Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the loss of life battling catastrophic wildlife is a tremendous tragedy that lends us perspective. With the loss of four fighters in less than one week in my home State, the fire season in Montana again reminds us that we must be deeply grateful for the hard and dangerous work these firefighters do, work that takes them away from their homes and their families to protect the people of Montana and the West. Let me honor the four firefighters who lost their lives battling fires in Montana. On August 31, 2001, three men died in a helicopter crash near the Fridley Fire just south of Livingston, MT. The pilot was Rich Hernandez, 37, originally from Florida. His copilot, Santi Arovitx, only 28, was originally from Spain and had been living in Hillsboro, OR. Their crew chief was Kip Krigbaum, 45, of Emmett, ID. On September 3, David Ray Rendek, just 24 years old, was killed when struck by a falling snag while working on a small fire in Bitterroot National Forest, near Hamilton, MT. David graduated from high school in Victor, MT, and attended classes at the University of Montana, in Missoula with his sister. I have been told he was a passionate advocate about the outdoors and was a dedicated firefighter. I am very sorry his family and Montana have lost such a promising young man. My deepest sympathies and condolences go out to the family and friends of these four men. We in Congress honor their memory and the ultimate sacrifice they made for the people of Montana. We are very sorry for their loss. Unfortunately, the fires in Montana continue. Dedicated fire crews continue to battle hostile weather conditions and high winds. Montana fires have consumed over 90,000 acres. The largest fires are the Fridley Fire near Livingston and the Moose Fire burning in and around Glacier National Park. The Fridley Fire has burned over 26,800 acres, and it is approaching the Gallatin Divide, increasing the threat to the Bozeman water supply. Over 1,000 people are fighting this fire. As of September 5, the Moose fire has burned more than 58,000 acres. There are 35 20-person crews currently battling the Moose Fire. Fourteen are Montana crews and several crews come from Montana's Indiana Country--the Rosebud Sioux, Ronan, Blackfeet Nation and Northern Cheyenne. Air Support includes 9 helicopters and 3 air tankers. Other Montana crews include: Glacier Park, Bitterroot Hot Shot Crew, Trapper Creek Job Corps, Kootenai National Forest and Flathead National Forest. The force of the Moose Fire is tremendous, as it burns on Forest Service, private, and Glacier National Park lands. People have reported to me they can smell the smoke as far away as Chester, another even suggested as far away as Minot. For those listening who may not know those distances, Minot is in North Dakota, 700, 800 miles away. All of our fire crews are working long days and long hours battling these blazes, and I just can't praise them enough. They have contained several fires and they are winning the struggle with the dangerous Fridley and Moose fires. Also, our Indian country firefighters are again great heroes on our fire lines in northwest Montana. Although wildfires are devastating, our tribal neighbors continually step up to the plate and meet this challenge full on. I intend to work closely with the tribes to better incorporate them in the National Fire Policy planning process. I also intend to continue to work hard for funding for fire rehabilitation efforts. Many people tend to forget that the devastating effects of wildfire remain long after the last flame has been put out. The terrible mudslides that occurred after heavy rains in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana in June are a sober reminder of that fact. These mudslides destroy property, soil cover, and can devastate watersheds. We must make sure that the appropriate Federal agencies have the resources they need to restore burned areas and to deal with the long-term effects of fire on the ground. Again, I express my deepest gratitude to all of the men and women who put themselves in harm's way on the fire lines in Montana, and my deepest sorrow and regret that they lost four of their comrades in the line of duty. I will continue to do everything I can to make sure our crews have the manpower and equipment they need on the ground. The quicker our firefighters can contain these fires, the sooner we can take their lives out of danger. Mr. President, I appreciate your attention. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 6 at 9:30 a.m. in closed session to mark up the Department of Defense authorization Act for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 6, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the strategic programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Brian Jones, of California, to be General Counsel, Department of Education during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 6, 2001. At 10:00 a.m.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Technology and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 6, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. on shuttle safety.