Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of campaign finance reform. I appreciate the Leadership's willingness to so fully take up this issue. It is a debate that has been a long time in coming. And the need has never been more urgent. Money has a stranglehold on democracy under our current system. It is clear that we must take action now to restore the public's faith in our political system. Every year we talk and talk about reforming the system. We bemoan the role of special interests. We're forced to spend an inordinate amount of time raising money. We have to worry about financing the next race the day after we get elected. That's not why we're here and it's not what we were elected to do. Ideally, I would like to wipe the slate clean. Start over with a clean campaign finance system and a level playing field. For now, let's start by addressing soft money and the abuse of issue advocacy advertising. Exactly what McCain-Feingold, as amended, does. Soft money only serves to further taint the image Americans have about politics. As soft money contributions increase, so does the perception that special interests own us. As a result, cynicism towards Congress and its activities continues to grow. The use of unregulated soft money contributions must be curbed in Federal campaigns. Soft money, as a percent of total funding, has more than doubled since 1992. This is not a partisan issue. Soft money has more than doubled for both parties. My entire state of Montana could fit through the soft money loopholes. The last time Congress considered such a thorough overhaul of campaign finance law was 1974. We thought then that regulations placed on hard money would straighten up the system. Instead, the use of soft money to the parties and groups has exploded. We've all heard this number over these days of debate, but I think it warrants being mentioned again: Last year's election parties collected a record $490 million dollars in soft money. That's obscene. With $490 million, school construction projects could be completed so our kids aren't learning in overcrowded classrooms. With $490 million, we could move towards implementing a prescription drug benefit. Let's straighten out our priorities and have folks contribute instead to the projects that really need it. The problem we're really facing is how grey the campaign finance laws have become. McCain-Feingold, as amended, would make them black and white. Just take issue advocacy advertising as an example. In the last couple campaigns, the lines have been blurred between express advocacy, which requires federal disclosures, and issue advocacy. We can all recall advertisements in our own state that just barely skirted the lines. In Montana, the unregulated soft money ads started early. Close to a year before the election, groups started attacking candidates with mud-slinging ads. Groups with benign sounding names that hid their partisan bent. Ads that attacked candidates, and even told people where to call, but somehow fell under the ``issue advocacy'' definition, And were exempt from campaign finance laws. Aren't we missing the point? The spirit of the ad is what's important. By attacking only one candidate, that leads to the obvious conclusion that the ad is supporting the opposition. And that should subject the money used to pay for the ad to regulation and disclosure. A new, clear definition of issue advocacy is necessary--one that closes the loopholes. I supported the original bill language that would ban ``grey'' issue advocacy ads that fall within 60 days of the general election or 30 days of a primary and was specific to corporate and Union treasury funds. However, I believe the Wellstone amendment, extending coverage to all third-party expenditures, makes McCain- Feingold a better and more balanced bill. Now, there is one area where I differ with McCain-Feingold, and that is in my support for a non-severability clause. The bill, as it now stands, is fair and balanced legislation. Non-severability is the only tool available to guarantee that the balance and fairness of McCain- Feingold stands. By allowing the Court to strike down individual parts of the bill, we run the serious risk of a final bill that is very different than what was voted on. I am hopeful that the final bill will not encounter opposition by the Supreme Court and that severability will become a non-issue. I applaud Senators McCain and Feingold for continuing to raise this issue. I believe that we can pass a comprehensive bill and achieve true, bipartisan campaign finance reform.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Hatch in introducing legislation to permanently extend the exception from Subpart F for active financing income. Current law contains a temporary provision, expiring at the end of this year, that makes sure that the active financial services income that a U.S. financial services company earns abroad is not subjected to U.S. tax until that income is distributed back to the U.S. parent company. Our legislation is intended to keep the U.S. financial services industry on an equal footing with foreign-based competitors by making this provision permanent. The growing interdependence of world financial markets has highlighted the need to rationalize U.S. tax rules that undermine the ability of American financial services industries to compete in the international arena. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the U.S. tax treatment of worldwide income does not encourage avoidance of U.S. tax through the sheltering of income in foreign tax havens. However, I believe it is possible to adequately protect the federal fisc without jeopardizing the international expansion and competitiveness of U.S.-based financial services companies, including finance and credit entities, commercial banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. The active financing provision is particularly important today. The U.S. financial services industry is second to none and plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. Through our network of tax treaties, we have made tremendous progress in gaining access to new foreign markets for this industry in recent years. Our tax laws should complement, rather than undermine, this effort. As is the case with other tax provisions such as the research and development tax credit, the temporary nature of the U.S. active financing exception denies U.S. companies the certainty enjoyed by their foreign competitors. The economic growth of American's financial sector is impaired by the uncertainty under the current system created by continually extending the exception on a temporary basis. The activities that are affected by this provision are long-range in nature and therefore those entering into these activities need to know the long-range tax consequences of their actions. A permanent extension of the active financing exception is needed to allow our financial services industry to compete internationally. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and provide a consistent, equitable, and stable international tax regime for the U.S. financial services industry.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Hatch in introducing legislation to permanently extend the exception from Subpart F for active financing income. Current law contains a temporary provision, expiring at the end of this year, that makes sure that the active financial services income that a U.S. financial services company earns abroad is not subjected to U.S. tax until that income is distributed back to the U.S. parent company. Our legislation is intended to keep the U.S. financial services industry on an equal footing with foreign-based competitors by making this provision permanent. The growing interdependence of world financial markets has highlighted the need to rationalize U.S. tax rules that undermine the ability of American financial services industries to compete in the international arena. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the U.S. tax treatment of worldwide income does not encourage avoidance of U.S. tax through the sheltering of income in foreign tax havens. However, I believe it is possible to adequately protect the federal fisc without jeopardizing the international expansion and competitiveness of U.S.-based financial services companies, including finance and credit entities, commercial banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. The active financing provision is particularly important today. The U.S. financial services industry is second to none and plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. Through our network of tax treaties, we have made tremendous progress in gaining access to new foreign markets for this industry in recent years. Our tax laws should complement, rather than undermine, this effort. As is the case with other tax provisions such as the research and development tax credit, the temporary nature of the U.S. active financing exception denies U.S. companies the certainty enjoyed by their foreign competitors. The economic growth of American's financial sector is impaired by the uncertainty under the current system created by continually extending the exception on a temporary basis. The activities that are affected by this provision are long-range in nature and therefore those entering into these activities need to know the long-range tax consequences of their actions. A permanent extension of the active financing exception is needed to allow our financial services industry to compete internationally. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and provide a consistent, equitable, and stable international tax regime for the U.S. financial services industry.