Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senators Hollings and McCain for this much awaited, much needed piece of legislation and to urge my colleagues to help pass it. It is critical to our Nation's economy that we restore the flying public's confidence in the safety of the aviation system. We need to get more planes in the air and we need to make sure they are full. Legislation that improves and expands security at our airports and on planes is essential to getting citizens back in the air. While it is safer to fly today than it ever has been before, this package, which improves our Nation's aviation security, shows that the Senate is making an aggressive and firm commitment to America's aviation security and America's economy. Two weeks ago I was on a flight from Montana back to Washington. By chance, I sat next to a gentleman who I appointed to the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs 20 years ago. He was an F-16 fighter pilot. And is now a commercial airline pilot. In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, he had a bunch of ideas to increase security on airplanes and airports. I asked him to write his ideas down. He found a scrap of paper and jotted them down. This is the paper he gave me. I am so pleased to see many of his ideas in S. 1447. From Federal marshals on domestic flights to protecting our pilots in the cockpit. From vastly improving airport security measures to better screening of airport employees, this legislation takes a giant step forward in securing our flying public. And securing our flying public is a giant step closer to securing our economy. I would like to specifically address three items in the bill that I believe are of vital importance: First, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I am pleased to say that there is no ticket tax levied on airline passengers. I don't believe that this is the time to raise taxes. In my State of Montana, people believe they pay enough to fly around the country. Since we are relieving the airlines of their security responsibilities, it makes perfect sense that the $2.50 per passenger user fee be assessed to the airlines, not the passengers. Second, I am pleased to see a temporary expansion of the Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge funds for use on security operations. This flexibility will surely help defray some of the costs for smaller airports. I have been hearing from many airports back home. They are desperate for financial relief. These small, rural airports are faced with significant increased costs in order to comply with new FAA security standards. These new costs alone would be enough to tap their already paltry resources. However, like all airports around the country they are also facing declining revenues including landing fees, parking lot fees, car rental fees, bars and restaurants and gift shop fees. We need to help them, just like we helped the airlines. I enthusiastically supported the airline relief package Congress passed 2 weeks ago. We needed to assist the airlines for the good of our traveling public and the good of our economy. But relief to the airlines won't do anyone any good, if they don't have airports to land in. We are in danger of many of our airports closing their doors and their gates and their runways because they are out of money. The flexibility provided in this bill will make a real dent in the airport's economic situation. Third, I am also pleased to see a reimbursement program for these airports for completed security-related projects. This program, along with the AIP/PFC flexibility are extremely helpful, but are only a temporary life preserver for the airports. Discussions need to continue about how we can really save them from drowning. I would like to close by once again commending the work done on this bill by both staff and Senators and to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 1447. The public needs it and our economy needs it. Folks at home will thank you for it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Montanan, a great American, and a great leader who passed away early Friday morning. In our Nation's history, we have been blessed with leaders who have stepped forward to lead us in moments of crisis, war, or social upheaval. Mike Mansfield of Montana was such a man, such a leader. Modest and self-effacing, Mike Mansfield, as Senate Majority Leader, was instrumental in the 1960s and 1970s in steering the U.S. Senate and America through some of the most tumultuous times in our Nation's history. He was here in this Chamber, leading the Senate through the sadness following the assassination of President Kennedy. He helped pass landmark Great Society programs, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in public accommodations. And the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which allowed blacks in the South to more widely take part in Federal and State elections. He questioned our country's growing role in the Vietnam War when that might have been unpopular to do so, but when it needed to be done. He helped lead the Senate through Watergate, when the foundations of our democracy and government were shaken by scandal and the resignation of our President. And he was most proud of his role in helping Congress pass legislation that led to ratification of the 26th amendment. That gave our young people--18 year olds--the right to vote and extended participation in