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize a good friend of mine and a man who has committed his life to education--Dr. Fred Gilliard. Dr. Gilliard announced this year that he will retire as President of the University of Great Falls on August 13, 2001. I have seen first hand the impact Dr. Gilliard has had on the University of Great Falls community. Without a doubt, he was a huge success and will be missed. Dr. Gilliard was proud of his students, staff and facility. Not only did he understand the importance of a good, solid education, but he followed the mission of the University at work and everyday in his life. When I read the mission of the University of Great Falls, three areas, in my view, tell us who Dr. Gilliard is and what he stands for: Character--have a positive impact on the world and on the communities in which they live and work, particularly by recognizing and accepting personal accountability to themselves, to society and to God; Competence--further their ability to live full and rewarding lives by becoming competent working members of society who know the basics of their professional field and have access to future learning; Commitment--find meaning in life which enables them to participate effectively in society while transcending its limitations, by living according to their own moral and religious convictions, as well as respecting the dignity and beliefs of other people. Dr. Gilliard achieved so much during his tenure as President. From introducing the Student Service Learning Center, moving the institution from ``College'' to ``University'' status, and broadcasting classes over the Internet, to completing a successful capital campaign, completing the Jorgenson Library addition and re-starting the Argos men's and women's basketball program. These are just a few Dr. Gilliard's successes. In early 2000, I called Fred to see if he would be interested in hosting ``Montana's Economic Development Summit'' at the University of Great Falls. Without hesitation he said, ``yes.'' Since that time, Dr. Gilliard has continued to work tirelessly to help me grow Montana's economy. I wish the best to Dr. Fred Gilliard and his wife, Berry Lynn. I know Dr. Gilliard will be spending lots of his free time cheering for the Detriot Tigers with his grandson. Semper Fi, Fred.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the issue that my distinguished colleague from Arizona has brought to the attention of the Senate with his amendment, and that is the need to re-evaluate how we distribute funding to the states under the Clean Water Revolving Fund. The Senator is right. It appears that it has been a long time since we took a hard look at where our most pressing infrastructure needs are. And don't get me wrong, Montana looks like it would do very well if Senator Kyl's amendment were to succeed. But addressing the serious problems that exist with our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure is something that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is an issue that needs the full time and attention of the authorizing Committee. What is the most appropriate floor, or minimum share for each state, because that's where Montana would fall. What is the most appropriate ceiling? Again, I think this just is too important an issue to address in a short debate over an amendment to an appropriations bill. I understand that this is one of the issues Chairman Jeffords plans to take up in the fall, and I will encourage him to do that, because frankly, I agree with Senator Kyl that it's high time we took a look at these formulas to make sure we are spending our limited resources in the most efficient and effective way possible. Amendment No. 1226, As Modified, To Amendment No. 1214

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Byrd, I am introducing a bill to create a Congressional Trade Office. This is designed to help the Senate get ahead of the curve and better understand and deal with globalization, trade, and economic commercial actions around the world, to help us understand what we are doing. The Congressional Trade Office, the CTO, will have the expertise we need in Congress to get independent and nonpartisan information about trade. This new entity will help us meet our constitutional responsibility for trade policy. The importance of trade in our economy continues to grow. Trade is equivalent to 27 percent of our economy today, compared with only 11 percent in 1970, just 30 years ago. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides: Congress shall have the power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Our responsibility as Members of Congress is to set the direction of trade policy. It is true that under article II of the Constitution, the President, the Chief Executive, has the primary responsibility with respect to foreign policy. With respect to trade, the Constitution is clear, and it provides that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Our responsibility is effective and active oversight of our Nation's trade policy. I have served in the Congress for 25 years and I have watched the continuing transfer of responsibility for trade policy from the Congress to the executive branch. I believe this must stop. We must reassert Congress' constitutionally defined responsibility. The CTO will provide the means to meet our responsibilities. Congress needs to be much better prepared to deal with trade issues responsibly and authoritatively: consideration of fast track; FTAs--so- called free trade agreements--with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, and perhaps Australia, and others; Chinese accession to the WTO; a possible new round launch; compliance with existing agreements. To manage trade policy, we need access to more and better information, independently arrived at, from people whose commitment is to the Congress, and only to the Congress. The first task of the CTO is to monitor compliance with major trade agreements. It will evaluate success based on real world business results. It will recommend actions needed to ensure that commitments are fully implemented. It will also provide annual assessments of the extent to which agreements comply with labor and environmental goals. The CTO's second task will be to observe trade negotiations firsthand. CTO staff will participate in selected negotiations