzlies win, Senator Hollings has agreed to come to the floor and recite the UM fight song. Fair wager, for fun. I will send his office the words to our song so he can get started and get the rehearsal going so he can boom forth with the University of Montana fight song at the next opportunity in the Senate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I rise today to focus attention on the ongoing softwood lumber dispute between the United States and Canada. I believe we have an excellent opportunity to permanently remove this blemish on our strong bilateral trade relationship. In the past 3 months, the U.S. Department of Commerce found that the Canadian Government unfairly subsidizes this lumber industry and then dumps those products in the U.S. market, both of which are prohibited by U.S. law. These activities have caused unprecedented upsets in the U.S. market, resulting in record low prices, disruption in supply, mill closures, layoffs, people out of work. Good jobs in my State of Montana and across the Nation have been put at risk by Canada's foul play. Now is the time to bring this matter to resolution once and for all. The U.S. negotiators have a meeting with their Canadian counterparts to work out what is a desirable solution. As I have stated many times before, this solution must completely offset the subsidies and dumping. It must bring true competition to the marketplace and must take into consideration the cross-border and environmental issues with the objective of a truly level playing field. With that said, the offers of our neighbors to the north have been, to date, short of the mark. If we are serious about resolving the issue, the Canadians need to put something on the table, something that reflects a true, open, competitive market for softwood lumber. Some in Canada would prefer to let international tribunals decide this matter. I think they misjudge both the legal strength of their position and the underlying merits of their case. At no other time in history have the facts been so squarely in favor of the U.S. industry--no other time in the many years this dispute has been ongoing. At no other time have we been so close to a detente. Let's not forget, many of the reforms are beneficial and cost effective to the Canadian softwood industry as well as to Canadian taxpayers. That said, the clock is ticking. Unfair Canadian lumber imports are hurting our American producers. In a regrettable setback on December 15, the preliminary countervailing duties expired temporarily. It is my understanding that due to a customs reporting loophole, Canada was able to avoid paying payment earlier than the duties' temporary expiration. This is wrong. It emphasizes the need to close the gap from now until final determination. The statute does not require that this case drag on until next spring. There is simply no reason for further foot dragging. The U.S. lumber industry cannot afford to suffer further injury. Neither can our remanufacturers, who are at the mercy of Canadian blackmail threats to cut off supply if we do not support Canada's position. Simply put, if a decision cannot be reached in the next few weeks, the Commerce Department should accelerate their final determination. That said, I would like to begin 2002 with this matter resolved. After two decades of fighting, it is time for a durable solution to the softwood dispute. I hope our administration and my Canadian friends will rise to the occasion. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the education bill before us. First of all, I thank my colleagues for the many hours of work they have spent on this bill. From day one, they have had the best interests of our students and teachers in mind. It is difficult to design a Federal education plan that supports the needs of the countless school districts around the country. But this bill affirms the Federal Government's role as one that seeks to narrow the achievement gap between poor students and their wealthier counterparts. This is clearly a worthy goal, and, while I am not entirely pleased with this compromise, I plan on supporting this bill when we vote on its approval tomorrow morning. I believe this education bill sets a platform from which we can build a solid, supportive role for the Federal Government in our schools across the country. I must say, however, that this bill does not do everything it needs to do. I am on the floor today to remind my colleagues that we have a long ways to go, that this bill is merely a step along the way, and that our schools will need additional investments if we want to provide our children with the knowledge and skills that will bring them opportunities for personal and professional success. I want to outline the challenges that lie before us. Our biggest challenge may be to fulfill old promises before requiring new mandates. I am, of course, speaking of our failure to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. I am extremely disappointed that we failed to do so, because I recognize the burden that schools face in coming up with special education funds from their own pockets. We have the very worthy intent of educating all students in this country, regardless of their ability or capability. It simply makes good common sense that we would do whatever we can to support that cause from the federal level. Fulfilling a promise we made to schools in 1975 is an easy way to support that effort. I challenge my colleagues to build on the successful Senate amendment to fully fund IDEA with a bill to fully fund IDEA during next year's reauthorization. I also want to challenge my colleagues to recognize that a federal presence in our state's education systems must fit into the structure of each state. That has not always been the case in my home state of Montana. Montana's very successful education system is built on a system of local control. Montana's Constitution is built on this premise, giving control of most education decisions to local school boards rather than to the state. This system has proven effective, but makes compliance with state oversight of federal programs difficult, sometimes impossible. As a result, Montana has not been able to meet the testing and assessment requirements implemented in 1994, despite recording some of the highest student outcomes in the nation. With the strengthening of accountability provisions in this bill, I am very concerned that Montana's education system may suffer from the inability to integrate federal reforms. The construction of Montana law, for example, will make any attempt by the state to ``institute a new curriculum,'' ``restructure the local educational agency,'' ``reconstitute school district personnel,'' or ``make alternative governance arrangements,'' as outlined in this year's bill, an unconstitutional measure. I hope my colleagues recognize this incongruity and will work to insure that our successful system of local control is not stymied by federal intervention. Finally, for all our talk of wanting to support public education, I think it is unfortunate that we spend an enormous amount of time, energy, and resources in this bill on oversight and accountability measures from the federal level. As I've just mentioned, our state's successes in education have often been the result of local communities taking on the responsibility to build a successful program tailored to their individual environment. Just as our communities have taken on the responsibility of providing their students with the best possible education at the local level, so must we, at the federal level, make decisions that support our Federal education goals to support local schools and to eliminate achievement gaps. To that end, our focus must be on improved student outcomes. I am not convinced that the provisions outlined in this bill will reach that goal. I certainly do not want strict controls to be placed on schools, like those in Montana, that have outstanding student outcomes on limited budgets. Montana's schools, for example, would be much better off with additional funds for teacher and principal recruitment and retention programs, school maintenance and repair, technology hardware and training, and on-going professional development opportunities. In the end, this bill starts us on a very critical path towards addressing the acute and variable needs of schools in states as diverse as Montana and Florida. This bill takes a good, hard look at the role of the federal government in our elementary and secondary schools for the first time since its inception in 1965. It would be overly optimistic to expect that we could accomplish everything necessary to provide an ideal environment for closing achievement gaps and supporting school teachers and administrators across the country in this bill. We certainly have not reached that point yet. But we have done something very important in starting that dialogue and in attempting to meet that need. Again, I challenge my colleagues to keep the education debate alive and active and to work every day to make our schools a place where student success is the number one priority.