our government to even more Americans. Mike Mansfield was a key leader in extraordinary times. He was the sage, laconic captain with his hand firmly on the wheel. The captain we could trust in rough seas, who knew when to speak and give orders, and knew when to listen. He was a counselor and team leader who walked the bridge to consult with Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. And later Presidents tapped Mike Mansfield for even more public service--to serve as America's Ambassador to Japan, one of the most sensitive postings in the world. This Senator from Montana served longer than anyone else in American history as Senate majority leader and as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. And he left the Senate a better place, not only for Senators but for the American people. He left it a civilized institution that allowed all Senators an equal voice in the legislative process. He encouraged younger Senators to speak, breaking the tradition of a Senate dominated by an exclusive club of older men. Senator Mansfield democratized the Senate. When he retired at age 73, Senator Mansfield noted that in his period of service in Congress--from 1942 to 1976--he had witnessed: ``One- sixth of the Nation's history since independence. The administrations of seven Presidents. The assassination of a President and his brother. Able political leadership and seamy politics and chicanery. The dawn of the nuclear age and men on the moon. ``A great war and a prelude to two more wars. A dim perception of world order, and an uncertain hope for international peace. There is a time to stay and a time to go. Thirty-four years is not a long time, but it's time enough.'' That's quite a record, quite a resume, quite a life. But that all pales in comparison to his love for his wife Maureen, and his love for Montana and the people he so faithfully represented. Over the course of his career, Mike Mansfield went by many titles: Professor Mansfield, Congressman Mansfield, Senator Mansfield, Majority Leader Mansfield, and Ambassador Mansfield. Senator Mansfield was an internationally recognized leader. But in Montana, we simply knew him as ``Mike.'' And he was our Mike. Mike was the embodiment of Montana: Quiet, humble, strong, salt of the earth, committed to his wife, family, State and country. He was my mentor and he was my friend. Although he served six U.S. Presidents in his career as majority leader and ambassador to Japan, Mike once said humbly, ``I reached the height of my political aspirations when I was elected Senator from Montana.'' That's just the kind of man he was, a quiet but firm leader, one who didn't like the spotlight but endured it in service to his State and country. Michael Joseph Mansfield was born in New York City on March 16, 1903. He moved with his family to Great Falls, MT, in 1906. When he was only 14 years old, Mike joined the Navy and served as a seaman in World War I. He then served as a private in the Army in 1919 and 1920, and as a private first class in the Marines from 1920 to 1922. After his military service, Mike moved back home to Montana, where he worked as a mine mucker and engineer in the copper mines of Butte for 8 years. It was during this time that he met his soon-to-be wife, Maureen. After meeting Maureen, Mike's life was forever changed, he would say. They would marry in 1934. By her guidance, her faith in him, Mike said, Maureen pushed him to go back to school and was responsible for his success in life. So Mike went back to school. He attended the Montana School of Mines in Butte in 1927 and 1928, then graduated from Montana State University--as it was called then--in 1932. Mike earned a masters degree in history in 1934, and taught history and political science for eight years. Mike's 34-year career of representing Montanans in Washington began in 1942, when Maureen urged him to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He served Montanans well in the House for over a decade. Then we sent him to the Senate in 1952. Mike's ability to bring people together and find common ground enabled him to succeed Lyndon Johnson as Senate majority leader in 1961, a post he held until 1977. When John F. Kennedy asked him to serve as majority leader, Mike at first declined. Mike and Kennedy were freshmen together in the Senate, and Mike became a close confidant. Mike finally agreed to serve--for love of country--and went on to become one of the most effective gentlemen ever to grace this great Chamber. After he was elected majority leader, Mike was asked if he would act the same way as the legendary Lyndon Johnson, whose style as majority leader was blunt and heavy-handed. In typical Mansfield fashion, Mike said, ``I am who I am.'' After Mike Mansfield's distinguished service here in the Senate, President Carter appointed him in 1977 to be our ambassador to Japan. Mike was reappointed to that post by President Reagan. And Mike continued his diplomatic service until he retired in 1988, making him the longest-serving Ambassador to Japan in our Nation's history. When he served as Ambassador to Japan, Mike said, ``I try to put myself in the shoes of the Japanese, but I have never forgotten that the shoes I wear are American, and that my country's interests come first.'' That's Mike. He never forgot where he came from. Although he came from the mines in Butte, Mike understood the importance of our relationships with other countries and the world. I remember about 5 years ago, I wanted to ask Mike about his thoughts on Most Favored Nation status for China. So, I called him up. We talked briefly and then he said, ``Max, do you have a few minutes?'' I said, ``Of course.'' Then he proceeded to read to me an in-depth analysis he had written on the U.S.