as observers and report back to the Congress. Congress needs this information to provide meaningful oversight of trade policy. And it is especially vital for Congress to monitor trade negotiations under fast track. The third task relates to dispute settlement. The CTO will evaluate each WTO decision where the U.S. is a participant, explain why cases are lost, and measure the anticipated commercial results from wins. CTO staff will participate as observers on the U.S. delegation. Frankly, I don't think we know whether the WTO dispute settlement process has been successful or not, from the perspective of U.S. commercial interests. A count of wins versus losses doesn't tell us very much. The CTO will give us the facts we need to evaluate the process properly. The final task will be analytical. The CTO will analyze major outstanding trade barriers based on a cost to the U.S. economy. It will also provide an analysis of the administration's--Republican or Democrat--trade policy agenda, and it will analyze the trade accounts every quarter. The Congressional Trade Office is designed to serve the Congress. Its Director will report to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, but will also advise other committees on the impact of trade negotiations on those committees' areas of jurisdiction. Trade rules increasingly affect domestic regulations. The CTO can advise on the implications of trade policy for domestic regulatory issues. The CTO will have a professional staff with a mix of expertise in economics and trade law in various industries and geographic regions. I believe this will give Congress long-term institutional memory on trade, something that is very much needed, particularly when other countries have much more expertise, much more time in their governments devoted to trade and how their countries can benefit from trade basically at the expense of others. I am very grateful for the support of my good friend, Senator Byrd, and I encourage my colleagues to join with us in creating the Congressional Trade Office. I believe this will help the Congress get a little bit further ahead of the curve, better understand the implications of globalization, and pull us a little bit out of our day- to-day reactive mode around here, thinking more long term in a better sense of what is happening in the world--more information, better information on which we can make decisions in this body and, therefore, serve our people better. I very much thank my good friend, Senator Byrd. He has been helpful to us. I yield the floor, and I, again, thank him for his help.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that will help ensure that the Trust is restored to the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act, HTFRA, of 2001 will direct 2.5 cents from the sale of gasohol into the Highway Trust Fund beginning in Fiscal Year 2004. This bill is important for several reasons. First, the bill reconfirms the landmark 1998 highway bill--TEA 21, which is so important to economic development in Montana and throughout the country. Second, the bill will ensure that much needed highway improvements are made throughout the country. Third, this bill means more jobs for Montanans and others throughout the country. It is, in short, the right thing to do. By way of background, the gas tax was established for one simply reason: to finance the construction of the national highway system. In 1993, there was a departure. The tax was increased, by 4.3 cents a gallon. And, for the first time, the tax was used not for the highway program, but instead for deficit reduction. I supported the increase, reluctantly, as part of an overall compromise that was a key step towards balancing the budget. Even so, many of us were determined to restore the principle that the gas tax should only be used to fund our highway and related transportation programs. We worked, as we said, to ``put the trust back in the trust fund.'' It was a long, difficult fight. We faced tough opposition, from the Administration, the budget committees, and elsewhere. But, in the end, we prevailed. During the Senate's consideration of the 1998 highway bill, we provided that the entire gas tax, including the 4.3 cents, would go into the Highway Trust Fund and be used exclusively for highway construction and other transportation needs. When an amendment was offered to repeal the 4.3 cents tax, it was defeated. Don't get me wrong. Nobody likes taxes. But, since its inception, the gas tax is how we get money to pay for our highways. As these things go, the gas tax has worked well. Ensuring necessary and affordable energy supplies, including ethanol- blended motor fuels and other initiatives, is important to the quality of life and economic prosperity of all Americans. Policies to achieve these objectives, however, should not come at the expense of transportation infrastructure improvements. Under current law, ethanol enjoys an exemption from current excise tax rates. This exemption allows the price of gasohol, ethanol mixed with gasoline, to be lower than the price of gasoline. Two and one half cents from the sale of this lower priced fuel is still sent to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. It should be going to the Highway Trust Fund. Let me explain what the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act of 2001 would mean for our nation's highway program. At least $400 million a year would now go where it belongs, toward the maintenance of our Nation's highways. I'll get right to the point. Most of my colleagues were here for the highway bill debate. You know how difficult it was. You know how hard we fought to make sure that each of our states would get enough funding to support our transportation needs. We still need more. As was