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleague and friend, Senator Jeffords to introduce S. 626, the Work Opportunity Improvement Act of 2001. This legislation would permanently extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC, and the Welfare-to-Work, W-t-W, tax credit. The measure would also modify WOTC's eligibility criteria to help those receiving food stamps qualify for the credit. Over the past 5 years these tax credits have played an integral part in helping a million and a half of America's working poor transition into the work force. WOTC was enacted in September of 1996, and W-t-W a year later, in order to provide employers with the financial resources they would need to recruit, hire, and retain individuals who have significant barriers to work. Traditionally, employers have been resistant to hiring those coming off the welfare rolls not only because they tended to be less educated and have little work place experience, but also because welfare dependency fosters self esteem problems which need to be surmounted. But these hiring tax incentives have clearly demonstrated that employers can be enticed to overcome their natural resistance to hiring less skilled, economically dependent individuals provided they are supplied adequate financial incentives. No other hiring tax incentive or training program has been nearly as successful as WOTC and W-t-W in encouraging employers to change their hiring practices. A vibrant public-private partnership has developed over the past 5 years where-by government has provided the incentives and program administration support required to induce employers to participate. Employers have responded by changing their hiring practices. Many employers have established outreach and recruitment programs to target eligible individuals. States have made these programs more employer- friendly by continually improving the way they are administered. But time and again, we hear from both employers and the State job services, which administer the programs, that the continued uncertainty surrounding short-term extensions impedes expanded participation and improvements in program administration. A permanent extension would induce many of the employers now participating to expand their recruitment efforts and encourage the States to commit more time and effort to perfecting their administration of the program. This in turn would mean that even more individuals would be helped to transition from welfare dependency to work. Precisely because these programs have proven to be such successes over the past 5 years that we believe they should be made permanent. In addition to making the WOTC and W-t-W programs permanent, our legislation would improve the WOTC program by increasing the age ceiling in the food stamp category from age 21 to age 51. This would greatly improve the job prospects for many absentee fathers and other vulnerable males who are less likely to qualify under other categories. Making absentee fathers eligible for the WOTC credits would provide employers with the incentive to hire them and in so doing provide them with the sense of personal responsibility and community involvement that are essential first steps to their assuming their responsibility as parents. We urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation to permanently extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Welfare-to-Work tax credit programs.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to implement the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. I introduce this legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry, Landrieu, Inouye, Torricelli, Daschle, Leahy, Bingaman, Wyden, and Lieberman. The same legislation is today being introduced by colleagues in the other body. The United States-Jordan FTA was signed on October 26, 2000 and formally submitted to Congress on January 6. For a variety of reasons, it is one of the most significant trade achievements in recent years. Simply put, the United States-Jordan FTA is a strong trade agreement. It eliminates barriers to trade on goods and services across the board. The agreement is very much on a par with the FTA with Canada and Mexico; the specific provisions of the agreement mirror the United States-Israel FTA and the related understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Although the volume of trade involved is not likely to have much impact on the United States, it should be a significant boon to Jordan--and that does benefit the United States. Jordan has become one of the United States' best allies in the Middle East. Demonstrating considerable courage and leadership, Jordan has made peace with Israel and cooperated with the United States on a number of diplomatic fronts. As the majority leader Senator Lott wrote in a letter to the President on March 8 urging approval of the agreement: Jordan has been a reliable partner of the United States and has played an important role in America's efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. The United States -Jordan Free Trade Agreement is an important and timely symbol of this critical relationship. I strongly agree with Senator Lott. I am normally skeptical of using geopolitical rationales to change U.S. trade policy, but in this case the right geopolitical outcome is also the right trade policy outcome. Most of the controversy surrounding the United States-Jordan FTA focuses on provisions of the agreement regarding the environment and labor. Without question, these are significant provisions. They address labor rights and environmental issues in the core of the agreement and make the issues subject to dispute settlement like all other provisions of the agreement. That said, the provisions simply obligate both countries to enforce their current labor and environmental laws and not weaken their laws with the aim of distorting trade. Any objective reading of the provisions makes it clear that critics' fears of private parties litigating under these portions of the agreement or attacking U.S. environmental laws are simply unfounded. The agreement is clearly a government-to-government agreement; private parties cannot trigger dispute settlement proceedings. I believe there is little chance of the United States actually weakening its environmental laws, but it is certainly not going to take such a step with the aim of distorting trade with Jordan. Given Jordan's strong position on labor rights and environmental issues and the consultative process of the dispute settlement in the agreement, it is quite unlikely these provisions will ever result in the imposition of trade sanctions--the stated fear of the critics. In fact, in the decade and a half it has been in place, the United States-Israel FTA dispute settlement procedures, the model for the Jordan FTA, have only been invoked once and, even in that case, sanctions were never imposed. I suspect the real fear of critics is that the Jordan agreement will set a precedent for inclusion of labor and environmental provisions in future trade agreements. I understand that. That precedent, however, has already been set. Both the world trading system--now represented by the World Trade Organization--and the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, address labor and environmental issues. In my opinion, all future trade agreements must meaningfully address labor and environmental issues to win congressional approval. Further, the United States-Jordan FTA has already been negotiated, and it has been signed. Even if it was not ultimately approved by the Congress, the precedent has already been set with an approved and signed agreement. The bell cannot be unrung. There is a more serious precedent at stake. When President Clinton took office in 1993, I urged him to support the NAFTA agreement struck by his predecessor in the White House without renegotiation. I did this not because the NAFTA was a perfect agreement, it was not. It needed improvement. But certainly there were certain areas where improvement was possible. I supported it, and I told the President so because it is vital for there to be continuity in trade policy, I might add, also in foreign policy. Reopening negotiations on an agreement that is already signed to address what can only be called a partisan concern threatens the credibility of U.S. trade policy. Scuttling or renegotiating the United States-Jordan FTA also sets a precedent for any new administration to undo the agreements negotiated by its predecessor. This would destroy any possibility of bipartisan trade policy and discourage our trading partners from negotiating seriously with the United States. We simply cannot afford to allow this kind of partisan chicanery to overwhelm good trade policy. I introduce this implementing legislation for the United States- Jordan FTA in the hopes it can be rapidly passed and signed into law. This is a good agreement. The United States-Jordan FTA advances U.S. trade policy as well as Middle East policy. It has wide support from labor and environmental groups, as well as from business leaders. The United States-Jordan FTA can go far to build a consensus on trade policy. It is very important. Aside from the concerns over the labor and environmental provisions which I have already addressed, no one has raised serious objections to this agreement. With Jordan's King Abdullah visiting the United States next week, the Congress and the administration should move together to approve the United States-Jordan FTA. I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my responsibilities to the people of the State of Montana require that I be in Montana during the President's visit to my State. However, because campaign finance reform is such an important issue, I would like to submit this statement on how I would have voted on the following had I been present in the Senate today. On the Hollings constitutional amendment. I voted for this amendment in the 105th Congress, and I would have voted for it again in the 107th. This amendment would ensure that Congress had the ability to combat the influence of money on the voting process. On the Wellstone amendment, I would have voted for this amendment. I think it is a step in the right direction because it does not single out one group and reduce its ability to communicate with the voters. This amendment will create a more level playing field with regards to issue advertisements.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am happy to co-sponsor this legislation with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, McCain, Inouye, Feinstein, and Cochran, to extend the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs to Indian tribes. This legislation will enhance tribal sovereignty by giving tribes choices when it comes to providing child welfare services to their children. Hundreds of thousands of children are currently in foster care due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The programs authorized under Title IV- E of the Social Security Act play an important role in safeguarding the well-being of these children. The programs provide funding to states to cover the costs of food, shelter, clothing, and other supplies for eligible children that are placed in foster care. States also receive funding for related administrative and training costs. Unfortunately, thousands of Native American children who meet income eligibility criteria are not automatically eligible to receive this funding if they are placed in foster care or up for adoption by a tribal agency. Under current law, only states can directly benefit from this funding source. In order to receive these monies, tribes must form cooperative agreements with their respective states. In Montana, all seven of our tribes have developed foster care agreements with the state government, and the agreements reportedly are successful for the parties involved. But we are lucky. Not all tribes or states have been able to form these agreements with each other. Nor should they have to. This legislation will allow tribes, like states, to submit plans to the Department of Health and Human Services in order to receive Title IV-E payments directly. Or tribes could continue their cooperative state agreements. The point is, this bill will give tribes choices when it comes to their child welfare services. It will enhance tribal sovereignty. And for many tribes, it will give them access to funding sources currently not available to them. I believe this legislation is important for Indian children and tribal sovereignty. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and making Title IV-E programs available to all eligible children.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am happy to co-sponsor this legislation with my colleagues, Senators Daschle, McCain, Inouye, Feinstein, and Cochran, to extend the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs to Indian tribes. This legislation will enhance tribal sovereignty by giving tribes choices when it comes to providing child welfare services to their children. Hundreds of thousands of children are currently in foster care due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The programs authorized under Title IV- E of the Social Security Act play an important role in safeguarding the well-being of these children. The programs provide funding to states to cover the costs of food, shelter, clothing, and other supplies for eligible children that are placed in foster care. States also receive funding for related administrative and training costs. Unfortunately, thousands of Native American children who meet income eligibility criteria are not automatically eligible to receive this funding if they are placed in foster care or up for adoption by a tribal agency. Under current law, only states can directly benefit from this funding source. In order to receive these monies, tribes must form cooperative agreements with their respective states. In Montana, all seven of our tribes have developed foster care agreements with the state government, and the agreements reportedly are successful for the parties involved. But we are lucky. Not all tribes or states have been able to form these agreements with each other. Nor should they have to. This legislation will allow tribes, like states, to submit plans to the Department of Health and Human Services in order to receive Title IV-E payments directly. Or tribes could continue their cooperative state agreements. The point is, this bill will give tribes choices when it comes to their child welfare services. It will enhance tribal sovereignty. And for many tribes, it will give them access to funding sources currently not available to them. I believe this legislation is important for Indian children and tribal sovereignty. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and making Title IV-E programs available to all eligible children.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to begin by saying that I am very sympathetic to the plight of taconite workers described by Senator Wellstone. Unfortunately, the situation is not at all unusual. Taconite workers are an example, and unfortunately not an isolated example, of the fate of workers who supply critical inputs to American industries that face stiff import competition. When American workers lose their jobs because their production is replaced by imports of ``like or directly competitive articles,'' we help those workers through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. TAA provides extended unemployment benefits, retraining benefits, and job search and relocation benefits to workers who lose their jobs through the effects of trade. I am and have been a strong supporter of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for many years. But the present TAA program helps only the workers whom the Department of Labor determines produce the same product that is being imported. This year presents an opportunity to consider how the TAA program can be more effective in meeting the needs of all workers who lose their jobs as a result of import competition. That means recognizing that trade-related job losses and dislocation are devastating for all workers, no matter where they are in the overall production process. The TAA program comes up for reauthorization this year. I think that is the right context for addressing the problem raised today. I want to assure my colleague Senator Wellstone that I would look favorably on expanding the TAA program to cover workers, whenever imports from any country lead to job loss. In fact, we are already working on legislation in the Finance Committee which would do just that. I invite Senator Wellstone to work with the Finance Committee in this effort and to testify before the Committee when we hold hearings on TAA later this year. It is certainly my hope that we will be able to address the trade adjustment needs of taconite and other similarly situated workers, as we work to reauthorize and expand the TAA program this year.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank Senator Wellstone and Senator Dayton for their detailed and thoughtful presentation of the situation of taconite workers in Minnesota and Michigan. I also welcome their willingness to work with me and the Finance Committee on the reauthorization and expansion of the TAA program.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the points made by our good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, as well as by Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee. However, the long and short of it is, the amendment offered by Senator Conrad is very simple. It is probably the only responsible thing to do. Essentially it says Social Security trust fund money is to be kept for Social Security. We are going to keep it in the trust fund so the trust fund continues to build. It also says that the Medicare Part A trust fund money is to be kept in that trust fund to be used as it is supposed to be used. To be honest, we hear lots of arguments on the other side, but, frankly, they sound like Senators doing the administration's bidding by trying to desperately grab shoestring kinds of arguments to try to counter this amendment. If we look at all the arguments, they are transparently false. No. 1, we are playing footloose with senior citizens because it would make it sound as if the Medicare Part A trust fund is in good shape. The fallacy of that is, if we rob Peter to pay Paul, if we rob Part A to pay for Part B, it is going to make the Medicare problem more urgent. I don't think any senior wants that. Second, we hear: Those Democrats don't want to reduce taxes. That is a patently false argument. We are just saying protect Social Security, protect Medicare, because that is what our seniors expect, and that is what the baby boomers certainly expect when they retire on down the road. Third, we hear the argument, gee, if this amendment passes, you are going to have to pay a 21-percent premium on foreign debt. That is totally false. Nobody knows where those figures come from, except I hear them from my good friend from New Mexico. It is true that if this amendment were to be enacted, as it very much should, then earlier, rather than later, we could be facing the question of debt retirement and what debt would be involved and what not. But there are other options. We can use the money for other forms of savings--that is savings provisions outside Social Security or Medicare. Or if we come to the premium question on redeeming debt, we will cross that bridge when we get there. Nobody knows what the premium is. There is a debt rescheduling going on currently. We are buying back debt, and it is working. My main point is that this is a very simple amendment. It is the most responsible thing to do because it starts to protect Social Security and Medicare for senior citizens and for the future. I might add, Mr. President, the alternative amendment we are going to be asked to vote on has, as I think the Senator from North Dakota characterized it, a trapdoor. It is a ``nothing'' amendment. It doesn't do what it purports to do. If you want honesty in budgeting and in amendments, honesty in what provisions actually say, I ask you to look at the language of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota and look at the language of the alternative. You will very clearly see, if you read the language, one does protect Social Security and Medicare, the other does not.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to express my frustration with the OSHA ergonomics standard. Let me be clear that I am not frustrated with this rule because it attempts to improve workplace safety. Musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs, are clearly a serious problem. They account for nearly a third of all serious job-related injuries. As this issue has come before the Senate, I have been a consistent supporter of finding a workable solution to the ergonomics issue. I have voted to let the Administration move forward with the rule-making process while new scientific evidence is brought to light. I believe, however, that this OSHA Ergonomics Standard is not the solution we've been looking for. This rule is constructed in a way that places a potentially heavy financial burden on many small businesses in Montana at a time when those businesses are struggling to keep their doors open. Instead of issuing a rule that places the burden primarily on businesses, let us work to establish a rule that works with the business community, that helps provide both a better work environment for workers and assists businesses in making necessary adjustments. Let us also level the playing field. The OSHA Ergonomics Standard does not apply to employers covered by OSHA's construction, maritime or agricultural standards, or employers who operate a railroad. These exemptions could create unfair advantages in certain industries. That is not right. Additionally, the OSHA Ergonomics Standard supercedes state worker's compensation plans, against OSHA's own provision that it not ``supercede or in any manner affect any workmen's compensation law.'' Clearly, any standard should be coordinated with state worker's compensation provisions. Finally, let us address MSDs proactively. The OSHA Ergonomic Standard is a reactive rule. Workers must explicitly wait for symptoms to occur before they can voice a complaint. Let's instead take what we already know about MSDs in the workplace and work to prevent MSDs altogether. My vote is not a vote against health and safety in the workplace. I will remain a strong proponent of efforts that protect workers from workplace risks. My vote is a vote for finding a better way to balance the needs of business and labor, and a vote to keep undue financial pressures off of Montana's already struggling economy, especially our small business community.