-China relationship and China's role in the world. Mr. President, that was the most cogent, trenchant analysis I had ever encountered or have ever seen to date. But that was Mike. In a matter-of-fact tone, he just read it to me over the phone. Mike's legacy includes, among many others, the Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs in Washington, D.C., and the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center at the University of Montana in Missoula. These institutions live on. They teach us and our children the importance of looking out across our borders, the importance of understanding different cultures. And that is more important now than ever. That's a distinguished record. But Mike never lost touch with his roots. Mike was so humble. I told him once that I was looking forward to reading his memoirs one day. He simply said: ``Nope.'' He said many of those conversations were confidential. No kiss and tell for Mike. He was such a classy, deep, dignified, thoughtful, and wonderful person. When I first considered running for Congress in 1974, I went to Mike and asked whether or not he thought I should run. ``Yep,'' he said. That's how he used to respond to questions: Yep, nope, and maybe. Very straight forward, he told it as it was. He told me running for Congress took a lot of hard work, a lot of shoe leather, and a little bit of luck. That was enough for me. That wasn't the last time I sought out Mike's counsel. Right up until his death last Friday, I went to Mike for his advice on a variety of issues. I saw him just a few weeks ago, not long after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Even though he was laid up in a hospital bed, he immediately said, ``Hi, Max,'' and invited me to take off my coat and have a seat. At age 98, he was still sharp as a tack and just as gracious as ever. We talked for some time before our conversation turned to Afghanistan. This was a man who knew so much. He talked about the history of Afghanistan--how the Russians and every would-be conqueror attempting to occupy that country ran into trouble. His history lesson on Afghanistan was rich with such figures as Genghis Kahn and Alexander the Great. When a Japanese reporter once asked Mike about his secret of longevity and health, Mike smiled and said, ``A good wife and good Montana people.'' Mike was always quick to point out that all the success he had in life he owed to his beloved wife Maureen. Maureen Hayes took him out of the mines of Butte and into greatness. Her quiet encouragement gave Mike the strength to lead our nation during some very difficult times: civil rights, the Vietnam War, Watergate. Maureen cashed in her life insurance policy to help pay for Mike's education. And in Washington, she worked in his office without compensation so she could spend more time with him. What they did, they did together. Mr. President, Mike and Maureen were a team, a great team. When Maureen passed away last year, we all mourned the loss. Today, we mourn the loss of Mike. But today we also find comfort in knowing that the love affair that started so long ago has come full circle. Now, Mike and Maureen are together. Now, we as Montanans and Americans pay tribute to their lives and their contributions. Now, especially now, we look to their example of leadership through humility, integrity, and dignity. Mike was the embodiment of family, saying so eloquently in Maureen's eulogy, that what he did and accomplished, they did together. That recognition of her greatness, strength and vision was Mike's greatness, strength and vision. I am proud and honored to have known Mike and Maureen Mansfield. They were common people who led uncommon lives. They were great Montanans, they were great Americans, and they were our friends. Mike used to say he had three loves in this world: His wife, Montana and the U.S. Senate. When I saw him just over two weeks ago in the hospital, we talked about Montana, we talked about the Senate, and we talked world events. Then we talked about Maureen. And right before I left him, he leaned back in his bed, looked off in the distance, closed his eyes, smiled, and said, ``Maureen--what a girl she was, what a girl.'' And Mike, what a great man you were. You were both great--together. This is not goodbye, Mike. Rather, as our many Indian friends say, ``See you later.'' And as you would say and said so many times to your many Montana friends, Tap 'er light, Mike. Thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Certainly.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Has this resolution been referred to the Foreign Relations Committee?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator a question? I temporarily object.

Mr. BAUCUS. I think it is only proper that the Senator from New Hampshire regain the floor. I would just like his counsel, if he again asks unanimous consent whether he will refrain from doing so until somebody is on the floor to object.

Mr. BAUCUS. I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, is there an agreement when a vote will occur?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question before I object?