made clear in the debate over TEA-21 in 1998, America still has a significant shortfall in funding when it comes to maintaining a serviceable highway system. The Department of Transportation estimates that the Nations requires $56.6 billion annually just to maintain existing road and bridge conditions on our Federal highway system. Yet TEA-21 meets only 56 percent of that need. This 2.5 cent transfer means that thousands of hard-working folks who show up every day, in good weather and bad, to build our roads and improve our communities will have jobs to go to. These are people who depend on their jobs to support themselves and their families. Pulling this all together, the Congress needs to find a way to enhancing our energy independence without undermining our highway programs. The Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act of 2001 is a step in the right direction. There's one final point. For the past few years, Congress has been criticized for putting partisan politics ahead of the public interest. In short, of not getting much done. There have been some notable exceptions. Balancing the budget. Reforming the welfare system. And, yes, reaching a bipartisan compromise on the 1998 highway bill, TEA-21. That bill did not just reauthorize the highway program. It renewed and revitalized the highway program. We passed it overwhelmingly, by a vote of 88-5. It was a great accomplishment. We can confirm that accomplishment by passing the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want to state for the record that I fully recognize the importance of ensuring that all Americans have safe and clean drinking water. As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I helped author the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, I also understand the health hazards posed by unsafe levels of arsenic in our drinking water supplies. However, I also understand the difficulties faced by small water systems as they struggle to pay for the infrastructure they need to make sure their systems are in compliance with federal regulations. A lot of Montanans get their water from rural water systems. A lot of rural Montanans are struggling to make ends meet with low incomes. The last thing we want is to put small systems in a position where they have to charge their customers rates they just can't afford. We have a responsibility to these people, to make sure that not only do they have clean, safe water, but that they can afford it. I am glad that Senator Boxer and others have stated they recognize this problem and that they are willing to help make sure the Federal Government steps up to the plate with the necessary funding. I am pleased to hear that Senator Jeffords will take up in September Senator Reid's bill to help small community drinking water systems pay for infrastructure improvements. I pledge to do whatever I can to support Senator Reid's bill in the Environment and Public Works Committee and I will become a cosponsor of that bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of Mexican trucks. I want to applaud Senator Murray and Senator Shelby for their efforts to craft a common-sense solution on this issue. Their provision would ensure strong safety requirements and would be consistent with our obligations under NAFTA. As most people are well aware, the last Administration delayed opening the border to Mexican trucks because of serious safety concerns. Indeed, numerous reports have documented these concerns--failing brakes, overweight trucks, and uninsured, unlicensed drivers--to name just a few. The most recent figures of the Department of Transportation indicate that Mexican trucks are much more likely to be ordered off the road for severe safety deficiencies than either U.S. or Canadian trucks. While a NAFTA arbitration panel has ruled that the United States must initiate efforts to open the border to these trucks, we need to be clear about what the panel has said. The panel indicated: The United States may not be required to treat applications from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the same manner as applications from United States or Canadian firms. . . . U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operations of trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is United States, Canadian, or Mexican. Moreover, the panel also indicated that U.S. compliance with its NAFTA obligations ``would not necessarily require providing favorable consideration to all or to any specific number of applications'' for Mexican trucks so long as these applications are reviewed, ``on a case- by-case basis.'' In other words, the U.S. government is well within its rights to impose standards it considers necessary to ensure that our highways are safe. The Administration has suggested that it is seeking to treat U.S., Mexican, and Canadian trucks in the same way--but we are not required to treat them in the same way. That's what the NAFTA panel said. With Mexican trucks, there are greater safety risks. And where there are greater safety risks, we can--and must--impose stricter safety standards. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the issue of Mexican trucks. I want to applaud Senator Murray and Senator Shelby for their efforts to craft a common-sense solution on this issue. Their provision would ensure strong safety requirements and would be consistent with our obligations under NAFTA. As most people are well aware, the last Administration delayed opening the border to Mexican trucks because of serious safety concerns. Indeed, numerous reports have documented these concerns failing brakes, overweight trucks, and uninsured, unlicensed drivers to name just a few. The Department of Transportation's most recent figures indicate that Mexican trucks are much more likely to be ordered off the road for severe safety deficiencies than either U.S. or Canadian trucks. While a NAFTA arbitration panel has ruled that the United States must initiate efforts to open the border to these trucks, we need to be clear about what the panel has said. The panel indicated, and I quote: ``the United States may not be required to treat applications from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the same manner as applications from United States or Canadian firms. . . . U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operations of trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is United States, Canadian, or Mexican.'' Moreover, U.S. compliance with its NAFTA obligations--and again to quote the panel: ``would not necessarily require providing favorable consideration to all or to any specific number of applications'' for Mexican trucks so long as these applications are reviewed ``on a case- by-case basis.'' In other words, the U.S. government is well within its rights to impose standards it considers necessary to ensure that our highways are safe. The Administration has suggested that it is seeking to treat U.S., Mexican, and Canadian trucks in the same way--but we are not required to treat them in the same way. That's what the NAFTA panel said. With Mexican trucks, there are greater safety risks. And where there are greater safety risks, we can impose stricter safety standards. In addition to safety, we must also be concerned about the effect on our environment. I am co-sponsoring an amendment by Senator Kerry to ensure that--consistent with the NAFTA--opening our border to Mexican trucks does not result in environmental damage.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise to congratulate Sam Haddon and United States Magistrate Judge Richard Cebull, whom the Senate today confirmed to serve as Montana's U.S. District Court judges. These confirmations are of great importance to my State of Montana. Currently only one of our three judgeships is filled, which has placed a large burden on the shoulders of our remaining judge, Don Malloy. I thank the Judiciary Committee for taking up these nominations in such a timely manner, especially Senator Leahy who has been very helpful, and Senator Hatch as well. I also thank them for putting up with the enthusiasm of Senator Burns and myself as we, in some sense, pestered or hectored the two Senators for getting up these nominations so quickly. In addition, I thank the leader for scheduling these nominations to be confirmed this morning, at this time. I could not think of two men who are more qualified to serve as Montana's Federal judges than Sam Haddon and Magistrate Judge Cebull. We in Montana tend to know each other, or if we do not know each other personally, we tend to know each other by reputation. I know Sam Haddon. I know Richard Cebull. I also know their reputations. They are sterling men and will serve as first-rate, highly distinguished U.S. Federal judges. Sam Haddon is a graduate of the University of Montana Law School. After serving with the Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the late 1950s and early 1960s, he worked in private practice. I know he has dreamed of being a Federal judge. His dream has now come true. I might say, as an example of the hard-working industry of Sam Haddon, he is the first member of his family to go off to college and he now will become, when he is sworn in, a U.S. Federal judge. We are all extremely proud of Sam Haddon. Before serving as U.S. Magistrate in Great Falls, MT, Richard Cebull served as a Billings attorney for close to 30 years. He was born and raised in our State and has earned the respect of everyone in our State who has had the good fortune and privilege of meeting him, engaging with him as a magistrate or in a nonprofessional capacity. He and Sam Haddon are two people who are just perfect representatives of the quality of the people in our State of Montana. It is a great honor and with great pride I join in thanking them for wanting to serve, and I thank the Senate for confirming both of them so we in Montana now have all our judgeships filled. We have three wonderful U.S. district court judges. We thank all in the Senate who have made this happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year, Mr. Daschle and I fought hard against efforts to halt the progress of the new Missouri River Master Manual. As my distinguished colleague from South Dakota pointed out both last year and this year, the Missouri River is a river in jeopardy and the manual is long overdue for a revision. We need a more balanced management of this river system, a balance that will, among other things, give more weight to the use of the water for recreation upstream, at places like Fort Peck reservoir in Montana. Under the current river operations, there are times when the lake has been drawn down so low that boat ramps are a mile or more from the water's edge, all to send water downstream to support the barge industry. Recreation is vital to the eastern Montana economy and to economies of other upper Missouri states. It's time the Army Corps' management practices reflected that reality. This year, one of the worst water years in my State's history, the problems started back in March and April. The Corps told me their hands were tied by the old manual as to how much they could protect lake levels at Ft. Peck and at other upstream Missouri reservoirs--in short, they had to keep letting water out even though lake levels were dropping fast. Which is why I applaud Senator Bond's decision to search for compromise because we all want a solution to this problem. We all want to make sure the river is managed in the best way possible. Mr. Bond has come forward