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a growing crisis in America's rural communities. We live in a time of balanced budgets, large surpluses, record unemployment, and average wages rising across the country. However, this wealth is not universal across the United States. Our rural areas are suffering the exact opposite effect with large outmigration and negative job growth. My highest priority is reversing this trend, stimulating economic growth and bringing higher paying jobs to my home State of Montana. I am pleased to join Senator Clinton in introducing economic development legislation that is targeted to the areas of greatest need, our rural communities. Our Nation has enjoyed unparalleled economic prosperity during the past decade. However, the boom on Wall Street has not extended to Main Street, MT. The rural areas of America and Montana have endured increased unemployment, the loss of family farms, and the transition from a traditional economy based on natural resources to a new economy where information and technology are highly valued. The effects have been disastrous. Small businesses, which are essential components of community, have been driven under as people have been forced to make the most difficult choice of all and leave their home towns seeking a new and better paying job. In Montana, the problems are actually worse. Statewide, we are suffering. Comparatively we rank forty-seventh in per-capita personal income and second in the number of people holding more than one job. With such a massive economic down-turn, State and local governments are left unable to assist in this economic transition simply due to a lack of funding. The private sector invests where it can, but there is not a company in existence that could finance the investment necessary to bring essential technology to sparsely populated areas. Many of our small towns are left without hope because they are faced with no alternative to the current situation. The tools that are necessary to compete in the new economy are just not available to rural communities and the means to attain them do not exist. If rural America is to survive, we are charged with finding a way for these communities to compete on an equal footing with the more populous areas of this country and the world. That is the intent of the legislative package that we are introducing today. In the same spirit that brought electricity and basic telephone service to our rural communities, we propose a mechanism for bringing broadband capabilities, cutting-edge technology equipment, and incentives for bringing new business to communities and regions that have been left behind. The issues addressed by this legislation strike to the heart of the most pressing problems in my home State of Montana. Especially in Eastern Montana, the so-called ``Digital Divide'' is very real and presents a significant obstacle to economic growth and prosperity. Specifically, the Broadband Deployment Initiative and the Technology Extension Program will not only provide an incentive to the private sector to bring cutting-edge technology to the most rural areas, they will also provide the technical expertise to allow small and medium businesses to use these new tools to their maximum potential. They will be fully equipped to compete in a global economy. I look forward to seeing this bipartisan legislation through Congress and enacted into law. I encourage my colleagues to assist us in this endeavor. It is our duty to ensure that all regions of America have a chance to achieve economic prosperity and have access to the necessary instruments of success.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, yesterday, I led a group of 11 Senators in urging President Bush to ensure that there will be full funding for the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration efforts to make sure that our Nation's trade agreements are fully implemented and followed by our trading partners. In the days leading up to the President's budget proposal, we were seriously concerned by reports that there would be deep cuts in this program. Although it appears that the fiscal 2002 budget does not include cuts, we continue to be concerned that anyone would even consider such a damaging move. This Nation has had a serious problem over the past two decades with many of our most important trading partners who have not complied with commitments made in trade agreements. The Japanese record, for example, of compliance with trade agreements is poor. We have brought disputes against the European Union at the WTO, and won those cases, yet the EU still does not comply with its obligations. China has presented major problems in implementing agreements on intellectual property rights protection and on market access, and China's entry into the WTO will bring new and even more difficult challenges to our efforts to ensure compliance. It is critical that our Government agencies have the resources they need to monitor compliance, and then to take the actions necessary to enforce the commitments made by other nations. Shortchanging those agencies means shortchanging the American farmer, rancher, worker, and business owner. Further, when our trading partners fail to comply with a trade agreement, it corrupts the negotiating process and leads to a loss of confidence in the entire trading system. We cannot allow that to happen. Therefore, we 11 Senators are calling on the President to ensure that the Department of Commerce, USTR, and other agencies responsible for trade agreement compliance are fully funded to ensure that our trading partners follow the rules that they have agreed to follow. I ask unanimous consent that the letter we sent to the President be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a growing crisis in America's rural communities. We live in a time of balanced budgets, large surpluses, record unemployment, and average wages rising across the country. However, this wealth is not universal across the United States. Our rural areas are suffering the exact opposite effect with large outmigration and negative job growth. My highest priority is reversing this trend, stimulating economic growth and bringing higher paying jobs to my home State of Montana. I am pleased to join Senator Clinton in introducing economic development legislation that is targeted to the areas of greatest need, our rural communities. Our Nation has enjoyed unparalleled economic prosperity during the past decade. However, the boom on Wall Street has not extended to Main Street, MT. The rural areas of America and Montana have endured increased unemployment, the loss of family farms, and the transition from a traditional economy based on natural resources to a new economy where information and technology are highly valued. The effects have been disastrous. Small businesses, which are essential components of community, have been driven under as people have been forced to make the most difficult choice of all and leave their home towns seeking a new and better paying job. In Montana, the problems are actually worse. Statewide, we are suffering. Comparatively we rank forty-seventh in per-capita personal income and second in the number of people holding more than one job. With such a massive economic down-turn, State and local governments are left unable to assist in this economic transition simply due to a lack of funding. The private sector invests where it can, but there is not a company in existence that could finance the investment necessary to bring essential technology to sparsely populated areas. Many of our small towns are left without hope because they are faced with no alternative to the current situation. The tools that are necessary to compete in the new economy are just not available to rural communities and the means to attain them do not exist. If rural America is to survive, we are charged with finding a way for these communities to compete on an equal footing with the more populous areas of this country and the world. That is the intent of the legislative package that we are introducing today. In the same spirit that brought electricity and basic telephone service to our rural communities, we propose a mechanism for bringing broadband capabilities, cutting-edge technology equipment, and incentives for bringing new business to communities and regions that have been left behind. The issues addressed by this legislation strike to the heart of the most pressing problems in my home State of Montana. Especially in Eastern Montana, the so-called ``Digital Divide'' is very real and presents a significant obstacle to economic growth and prosperity. Specifically, the Broadband Deployment Initiative and the Technology Extension Program will not only provide an incentive to the private sector to bring cutting-edge technology to the most rural areas, they will also provide the technical expertise to allow small and medium businesses to use these new tools to their maximum potential. They will be fully equipped to compete in a global economy. I look forward to seeing this bipartisan legislation through Congress and enacted into law. I encourage my colleagues to assist us in this endeavor. It is our duty to ensure that all regions of America have a chance to achieve economic prosperity and have access to the necessary instruments of success.