Mr. BAUCUS. Seeing a vote is about to occur, I will be with you very briefly. fast track legislation

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. I am encouraged by the beginnings of bipartisan action from the House on fast-track legislation, otherwise known as trade promotion authority. We have a little ways to go, but I am very encouraged by the beginnings of a bipartisan agreement in the other body. It is my hope there can be more bipartisan agreement than there has been thus far. We want a bill to pass the House with as many votes as possible. Obviously, granting fast-track authority, granting trade promotion to the President by the Congress, if it passes by an extraordinarily large margin, will be helpful in negotiating the SALT trade agreement with other countries. If the House does pass this bill, the Senate Finance Committee will take up the bill and hopefully bring the bill to the floor and get it passed. The key is in the spirit of the bipartisanship and cooperation, which has been tremendous, that has occurred since September 11. There is an opportunity for continued bipartisan agreement in the trade bill. I am very pleased to say there has been such cooperation in Washington, DC--both Houses, both political parties, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. There is an opportunity here for that same spirit of cooperation to continue on the trade bill. If it does, we will get it passed earlier rather than later. I see 2 o'clock has arrived.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the parliamentary position?

Mr. BAUCUS. It has not. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I deeply value his friendship. We have worked very closely together in lots of matters, particularly on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He is a man of tremendous integrity and is a very good Senator. I deeply appreciate his efforts in the Senate. Mr. President, I rise in support of the House Joint Resolution 51, which would approve the trade agreement between the United States and Vietnam. This agreement was signed last year, and it would extend normal trade relations status to Vietnam. It is identical to Senate Joint Resolution 16. That was approved unanimously by the Finance Committee in July of this year. Our trade agreement with Vietnam represents an important step in a healing process, a step that has been a long time in coming. Let me just review the history a bit. After two decades of relative isolation from one another, our two countries began the process of normalizing ties and of healing in the mid-1990s. In 1994, we lifted our embargo with Vietnam. Then, in 1995, we normalized diplomatic relations, sending Pete Peterson to be our first Ambassador to Vietnam since the war. A true hero, Pete Peterson did a tremendous job, working with the Vietnamese to help locate missing American personnel, and to help facilitate the orderly departure from Vietnam of refugees and other immigrants. In 1998, President Clinton waived the Jackson-Vanik prohibitions. This enabled Vietnam to obtain access to financial credit and guarantee programs sponsored by the U.S. Government. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Government has done its part. By all accounts, the Government has cooperated in efforts to fully account for missing American personnel. As former Ambassador Peterson reported in June 2000--I am quoting his report now-- Since 1993, [39] joint field activities have been conducted in Vietnam, 288 possible American remains have been repatriated, and the remains of 135 formerly unaccounted-for American servicemen have been identified, including 26 since January 1999. Continuing to quote Ambassador Peterson: This would not have been possible without bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and Vietnam. Of the 196 Americans that were on the Last Known Alive list, fate has been determined for all but 41. . . . Moreover, with respect to freedom of emigration--the underlying purpose of the Jackson-Vanik provisions--the President recently reported: Overall, Vietnam's emigration policy has liberalized considerably in the last decade and a half. Vietnam has a solid record of cooperation with the United States to permit Vietnamese emigration. Over 500,000 Vietnamese have emigrated as refugees or immigrants to the United States . . . and only a small number of refugee applicants remain to be processed. In light of this substantial progress in our relationship with Vietnam, the next logical step is to begin normalizing our commercial ties. The trade agreement concluded last year will do that. That said, I and most of my colleagues have serious concerns about Vietnam's human rights record. It is not good. The State Department's most recent report describes the record as ``poor.'' It notes that ``although there was some measurable improvement in a few areas, serious problems remain.'' These include: arbitrary arrests and detentions, denials of fair and speedy trials to criminal defendants, significant restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, severe limitations on freedom of religion, denial of worker rights, and discrimination against ethnic minorities. Making improvements in these and other areas ought to be a top priority of the United States in our relationship with Vietnam. But establishing a normal commercial relationship with Vietnam does not hinder that goal. Indeed, it complements our human rights efforts. As our experience in countries such as China demonstrates, engagement works. Engagement without illusions works. By interacting with countries commercially, we bring them into closer contact with our democratic values. We generate demand for those values. This does not mean that we can simply let trade begin to flow