with an amendment that will allow the Corps flexibility to work towards that goal. Mr. Reid and Mr. Domenici agreed to language in the Energy and Water bill that will make sure the Corps won't accelerate this process, and that a decision on a new master manual won't be made until 2003. The Corps now has breathing room to do what's right for the Missouri River, for upstream and downstream interests and for fish and wildlife. After more than 50 years, it's about time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to call attention to racism in our society. There are certain moments when we are reminded that it exists, and that it is a very ugly thing. Recently, the Committee of 100, a group of prominent Chinese-Americans, published a survey that measured attitudes toward Asian-Americans, especially those of Chinese descent. It was the first such comprehensive survey--the group wanted to establish a baseline that can be compared to future studies so that we can determine whether racist attitudes against Chinese-Americans are rising or falling. The result of this first survey was distressing. Apparently, one- quarter of Americans hold ``very negative attitudes'' toward Chinese- Americans, and one-third think that Chinese-Americans are more likely to be loyal to China than to the United States. Stop and think about that: a charge of disloyalty is a sensational accusation when it is leveled by one American against another. This survey suggests that 90 million people in this country accuse millions of their fellow Americans of disloyalty. The same poll also tested attitudes toward Asian-Americans in general, with similar results. Twenty-four percent of Americans would be upset if someone in their family married an Asian-American; 23 percent would be uncomfortable voting for an Asian-American president; and 17 percent would be disappointed if an Asian-American moved into their neighborhood. Prejudice toward Chinese-Americans, and toward Asian-Americans in general, is not unique. Immigrants from all parts of the world have been stereotyped and reviled at some point in our history, and many groups continue to face these attitudes today. I chose to focus on Chinese-Americans today only because the survey so surprised and concerned me. Chinese immigrants began entering the country in large numbers in the 1850's. They were initially welcomed in the tight labor market of the rapidly expanding West. In fact, American industry brought many of the immigrants from China as contract laborers. Some of these immigrants toiled in gold mines and on the transcontinental railroad. Others worked in vegetable and fruit farms in California or on sugar plantations in Hawaii. Still others opened grocery stores, laundries, and other businesses. But as labor became more plentiful and the gold rush petered out, public sentiment toward these new Americans turned. A campaign to drive the Chinese out of the country was fueled by racist slogans and developed , at times, into all-out hysteria. Discriminatory laws and boycotts against Chinese labor resulted, along with lynchings and beatings. In 1882, the federal government put an official stamp on this racism by passing the Chinese Exclusion Act, which made it illegal for Chinese people to emigrate to this country. This unprecedented and embarrassing law stayed on the books until 1943. Another indignity that immigrants faced was the system of ``anti- miscegenation'' laws against intermarriage. In 1880, California passed a statute forbidding marriage of a white person to a ``Negro, Mulatto, or Mongolian.'' The federal government passed the Cable Act in 1922, revoking the citizenship of any American woman who married an Asian man. It wasn't until 1967 that the Supreme Court struck down these laws. I am sorry to report that my own state of Montana was not immune to anti-immigrant action. Census data show that in 1870, the Chinese accounted for the largest foreign-born population in the state--larger even than the Irish. Chinese workers made a particularly significant contribution to the mining town of Butte, but by the 1880's they faced discrimination and hate attacks. Ads in newspapers appeared with the slogan ``Chinese need not apply'' Anti-peddling ordinances were enacted against Chinese grocers. In fact, the town's fourth mayor rode to victory on the slogan ``The Chinese must go.'' There is no single description of a Chinese-American. Some Chinese- Americans were already wealthy and well-educated when they arrived here. Others arrived in penury and followed the American path to education and success. Some Chinese-Americans continue to celebrate their Chinese origin. Others deny, or have forgotten completely, the cultural heritage of their ancestors. Yet all are Americans. Cruz Reynoso, the first Mexican-American to serve on California's Supreme Court, put it this way: Americans are not now, and never have been, one people linguistically or ethnically. America is a political union-- not a cultural, linguistic, religious, or racial union. It is acceptance of our constitutional ideals of democracy, equality, and freedom which acts as a unifier for us as Americans. Political scientist Carl Friedrich made a similar point when he wrote in 1935: ``To be an American is an ideal, while to be a Frenchman is a fact.'' An individual is an American if he or she embraces the founding political ideals of our Nation. It is the responsibility of all of us, as the elected representatives of the American people, to combat racism in our society, to raise awareness of how racism damages our nation and our society, to point to the ideals that bind us together as citizens of this great nation. Thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise today to further explain my opposition to the pending amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain. The Senator's amendment seeks to address worthwhile objectives such as providing for the operation and maintenance of our armed forces and increasing funding for personnel needs. I support these goals and believe they should be addressed. However, the offset for this amendment troubles me for two reasons and it is because of these reservations that I cannot support the amendment offered by Senator McCain. The first issue concerns the specific funding recissions in the designated offset. For example, the amendment rescinds $141,500,000 in Department of Labor funding earmarked for Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities and Adult Employment and Training Activities. This funding is critical for my home State of Montana because we are in the midst of an energy crisis that has to date been responsible for over 1000 lost jobs. Retraining dollars are essential for helping these newly laid-off workers develop new skills and learn new trades so they can more quickly rejoin the workforce in a state that is already struggling economically. The second issue is the lack of separation between non-defense and defense funding that this amendment proposes. The separation of defense and non-defense spending has served us well in meeting our nation's budget priorities and making fiscally responsible decisions. Utilizing non-defense funding to offset the additional spending of this amendment sets a precedent that I do not believe we should set. We should fund the priorities, laid forth by Senator McCain, in a timely manner, but we should not use existing funding in non-defense programs to accomplish our goal.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with deep reluctance, I oppose my good friend from South Carolina. I must say that I compliment him because it was earlier that he suggested to me the stimulus to get the economy going. He was foresightful of that fact, and because of that recognition, we now find that the economy does need to be stimulated a little bit. I compliment him for that. I must oppose him on this amendment, however. This is a revenue measure. It has not been before the Finance Committee. In fact, it has in a certain sense been before the committee because it was part of a larger bill and the committee voted against it. Second, this is a revenue provision on an appropriations bill. Under the Constitution, it will be blue-slipped by the House. The House will automatically reject it. Beyond that, we just passed a tax bill. Let's not have a yo-yo, up- and-down tax bill. We can modify it later.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. BAUCUS. That is absolutely true. There are many Senators who wanted to offer tax provisions to this bill but deferred, recognizing this is not the time and place. It is Ecclesiastes, Mr. President: Essentially there is a time and place for everything. This is not the right time and place for tax legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to my good friend from Nevada.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a Patients' Bill of Rights bill. This is not a defense bill. This is not a foreign aid bill. This is not an agriculture bill. This is not a tax bill. This is the Patients' Bill of Rights bill. The amendment offered by my good friend from Oregon is not a Patients' Bill of Rights amendment. It is a tax amendment. In fact, he would like to report out of the Finance Committee, by his amendment, a bill that is currently in the Senate Finance Committee, a tax bill. Tax legislation does not properly lie at this moment on this bill. Pure and simple. Full stop. That ends it. I also say to my good friend from Oregon, I agree with permanent extension of the R&D tax credit. I daresay a majority of Senators agree. I cosponsored legislation in the past. The Finance Committee reported out a permanent extension, and the Senate-passed tax bill, that huge tax bill of $1.35 trillion, included permanent extension of the tax credit. Unfortunately, it did not survive in conference, but it is clear that the R&D tax credit has enormous support in this body. Does anybody here think there is not going to be another tax bill? Of course, nobody here believes there will not be another tax bill. There will be tax legislation this year. That is clear. The appropriate time for this Senate to appropriately include considering permanent extension of the R&D tax credit is when the tax legislation comes up. The current provision expires December 31, not 2001, not December 31, 2002, not December 31, 2003; it expires December 31, 2004, over 3 years away. In all the years we have been extending the R&D tax credit, that is probably the longest extension that has existed. I agree with my good friend; it should be permanent. This yo-yo, up- and-down, back-and-forth, on-again off-again application of the R&D tax credit by this body does not make good sense. It is wrong. This is not a tax bill; this is a Patients' Bill of Rights bill. There will be tax legislation. When there is tax legislation before this body, that is the time we can appropriately consider permanently extending the R&D tax credit. I wish my good friend would withdraw his amendment because this is not the proper time and place for it. If he does not wish to withdraw it, I urge my colleagues to not support it because this is not the time and place. Were it to pass, the door would be open and we would be writing another tax bill. We have already passed a big tax bill. We passed a tax bill of 1.35 trillion bucks. That is a big tax bill. This is not the time and place.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I will wait until the Senator concludes and then I will make a judgment whether I want to make another statement.