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on February 7, 2001, the State of Montana bid farewell to a favored son from Laurel, Montana. ``Sonny O'Day,'' the Kid from Meaderville, was a local hero and businessman who held his family, friends and fans close to his heart. Sonny O'Day (Charles A. George), 1913-2001 Sonny O'Day, the Kid From Meaderville, boxed his final round, hung up his gloves, snuffed his famous stogie, and exited the ring quietly in his sleep on Wednesday, January 31. Sonny, whose legal name was Charles Augustus George, was born Carlo Giorgi on March 8, 1913, to David and Rosa, Ragghianti, Giorgi in Lucca, Italy. His father was killed during World War I. Rosa emigrated to America with her three children to marry her brother-in-law, Angelo Giorgi, in 1920. They passed through Ellis Island, where the family name was Americanized to ``George,'' and took the train through the vast expanses of their new country to the Montana mining community of Meaderville, in Butte. Sonny loved all sports and was a natural athlete. Starting to box as a 10-year-old, Sonny was a protege of Butte's Pat Sullivan Boxing Club. He represented the club in amateur fights throughout the State. He also was an avid football player, swimmer and diver. The City Championship football photograph of his Franklin School team was proudly displayed in his Wall of Fame. Sonny was privately religious and moral, and proudly remembered his years as an altar boy at St. Joseph's Parish. His life-long commitment to family began early when he held his dying mother in his arms at age 14. After her death, Sonny gathered his younger sister and invalid stepfather, Angelo, escorting them back to the family villa in Italy. After Angelo's death, Sonny immediately returned to the U.S. to avoid being conscripted into Mussolini's army. Upon returning from Italy in the early 1930's, the 16-year- old orphan arrived in New York City, where he was told his pugilism could earn him money. He paid his dues sleeping in an Eastside gym and in Central Park in order to get his big break. Lying about his age, he fought amateur bouts until an agent spotted him and said, ``You've got talent, kid, but the Irish control the game. Nobody is gonna come see an Italian boxer!'' Sonny's reddish hair and freckles were the perfect fit to a new identity--Sonny O'Day--and new birthdate--St. Patrick's Day. Spanning the next 17 years, welterweight Sonny fought 529 fights, lost 32 and had, as Sonny used to say, ``some draws and the rest wins,'' in Madison Square Garden, Sunset Garden, and other major venues throughout the United States. He first met World Heavy Weight Champion Jack Dempsey when he refereed one of Sonny's early fights. Living by the adage: ``Smile and the world smiles with you, cry and you cry alone,'' Sonny was known to greet strangers with his famous smile, booming voice, crunching handshake, and the introductory greeting, ``Shake the hand that shook the world!'' His love of Butte was as strong as his handshake. He rarely called the city by name. To him, it was ``The Sacred City,'' and Butte cherished him in return, calling him ``The Mayor of Meaderville,'' ``The Meaderville Phantom,'' and ``Butte's Boxing Star.'' Sonny took his professional boxing earnings and opened two famous Butte nightclubs in the late 1930's: The Savoy and Melody Lane. There, he entertained sports and Hollywood greats including Gene Tunney, Cary Grant and Barbara Hutton. He proudly served the U.S. Army during World War II, and married Carra Burton on September 20, 1944, while stationed in Gadsden, Alabama. The couple returned to Montana after the war where he established his bar and tavern in Laurel. Sonny O'Day's ``Boxing Hall of Champions,'' complete with a boxing ring, was his passion. He entertained beneath his pictures and memorabilia with stories that rhapsodized his listeners. He loved every minute of it, and bragged that he would never retire. Children came in for free candy, and parents came in for Sonny to give the kids their first lessons in self-defense. Sonny's bar was a local tourist attraction for years, and is listed as one of Montana's favorites in a number of publications. Sonny's St. Patrick's Day celebrations were legendary for thousands of fans who descended on the community. It was customary for the Governor--Republican or Democrat--to call Sonny on St. Patrick's Day to wish him happy birthday. In 1986, Governor Ted Schwinden decided a phone call wasn't good enough, and came to Laurel to host Sonny's St. Patrick's Day party. The Laurel Chamber of Commerce surprised Sonny on St. Patrick's Day 1995 by honoring him for 50 years of business. The highlight was a celebrated bout between Sonny and special guest Todd Foster, fellow Montana boxing welterweight and 1988 Olympian. Foster allowed Sonny his final knockout punch for the ``Downtown Laurel Businessmen's Crown.'' In 1952, Golden Gloves Boxing came to Montana, and Sonny helped train these young fighters. At the Shrine Temple in Billings, Golden Gloves championships of an eight-State region took place, and Sonny refereed the very first bout and many more over the years. When boxing turned professional in Montana, Sonny served on the State Athletic Commission for 26 years under seven different governors. This led him to bring 77 professional bouts to Montana, including three world championship fights. As chairman of the Commission, he promoted the Gene Fullmer-Joey Giardello Middleweight Championship of the World title match on April 29, 1960, in Bozeman. Basements and gyms all over Billings and Laurel were the sites for years to come as Sonny trained young fighters. He estimated that he helped develop 2,500-3,000 fighters during those years. The Student Council of Eastern Montana College, now Montana State University-Billings, originated the annual Sonny O'Day Smoker, a fund raiser that entertained the greater Billings area from 1975-81. Sonny's civic community service included 30 years as a Kiwanian, including service as a State Lieutenant Governor; a lifetime member of the Elks; and a founding member of the Montana Gambling Commission. Although he was a professional boxer, he did not believe in corporal punishment, and his daughters fondly remember they never received anything but love from ``those registered hands!'' Whenever the mines in Butte went on strike, he would spearhead caravans of trucks to take food and presents to the miners. He never forgot to feed the alley cats--even on holidays. For a man who had earned his living by the ``manly act of self-defense,'' as Sonny called it, those who knew him saw a gentle soul who lavished kisses and never hesitated to cry tears of sadness or joy. His love of cooking was legendary, and no one could enter his home without being invited to dinner. His family never knew who Sonny would bring home to dinner. Jack Dempsey, Sugar Ray Seale, numerous governors and senators, including Mike Mansfield, sat at the family table in Laurel. Sonny never forgot his Italian roots, and continued to visit and support his sister and her family in Lucca until her death. Visits to the family villa in Lucca rejuvenated him. He was especially proud of the family legacy: The Ragghianti Art Museum, renowned in the province of Tuscany. Sonny is survived by his wife of 56 years, Carra Burton George; his three daughters: Mary-Glynn, Terry, Cromwell of Missoula and grandchildren Charlie, Lauren and David; Nancy, Sam, Talboom of Green River, Wyo. and grandchildren Justin, Carlee, and Jake; and Shelley, Larry, Van Atta of Billings and grandchildren John, Nick, and Marissa; sister-in-law Lois George and her children Michael and Mary Grace, of San Diego, Calif.; and nieces Elisa Mussi and Lalla Volpi, and nephew Carlo Volpi, of Lucca, Italy. He was preceded in death by his parents; brother Gus George; sister Mary Volpi; and son-in- law John Pingree. God surely must be dancing in Heaven, knowing you're joining Him, Sonny; just as you surely will tell Him, ``It's all in the footwork.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a series of bills that would end the embargo on trade with Cuba and normalize our economic relations with this country that is a mere ninety miles off our shore. I should add that Congressman Charles Rangel is offering a set of companion bills in the House today. Last July, I led a small group of Senators to Havana. During our brief visit, we met with Fidel Castro. But we also spent three hours with a group of six dissidents who had spent years in prison, yet have chosen heroically to continue their dissent from within Cuba. We met with the leader of Cuba's largest independent NGO. It was clear to me that our Cuba policy was outdated and needed fundamental change. I have long fought against unilateral economic sanctions, unless our national security was at stake. The Cuba embargo is a unilateral sanction, but our national security is not at stake. The Defense Department has concluded that Cuba does not represent any security threat to this nation. None of our closest allies supports the embargo. Nor do any of our trading partners in the Americas. Unilateral sanctions do not work. The embargo has not changed the behavior of the Cuban government and its leadership. It has not changed the behavior of Fidel Castro. But the embargo has hurt the people of Cuba. And the embargo has hurt American farmers and businesses, as our Asian, European, and Canadian competitors have rushed in to fill the gap in the Cuban market. The U.S. International Trade Commission released a report on the economic impact of U.S. sanctions on Cuba. The ITC found that the embargo costs US exporters, farmers, manufacturers, and service providers between $650 million and one billion dollars a year in lost sales. This is intolerable. We should lift the embargo. We should engage Cuba economically. We should engage the people of Cuba. The bills I am introducing today do just that. The first bill, on which I am joined by Senators Roberts, Lincoln, and Dorgan, is the ``Free Trade with Cuba Act'', that would lift the embargo completely. The second bill, on which I am joined by Senators Roberts and Lincoln, is the ``United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2001'', that would remove Cuba from Jackson-Vanik treatment and provide normal trade relations status on a permanent basis. The third bill, on which I am also joined by Senators Roberts and Lincoln, is the ``Cuban Humanitarian Trade Act of 2001'', that removes the restrictions on food and medicine exports imposed in the last Congress, repeals the codification of travel restrictions, and removes limitations on remittances to individual Cuban citizens. I am not suggesting that we embrace Fidel Castro. Far from it! His leadership, his treatment of his own people, his failed economic, political, and social policies--these are unacceptable to all Americans. But the world has changed since the United States initiated the embargo forty years and ten Presidents ago. It does us no good to wait until Castro is gone from the scene before we begin to develop normal relations with the Cuban people and with Cuba's future leaders. If we fail to develop those relationships now, the inevitable transition to democracy and a market economy will be much harder on all of the Cuban people. And events in Cuba could easily escalate out of control and put the United States