with Vietnam and then sit back and watch; rather, we have to engage Vietnam and work actively with them to improve human rights in that country. This process has already begun; and it needs to continue. Our efforts include an annual high-level dialog with Vietnam on human rights. That exercise has had some success. While much work remains to be done, former Ambassador Peterson reported toward the end of his 6- year tenure that the Vietnamese Government has grown increasingly tolerant of public dissent. The Government has also released key religious and political prisoners and loosened restrictions on religious practices. Additionally, Vietnam recently allowed the International Labor Organization to open an office in Hanoi. Supported by the U.S. Department of Labor, the ILO is providing technical assistance in areas ranging from social safety nets, to workplace safety, to collective bargaining. Further, it is likely that in the near future we will negotiate a textiles agreement with Vietnam, as we did 2 years ago with Cambodia. Such an agreement would set quotas on imports of Vietnamese textile and apparel products into the United States. As we did with Cambodia, we should tie quota increases under such an agreement to improvements in worker rights. Much work remains to be done to improve human rights in Vietnam, but engagement has gotten us off to a good start. And that is important. It is important to get off to a good start, get things moving in the right direction. Moreover, it is important to remember that by approving the trade agreement with Vietnam, we are not giving it so-called PNTR; that is, permanent normal trade relations. We are not doing that. We are not doing for Vietnam what we did for China last year, in preparation for China's accession into the World Trade Organization. The step we are taking with Vietnam is much more modest. Vietnam currently has a disfavored trade status, one in which exports to the United States are subject to prohibitive tariffs. This agreement moves Vietnam to a normal but probationary trade status. Under the Jackson-Vanik provisions of the Trade Act, the President and Congress will still conduct annual reviews of Vietnam's trade status. These reviews will be an additional source of leverage in seeking improvement of human rights in Vietnam. I would like to turn now to the substance of the agreement and the benefits that we will gain from it. At its core, the agreement will enable us to decrease tariffs on Vietnamese imports to tariff levels applied to imports from most other countries. Vietnam, in return, will apply to U.S. goods the same tariff rates it applies to other countries. But this agreement goes well beyond a reciprocal lowering of tariffs. It requires Vietnam, among other things, to lower tariffs on over 250 categories of goods; to phase in import, export, and distribution rights for U.S.-owned companies; to adhere to intellectual property rights standards which, in some cases, exceed WTO standards; and to liberalize opportunities for U.S. companies to operate in key service sectors, including banking, insurance, and telecommunications. This agreement should provide a sound foundation for a mutually beneficial commercial relationship. It will build upon the increasingly stronger ties between the United States and Vietnam. Indeed, I hope the efforts Vietnam makes to implement the agreement will put it well along the way to eventual membership in the WTO. Make no mistake, there still will be a lot of work to be done, even after the agreement is approved. We will have to work with Vietnam to ensure that its obligations on paper translate into actual practice. We will also have to monitor operation of the agreement very carefully. But I am confident that this agreement does get us off to a very good start. That is critical. I am pleased to support the resolution extending normal trade relations status to Vietnam. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see my good friend from North Dakota is ready to speak. But before he does speak, I would like to reemphasize and underline the point that trade agreements properly include not only the very traditional trade matters, such as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies, but they also include other matters which do have an effect on trade. I would like to suggest what a few of them are. For example, the length of product patents and copyrights on music has only recently been addressed in trade agreements. These are not tariffs, quotas, or subsidies, but they certainly affect trade. Thus, these issues were addressed in the Uruguay Round. What about the use of names, such as ``champagne,'' on a product label? Some suggest that the use of the word ``champagne'' is not generic because it means a particular region of the world--in France, Champagne. That was an issue brought up and included in the Uruguay Round. What about payments to farmers to promote conservation practices, such as land set-asides, or low till agriculture? These are not tariffs, quotas, or subsidies, but they definitely affect trade. In fact, this is a current trade issue with the Europeans. They are very concerned about the actions of the United States in that area. What about the placement of products on store shelves, just putting products on store shelves? For example, we had a dispute with Canada over distribution of beer and other alcoholic beverages. The point is, obviously, that trade agreements do include matters, and should include matters, which could have the effect of distorting trade. And if a country enacts environmental laws or labor laws that have the effect of distorting trade, I think most Americans would think that, if properly worded, in a common-sense way, they, too, should be addressed in trade agreements. That is what we are trying to do with this legislation. This is not a huge leap. This is not unreasonable. This is not radical. This is very modest, if you will, but very important. I urge Senators to look at this legislation closely and look at it in that light. When they do, I think they will recognize this is an agreement that should pass and be approved by the Senate and signed by the President very quickly, particularly in light of the current situation in the Mideast. But apart from the Mideast situation, on its merits only, this is a very good agreement. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from North Dakota for--how many minutes?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve 10 minutes. How much time is remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as a consequence of the recent change in time, will the Presiding Officer indicate how much time is available to each side?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time. I first wish to congratulate Charlene Barshefsky, the very able U.S. Trade Representative who negotiated this agreement, and also President Bush and his administration. They have been very far-sighted in urging the Congress to pass this legislation for all the reasons I and others have mentioned. I also thank my colleague and good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, ranking member of the committee, for his steadfast support for this agreement. This agreement was signed by both countries last October. The implementing legislation was passed by the House before the August recess. A virtually identical bill was reported out of the Finance Committee with only two dissenting votes, again before the August recess. The point being, there was immense support for this agreement even before the disastrous events of September 11. Certainly, the events of September 11 make it all the more important now that we pass the bill to implement this agreement. I also thank Senator Gramm for allowing this bill to come to the floor. He had earlier expressed his disagreement with the bill to the point where its passage was a little bit uncertain. I very much thank the Senator for allowing this bill to come up and pass and for his support of the bill at this time. I respectfully disagree with some of his concerns. First, the distinctions he suggests between trade and non-trade issues are just not valid. We have a whole plethora of domestic issues routinely included in trade agreements, whether patents or copyrights or trademarks, uses of geographical names on labels, farm tilling practices. That gets pretty domestic. You can't get more domestic than farming. We address farm tilling practices in our discussions of trade. They are now very much in discussion between the European Union and ourselves with respect to which practices are included as trade- distorting subsidies and which are not. There are a lot of domestic issues that are included in trade agreements. Second, the statement has been made that this agreement impinges upon American sovereignty. It is important to remind ourselves that any agreement the U.S. Government enters into with another country to some degree has sovereignty consequences. Arms control, for example, the Montreal Protocol restricting chloroflorocarbons, tax treaties, all have consequences for American sovereignty. International agreements are not a free lunch. They are bargained-for agreements that have consequences and have effects on each country's sovereignty. Also, it is important to remember that a lot of traditional economic provisions included in trade agreements have some effect on our sovereignty. For example, in the GATT, we have mutually agreed to reduce tariffs. If we didn't agree to reduce our tariffs, we would never get other countries to reduce theirs. The issue of intellectual property rights is another example. Agreements in this area have consequences to one degree or another on actions that this country may or may not take. The main point I wish to make is that the agreement before us does not infringe upon U.S. sovereignty because, under the agreement, neither country is required to change its laws. And there has been a lot of talk about international dispute settlement mechanisms. There is no binding international dispute settlement mechanism in this agreement. If there is a dispute, as I mentioned previously, three conditions have to be met for either side to request consultations. I won't go through those conditions again, because time is limited. But even if a party claims that the three conditions are met, the next step is to go to mediation, not arbitration. There is mediation, and it is non-binding. A mediator might suggest to the United States or to Jordan, let's say the United States, that the United States has done something untoward. The United States can accept it or not accept it. There is no requirement whatsoever for the United States to accept what a non- binding mediation panel--one panelist named by the United States, the other by Jordan, a third selected between them--might suggest. Again, it is non-binding. Finally, I might say that I do believe this agreement does set a precedent, by definition, because it is the first of its kind. That is a precedent. I hope that all future trade agreements will now, after the passage of this agreement, include proper, reasonable labor and environmental provisions, because that is where we are in the world today.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve myself 5 minutes. I reserve the majority leader 5 minutes when he wishes to speak on the bill. I yield to my good friend from Virginia who I think wants to speak on the bill. Can the Senator take 5 minutes?

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?