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on December 14, 2001, I filed report 107- 126 to accompany H.R. 3009, a bill to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional benefits under the act, and for other purposes. At the time the report was filed, the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office were not available. I wish to correct a statement made in the report as filed. At section VI.A, the report states that the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act involves no new or increased budget authority. In fact, the wool provisions contained in section 201 of the bill involve $24 million in increased budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002 and $12 million in increased budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2003. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal and the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001. This legislation continues our support for state efforts to reunify troubled families and to promote the adoption of children in foster care who are unable to return to their birth homes. It also authorizes additional educational assistance to former foster children in the Independent Living program. Abused and neglected children are among the most vulnerable of all the members of our society--it is important that we continue to look after their needs. This proposal mirrors that made by the President. I thank him for his interest in this issue. It is an important part of being a compassionate leader, ensuring that federal efforts to assist abused and neglected children continue. It also contains a new proposal offered by the President, authorizing a new grant program to mentor the children of prisoners, a particularly disadvantaged group. I commend him for that idea.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. In about an hour.

Mr. BAUCUS. No.

Mr. BAUCUS. I don't know.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friends from North Dakota, Louisiana, and others who are speaking against this amendment and explaining the facts. Once the facts are known, I believe Senators will know this amendment is not a good idea. We want a strong agriculture policy in America, and we want a level playing field. We know that much too often other countries tend to favor their producers, their industries, their companies at the expense of the United States, at least more so than we Americans do. Every other country has a more, if I can use the term, socialistic policy; that is, tends more toward Government intervention in helping the producers and companies and their industries, than does the United States. Frankly, it is the view of the United States that we be a more free market, more independent, and let producers and companies pursue their own agenda. At least on a comparative basis that has made us stronger than other countries. It is a major strength of America. Having said that, we clearly don't want to make matters worse. In the meantime, even though other countries do subsidize their producers or their companies or industries more than we do, we, through our ingenuity--this is a general statement; there are exceptions--are able to fight back with greater ingenuity, creativity, good old American can-do, common sense, and find a way to get the job done. We don't moan and complain but fight and get the job done. This amendment moves us in the opposite direction. It says although the playing field is not level, although it is tilted today against the United States with respect to sugar, we will tilt it even more against American sugar producers. That is what this amendment does. As other Senators have ably demonstrated, the facts show that compared to other countries the United States ranks, for Government support for sugar, third from the bottom. Other countries protect their sugar industry much more than the United States. Sugar prices in the United States are lower, significantly, to the consumer. I am having a hard time understanding why this amendment is on the floor. Why would we as Americans want to hurt ourselves? It is unfathomable. I cannot come up with a reason--unless it sounds good on the surface because we have a quota system in the United States that provides stability to American producers. If that system in the United States were eliminated, or if the amendment pending of the Senator from New Hampshire were adopted, not only do producers already suffering suffer more--prices are down 23 percent--but local communities suffer: the shops, businesses, and gas stations. It is not just those who work in factories and the fields producing the cane or the beets. Sugar is a valuable commodity in my state of Montana. More than $188 million in economic activity is generated in Montana each year by the sugar and sweetener industries and creates close to 3,300 jobs in my state. The production of sugar in the United States is a large and competitive operation. Throughout the Nation, the sugar industry generates 373,000 jobs in 42 States and creates $21.2 billion in economic activity. Our American sugar producers are among the most efficient in the world. The United States ranked 28 our of 102 sugar-producing countries for the lowest cost in overall sugar production. And the United States is the world's fourth largest sugar producer, trailing only Brazil, India, and China. But despite these positive statistics, our sugar producers are hurting. Producer prices for sugar have fallen sharply since 1996. Wholesale refined beet sugar prices are down 23 percent. Prices for sugar have been running at a 20-year low for most of the past two years. This has caused a deep hardship for American sugarbeet and sugar cane farmers. Many have gone out of business and many more are on the brink of economic ruin. We have seen 17 permanent sugar mill closures in the nation since 1996. These closing are devastating to entire communities. Devastating to our producers, mill employees, transportation, restaurants, small businesses, and the list goes on. Some producers are trying to buy mills that are on the brink of bankruptcy in order to protect further communities from these losses. For example, the Rocky Mountain Sugar Growers Cooperative is in the process of purchasing several mills in the Montana, Colorado and Wyoming areas. These producers, and the cities that depend upon them, need a sugar policy that they can depend upon so that they can once again flourish. We need a strong sugar policy. American sugar farmers are efficient by world standards, and are willing and prepared to compete on a level playing field against foreign sugar farmers, but they cannot compete against foreign governments. We must give them the level playing field they need. I strongly urge this amendment be defeated. It does not make sense. Once the Senators know the facts, Senators will realize this amendment should not be adopted.