in the middle of a dangerous domestic crisis on the island. Jim Hoagland, in a recent Washington Post column, wrote about his concern ``when sanctions linger too long and become a political football and a substitute for policy, as is the case today in Cuba.'' This accurately describes where we are today. To help further edify my colleagues on this issue, I would like to enter into the record a column from the February 9 Wall Street Journal by Philip Peters, Vice President of the Lexington Institute, who explains how changes in U.S. policy can help the Cuban people who continue to suffer under Castro's policies of political and economic repression. The three bills that I am offering today serve our national interest, will help us move toward a peaceful transition in the post-Castro era, and will help the Cuban people now. I urge support from all my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a series of bills that would end the embargo on trade with Cuba and normalize our economic relations with this country that is a mere ninety miles off our shore. I should add that Congressman Charles Rangel is offering a set of companion bills in the House today. Last July, I led a small group of Senators to Havana. During our brief visit, we met with Fidel Castro. But we also spent three hours with a group of six dissidents who had spent years in prison, yet have chosen heroically to continue their dissent from within Cuba. We met with the leader of Cuba's largest independent NGO. It was clear to me that our Cuba policy was outdated and needed fundamental change. I have long fought against unilateral economic sanctions, unless our national security was at stake. The Cuba embargo is a unilateral sanction, but our national security is not at stake. The Defense Department has concluded that Cuba does not represent any security threat to this nation. None of our closest allies supports the embargo. Nor do any of our trading partners in the Americas. Unilateral sanctions do not work. The embargo has not changed the behavior of the Cuban government and its leadership. It has not changed the behavior of Fidel Castro. But the embargo has hurt the people of Cuba. And the embargo has hurt American farmers and businesses, as our Asian, European, and Canadian competitors have rushed in to fill the gap in the Cuban market. The U.S. International Trade Commission released a report on the economic impact of U.S. sanctions on Cuba. The ITC found that the embargo costs US exporters, farmers, manufacturers, and service providers between $650 million and one billion dollars a year in lost sales. This is intolerable. We should lift the embargo. We should engage Cuba economically. We should engage the people of Cuba. The bills I am introducing today do just that. The first bill, on which I am joined by Senators Roberts, Lincoln, and Dorgan, is the ``Free Trade with Cuba Act'', that would lift the embargo completely. The second bill, on which I am joined by Senators Roberts and Lincoln, is the ``United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2001'', that would remove Cuba from Jackson-Vanik treatment and provide normal trade relations status on a permanent basis. The third bill, on which I am also joined by Senators Roberts and Lincoln, is the ``Cuban Humanitarian Trade Act of 2001'', that removes the restrictions on food and medicine exports imposed in the last Congress, repeals the codification of travel restrictions, and removes limitations on remittances to individual Cuban citizens. I am not suggesting that we embrace Fidel Castro. Far from it! His leadership, his treatment of his own people, his failed economic, political, and social policies--these are unacceptable to all Americans. But the world has changed since the United States initiated the embargo forty years and ten Presidents ago. It does us no good to wait until Castro is gone from the scene before we begin to develop normal relations with the Cuban people and with Cuba's future leaders. If we fail to develop those relationships now, the inevitable transition to democracy and a market economy will be much harder on all of the Cuban people. And events in Cuba could easily escalate out of control and put the United States in the middle of a dangerous domestic crisis on the island. Jim Hoagland, in a recent Washington Post column, wrote about his concern ``when sanctions linger too long and become a political football and a substitute for policy, as is the case today in Cuba.'' This accurately describes where we are today. To help further edify my colleagues on this issue, I would like to enter into the record a column from the February 9 Wall Street Journal by Philip Peters, Vice President of the Lexington Institute, who explains how changes in U.S. policy can help the Cuban people who continue to suffer under Castro's policies of political and economic repression. The three bills that I am offering today serve our national interest, will help us move toward a peaceful transition in the post-Castro era, and will help the Cuban people now. I urge support from all my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to compliment and honor the men and women of Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, MT. I recently visited the base to congratulate the personnel at Malmstrom for receiving an ``excellent'' rating during their Combat Capability Assessment. After two weeks of evaluations for technical proficiency and mission effectiveness, the 341st Space Wing's operations, security, maintenance, communications personnel and equipment were given an ``excellent'' overall rating. A very high mark for this type of test. Col. Thomas Deppe is the leader of Team Malmstrom. He was absolutely correct when he said, ``It takes a championship team to accomplish our mission across 23,500 square miles of flight line on a daily basis, and we do it well.'' Indeed, they do it well. And they make Montanans and Americans extremely proud. In addition, Col. James Robinson, who is the Combat Capability Assessment team Chief, said that the CCA is one of the ``toughest tests a wing will ever experience.'' He also said that in the three years he has been administering the test, he has ``never seen results this good.'' The 20th Air Force Combat Capability Assessment Team discovered what we have known in Montana for years--that Malmstrom is ``excellent.'' Mr. President, I can tell you from my recent visit to Malmstrom that those folks are very proud of this accomplishment, as they should be. I'm proud of them, too. That is why today I want to recognize them in this great Senate Chamber. And so I say congratulations to Col. Thomas Deppe and the 341st Space Wing, and to all the men and women who work so hard to make Malmstrom Air Force Base what it is--``excellent.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to create a Congressional Trade Office. It is similar to the bill I offered in the last session of Congress. This legislation is designed to assist the Congress in fulfilling our Constitutional responsibility for trade policy by creating an entity that can provide us with the expertise we need to get independent, non-partisan, and neutral analysis and information about trade. Over the past three decades, the role of trade in our economy has grown enormously. In 1970, trade was equal to only eleven percent of our Gross Domestic Product. In contrast, today exports and imports are equivalent to 27 percent of our economy. I have been in Congress for 26 years. During that time, I have watched a continuing transfer of authority and responsibility for trade policy from the Congress to the Executive Branch. The trend has been subtle, but it has been clear and constant. We need to reverse this trend. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says: ``The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' It is our responsibility to set the direction for the Executive Branch in its Formulation of trade policy. It is our responsibility to ensure that agreements with our trading partners are followed and that there is full compliance. It is our responsibility to provide more effective and active oversight of our nation's trade policy. I believe strongly that we must re-assert Congress' constitutionally defined responsibility for international commerce. The Congressional Trade Office I am proposing will provide the entire Congress, through the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, with the additional trade expertise that will allow us to meet these responsibilities. The trade issues that the Congress may face this session are many and complex: Fast track; incorporating legitimate labor and environmental issues into trade policy; the U.S./Jordan Free Trade Agreement; the U.S./Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement; Free Trade Area for the Americas; possible free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, and others; Chinese accession to WTO and then compliance with its WTO commitments; and a new comprehensive multilateral trade round. Congress needs to be much better prepared to deal with these issues responsibly and authoritatively. That means 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 Congressional Trade Office would help us meet these responsibilities through its four core functions. First, it will monitor compliance with major bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. Congress needs the independent ability to look more closely at agreements with other countries. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze the performance under key agreements and evaluate success based on commercial results. It will do this in close consultation with the affected industries. The Congressional Trade Office will recommend to the Congress actions necessary to ensure that commitments made to the United States are fully implemented. It will also provide annual assessments of the extent to which agreements comply with labor and environmental goals. The General Accounting Office has reported on the deficiencies in the Executive Branch in following trade agreements and monitoring compliance. Often more energy goes into negotiating new agreements than into ensuring that existing agreements work. The Administration has increased the resources it devotes to compliance, and I supported that. But an independent and neutral assessment in the Congress of compliance is necessary. It is unrealistic to expect an agency that negotiated an agreement to provide a totally objective and dispassionate assessment of that agreement's success or failure. Human nature, and institutional nature, does not lead to such an outcome. Second, observing trade negotiations first hand is critical to the ability of Congress to provide meaningful oversight of trade policy. Congressional Trade Office staff will participate in selected negotiations as observers and report back to the Committees. Third, the Congressional Trade Office will be active in dispute settlement deliberations. It will evaluate each WTO decision where the U.S. is a participant. In the case of a U.S. loss, it will explain why it lost. In the case of a U.S. win, it will measure the commercial results from that decision. Congressional Trade Office staff should participate as observers on the U.S. delegation at appropriate dispute settlement panel meetings at the WTO. I don't think we even 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 tells us nothing. The Congressional Trade Office will give us the facts we need to evaluate this process properly. Fourth, the Congressional Trade Office will have an analytic function. For example, after the Administration delivers its annual National Trade Estimates report, the NTE, to Congress, it will analyze the major outstanding trade barriers based on the cost to the U.S. economy. It will also provide an analysis of the Administration's Trade Policy Agenda. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze proposed trade agreements. It will examine the impact of Administration trade policy actions. And it will analyze the trade accounts every quarter, including the global current account, the global trade account, and key bilateral trade accounts. The Congressional Trade Office is designed to service the Congress. Its Director will report to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It will also advise other committees on both the impact of trade negotiations and the impact of the Administration's trade policy on those committees' areas of jurisdiction. Trade rules increasingly affect domestic regulations. Expertise on the implications of trade policy on domestic regulatory issues will be vitally necessary. The Congressional Trade Office can provide that assistance. The staff of the Congressional Trade Office will consist of professionals who have a mix of expertise in economics and trade law, plus in various industries and geographic regions. My expectation is that staff members will see this as a career position, thus, providing the Congress with long-term institutional memory. I encourage my colleagues to support this innovative proposal.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to create a Congressional Trade Office. It is similar to the bill I offered in the last session of Congress. This legislation is designed to assist the Congress in fulfilling our Constitutional responsibility for trade policy by creating an entity that can provide us with the expertise we need to get independent, non-partisan, and neutral analysis and information about trade. Over the past three decades, the role of trade in our economy has grown enormously. In 1970, trade was equal to only eleven percent of our Gross Domestic Product. In contrast, today exports and imports are equivalent to 27 percent of our economy. I have been in Congress for 26 years. During that time, I have watched a continuing transfer of authority and responsibility for trade policy from the Congress to the Executive Branch. The trend has been subtle, but it has been clear and constant. We need to reverse this trend. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says: ``The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' It is our responsibility to set the direction for the Executive Branch in its Formulation of trade policy. It is our responsibility to ensure that agreements with our trading partners are followed and that there is full compliance. It is our responsibility to provide more effective and active oversight of our nation's trade policy. I believe strongly that we must re-assert Congress' constitutionally defined responsibility for international commerce. The Congressional Trade Office I am proposing will provide the entire Congress, through the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, with the additional trade expertise that will allow us to meet these responsibilities. The trade issues that the Congress may face this session are many and complex: Fast track; incorporating legitimate labor and environmental issues into trade policy; the U.S./Jordan Free Trade Agreement; the U.S./Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement; Free Trade Area for the Americas; possible free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, and others; Chinese accession to WTO and then compliance with its WTO commitments; and a new comprehensive multilateral trade round. Congress needs to be much better prepared to deal with these issues responsibly and authoritatively. That means 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 Congressional Trade Office would help us meet these responsibilities through its four core functions. First, it will monitor compliance with major bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. Congress needs the independent ability to look more closely at agreements with other countries. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze the performance under key agreements and evaluate success based on commercial results. It will do this in close consultation with the affected industries. The Congressional Trade Office will recommend to the Congress actions necessary to ensure that commitments made to the United States are fully implemented. It will also provide annual assessments of the extent to which agreements comply with labor and environmental goals. The General Accounting Office has reported on the deficiencies in the Executive Branch in following trade agreements and monitoring compliance. Often more energy goes into negotiating new agreements than into ensuring that existing agreements work. The Administration has increased the resources it devotes to compliance, and I supported that. But an independent and neutral assessment in the Congress of compliance is necessary. It is unrealistic to expect an agency that negotiated an agreement to provide a totally objective and dispassionate assessment of that agreement's success or failure. Human nature, and institutional nature, does not lead to such an outcome. Second, observing trade negotiations first hand is critical to the ability of Congress to provide meaningful oversight of trade policy. Congressional Trade Office staff will participate in selected negotiations as observers and report back to the Committees. Third, the Congressional Trade Office will be active in dispute settlement deliberations. It will evaluate each WTO decision where the U.S. is a participant. In the case of a U.S. loss, it will explain why it lost. In the case of a U.S. win, it will measure the commercial results from that decision. Congressional Trade Office staff should participate as observers on the U.S. delegation at appropriate dispute settlement panel meetings at the WTO. I don't think we even 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 tells us nothing. The Congressional Trade Office will give us the facts we need to evaluate this process properly. Fourth, the Congressional Trade Office will have an analytic function. For example, after the Administration delivers its annual National Trade Estimates report, the NTE, to Congress, it will analyze the major outstanding trade barriers based on the cost to the U.S. economy. It will also provide an analysis of the Administration's Trade Policy Agenda. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze proposed trade agreements. It will examine the impact of Administration trade policy actions. And it will analyze the trade accounts every quarter, including the global current account, the global trade account, and key bilateral trade accounts. The Congressional Trade Office is designed to service the Congress. Its Director will report to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It will also advise other committees on both the impact of trade negotiations and the impact of the Administration's trade policy on those committees' areas of jurisdiction. Trade rules increasingly affect domestic regulations. Expertise on the implications of trade policy on domestic regulatory issues will be vitally necessary. The Congressional Trade Office can provide that assistance. The staff of the Congressional Trade Office will consist of professionals who have a mix of expertise in economics and trade law, plus in various industries and geographic regions. My expectation is that staff members will see this as a career position, thus, providing the Congress with long-term institutional memory. I encourage my colleagues to support this innovative proposal.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield myself such time as I consume. I join in the remarks of our distinguished chairman to Grant Aldonas. I am fond of saying I believe the most noble human endeavor is service--service to church, to family, to the community, State and Nation; whatever makes the most sense for each one of us graced to be on the face of this Earth particularly public service--more particularly, public service where you don't get your name in the headlines or the evening news, public servants who don't have huge egos but are working for the country in the best interests of the United States of America and all Americans. Grant certainly is in that category. Grant is a guy who works behind the scenes to get results. Again, it is not headlines. It is talking to all the Senators, the Senators' staffs, the administration, whoever it is he must talk to in order to get a result, legislation, something passed for the sake of the people. He is a great bipartisan kind of a guy. He is particulary effective because of his prior service, whether USTR, the State Department, or private sector. I do think his background as a lawyer helps. The understanding of the law helps one be effective. There are very bright and fine ways to get around that stuff, but generally I think a legal background is quite helpful. Whether it is China, PNTR, or trade bills of Africa, Caribbean, Grant has been there--a true professional, calm, even tempered, smart, creative thinking, diligent, hard working, focused on getting results. I underline the point the chairman made; namely, of Grant's sense of judgment and his common sense, a commodity which is probably one of the most important a person can have. We will miss you, Grant. We know you will go on to bigger and better things. We also know in the real sense you will not have left. We will still be able to call you, seek your advice, and wish you the very best. In the remaining minutes, I thank the Senators who have spoken. They make very good points on which I know the administration and Mr. Zoellick will focus. How we bring all the components together for coherent consensus in developing a trade policy for America is extremely difficult. It includes business interests of America, labor interests in America, and environmental interests in America. It includes all the Americans who think they are left out of trade and the benefits of trade agreements. Companies do pretty well in some places and employees wonder where they fit in to all of this. We have to work harder to develop that consensus. I very much look forward with the chairman and people such as Grant and others in the administration to develop that consensus. Frankly, we have no other choice. We have to find that consensus to be effective and serve our people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at the outset, I want to be clear that I have reservations about Ms. Norton's ability to reconcile her history of passionately battling Federal environmental and public health laws with her duties as Interior Secretary, the public's voice in protecting and managing the Nation's national parks, its endangered wildlife and one-third of the nation's public lands. Ms. Norton has stated she endorses the goals of our nation's land and wildlife protection laws. She must do more. She must enforce and uphold the spirit of those laws, the very laws she has tried in the past to undermine. She must ensure balance in her and her Department's decisions, listening to the concerns of all interested parties. Because so many lands in Montana belong to the Federal Government and will fall under Ms. Norton's jurisdiction, Ms. Norton's actions will have an enormous impact on our way of life. Her actions will also impact the many native American tribes in Montana. I hope we can work together to ensure that those impacts are positive, both for Montana and for the Nation. I know I will do my part, and I expect she will do her part. Despite these reservations, I believe that Ms. Norton is qualified for this position, I believe that she is honest and that she has the utmost integrity and that she will do her best to carry out her many obligations. I believe that Ms. Norton should be confirmed as Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of Senator Dorgan's bill that repeals the restrictions on food and medicine exports to Cuba and removes the legal stranglehold that has been put on liberalizing travel to Cuba. In July of last year, I led a Senate delegation to Havana. It was a brief trip, but we had the opportunity to meet with a wide range of people and to assess the situation first-hand. We met with Fidel Castro. We spent three hours with a group of heroic dissidents who spent years in prison, yet have chosen to remain in Cuba and continue their dissent. We also met with foreign ambassadors, cabinet ministers, and the leader of Cuba's largest independent NGO. I left Cuba more convinced than ever that we must end our outdated Cuba policy. Last year, I introduced legislation to end the embargo and begin the process of normalization of our relations with Cuba. I will reintroduce similar legislation this year. The trade embargo of Cuba is a unilateral sanctions policy. Not even our closest allies support it. I have long opposed unilateral economic sanctions, unless our national security is at stake, and the Defense Department has concluded that Cuba represents no security threat to our nation. Unilateral sanctions don't work. They don't change the behavior of the targeted country. But they do hurt our farmers and business people by preventing them from exporting, and then allowing our Japanese, European, and Canadian competitors happily to rush in to fill the gap. Ironically, the U.S. embargo actually helps Castro. His economy is in shambles. The people's rights are repressed. These are the direct results of Castro's totally misguided economic, political, and social policies. Yet Fidel Castro is able to use the embargo as the scapegoat for Cuba's misery. Absurd, but true. We should lift the embargo. We should engage Cuba economically. The bill we are introducing today is a good first step. We tried to remove restrictions on food and medicine exports last year, but a small minority in the Congress prevented the will of the majority. And they compounded the damage by codifying restrictions on travel, that is, removing Presidential discretion to allow increased travel and promote people-to-people contact between Americans and Cuban citizens. Removing the food and medicine restrictions won't lead to a huge surge of American products into Cuba. But, today, Cuba's imports come primarily from Europe and Asia. With this liberalization, U.S. products will replace some of those sales. Our agriculture producers will have the advantage of lower transportation costs and easier logistics. It will be a start. Allowing for the expansion of travel will increase the exposure of the Cuban people to the United States. It will result in more travel by tourists, business people, students, artists, and scholars. It will bring us into closer contact with those who will be part of the leadership in post-Castro Cuba. It will spur more business, helping, even if only a little, the development of the private sector. Moreover, we need to restore the inherent right of Americans to travel anywhere. The world has changed since the United States initiated this embargo forty years ago. I am not suggesting that we embrace Fidel Castro. But if we wait until he is completely gone from the scene before we start to develop normal relations with leaders and people in Cuba, the transition will be much harder on the Cuban people. Events in Cuba could easily escalate out of control and become a real danger to the United States. I need to stress that a majority of members of Congress, in both the Senate and the House, supported these initial steps to end the embargo. By overwhelming votes in both Houses last year, we approved an end to unilateral sanctions on food and medicine exports to Cuba. But the will of the majority was stopped by a few members of Congress. This legislation will correct that. I hope to see the day when American policy toward Cuba is no longer controlled by a small coterie of leaders in the Congress along with a few private groups, and, instead, our policy will serve the national interest. Today's bill is a good first step.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of Senator Dorgan's bill that repeals the restrictions on food and medicine exports to Cuba and removes the legal stranglehold that has been put on liberalizing travel to Cuba. In July of last year, I led a Senate delegation to Havana. It was a brief trip, but we had the opportunity to meet with a wide range of people and to assess the situation first-hand. We met with Fidel Castro. We spent three hours with a group of heroic dissidents who spent years in prison, yet have chosen to remain in Cuba and continue their dissent. We also met with foreign ambassadors, cabinet ministers, and the leader of Cuba's largest independent NGO. I left Cuba more convinced than ever that we must end our outdated Cuba policy. Last year, I introduced legislation to end the embargo and begin the process of normalization of our relations with Cuba. I will reintroduce similar legislation this year. The trade embargo of Cuba is a unilateral sanctions policy. Not even our closest allies support it. I have long opposed unilateral economic sanctions, unless our national security is at stake, and the Defense Department has concluded that Cuba represents no security threat to our nation. Unilateral sanctions don't work. They don't change the behavior of the targeted country. But they do hurt our farmers and business people by preventing them from exporting, and then allowing our Japanese, European, and Canadian competitors happily to rush in to fill the gap. Ironically, the U.S. embargo actually helps Castro. His economy is in shambles. The people's rights are repressed. These are the direct results of Castro's totally misguided economic, political, and social policies. Yet Fidel Castro is able to use the embargo as the scapegoat for Cuba's misery. Absurd, but true. We should lift the embargo. We should engage Cuba economically. The bill we are introducing today is a good first step. We tried to remove restrictions on food and medicine exports last year, but a small minority in the Congress prevented the will of the majority. And they compounded the damage by codifying restrictions on travel, that is, removing Presidential discretion to allow increased travel and promote people-to-people contact between Americans and Cuban citizens. Removing the food and medicine restrictions won't lead to a huge surge of American products into Cuba. But, today, Cuba's imports come primarily from Europe and Asia. With this liberalization, U.S. products will replace some of those sales. Our agriculture producers will have the advantage of lower transportation costs and easier logistics. It will be a start. Allowing for the expansion of travel will increase the exposure of the Cuban people to the United States. It will result in more travel by tourists, business people, students, artists, and scholars. It will bring us into closer contact with those who will be part of the leadership in post-Castro Cuba. It will spur more business, helping, even if only a little, the development of the private sector. Moreover, we need to restore the inherent right of Americans to travel anywhere. The world has changed since the United States initiated this embargo forty years ago. I am not suggesting that we embrace Fidel Castro. But if we wait until he is completely gone from the scene before we start to develop normal relations with leaders and people in Cuba, the transition will be much harder on the Cuban people. Events in Cuba could easily escalate out of control and become a real danger to the United States. I need to stress that a majority of members of Congress, in both the Senate and the House, supported these initial steps to end the embargo. By overwhelming votes in both Houses last year, we approved an end to unilateral sanctions on food and medicine exports to Cuba. But the will of the majority was stopped by a few members of Congress. This legislation will correct that. I hope to see the day when American policy toward Cuba is no longer controlled by a small coterie of leaders in the Congress along with a few private groups, and, instead, our policy will serve the national interest. Today's bill is a good first step.