Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Might I respond to the Senator?

Mr. BAUCUS. I heard what you are saying, but I think you heard the Senator from Florida, both Senators, very extensively explain how it is the Corps project, the original Everglades project, which I think cost about $3 billion in today's dollars to build, that caused a lot of the pollution problems. Here we are coming up with a restoration of the Everglades which includes restoration of waters, municipal waters included, which otherwise would be degraded because of the original Corps project or because of the costs and pollution problems associated with that project.

Mr. BAUCUS. I understand that, but, again, the same principle applies to municipal water as I explained applies to wastewater.

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you for the clarification.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as part of the manager's amendment we amend section (h)(3)(B) of the bill as reported that explains what the programmatic regulations should contain. What impact does amending this section have on the report language that accompanies this section.

Mr. BAUCUS. thank you for the clarification. Florida Consumptive Use Permitting Process

Mr. BAUCUS. In the manager's amendment we modified the agreement section of the bill. Am I correct that the purpose of this section is to require the State of Florida and the President of the United States to enter into a binding agreement requiring Florida to manage its consumptive use permitting process in such a manner that the State will be able to deliver the water made available by the plan for the natural system to ensure restoration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to clarify the intent of the Savings Clause provision included in subsection (h)(5) section of 601 of S. 27976, as modified by the manager's amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman. Clarification of intent of the Savings Clause

Mr. BAUCUS. I join Chairman Smith in recognizing the need for repairs to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are about to complete the debate on PNTR and are about to take the final vote. It has been a good debate. It has been a time when the American people have had an opportunity to learn more about what PNTR for China actually will be. There are good arguments on all sides, but I am quite happy, frankly, that now we are at the end of this long process, finally the United States will grant permanent normal trade relations to China. We are finally putting that issue to bed, and some side issues, too, have been put off to the side, as important as they are. Many of the issues raised on the Senate floor not directly relevant to PNTR have been very good ones. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, human rights, religion freedom, environment, prison labor, Taiwan-PRC relationship are very important matters that, in some cases, go to the heart of American policy. They are clearly issues that need to be debated and resolved. The United States has a very important stake in all of them. Some of the amendments that have been proposed to PNTR in these last few weeks have been good ones; others, not so good. Fortunately, a majority of my colleagues opposed all amendments to the PNTR bill, even when we agreed with the underlying concerns. Why? Basically because any amendment that would be part of PNTR would be killer amendments due to the very short number of remaining days in this session. Because of Presidential politics, which is engulfing us to some degree, it is much more prudent not to adopt amendments at this time. In the next Congress, we will have an opportunity to deal with these issues. I hope we can deal with them, particularly based on the merits. I want to take a moment to discuss what will happen after the PNTR vote. It is more to remind ourselves that despite the successful conclusion of the debate, when the votes are counted later today, they will not create a single job. Our votes will not sell a single bushel of wheat. Rather, PNTR is an enabler. It is a vital enabler. It enables American businesses and American people to do much more than they can now do. The immediate next step of completion of PNTR is completion of negotiations in Geneva on the Protocol of Accession and the Working Party Report to the WTO General Council. Once China formally accedes-- that is, becomes a member of WTO--we Americans will remove China from the restrictions of the Jackson-Vanik legislation. That is when it happens. At that point, the American private sector has to take advantage of the immense new opportunities afforded by China's membership in the WTO. Passage of PNTR will be one for the history books with profound implications for the United States. Once it passes, we Americans have to put our shoulders to the wheel. We have to follow up. American industry has to follow up. The American Government has to follow up in a way that we enable ourselves to maximize potential benefits to our service providers and to our manufacturers. We have to take matters in our own hands. We have to take advantage of this. The same is true for the U.S. Government at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the executive branch as well as the legislative branch. We need to watch China and monitor China's compliance to make sure this agreement is implemented. I am reminded of another agreement we had earlier with China --that is the intellectual property rights agreement--because some Chinese firms were pirating America's films, CDs, cassettes, and other intellectual property created in the United States. We finally urged China to pass a law making the pirating of intellectual property illegal in China. China passed the law. The problem is they did not implement it. We had to go back and encourage implementation. We may face the same problems here. I hope not. It is possible. As we move ahead, we must never forget how multifaceted our relationship with China is. That means we must aggressively address the many important issues raised in the PNTR debate. As important as those issues are, they should not be on the bill, but they still indicate the multifaceted nature of our relationship with China. One major area is focusing on our strategic architecture in Asia. Assuring stability in the region, helping maintain peace and prosperity, and a presence of American troops are vital factors, as are other major strategic questions. They are extremely important. All parts of our relationship with China and passage of PNTR raise the probability we will be more successful in that area. We must also take measures to help incorporate China positively into the region, and we must encourage China into the role of a responsible actor, both in the Asian region and globally. The growth in commercial and economic activity now developing between us and China should form a pillar on which we can build a stable relationship. There are no guarantees. There never are guarantees in life. One has to do the best with what one has, with the resources one has available. Passage of PNTR gives us more resources. It is an enabler to help us increase the probability of a stronger commercial and economic relationship to help form that pillar. Again, there is no guarantee. We must also try to avoid the constant ups and downs that have characterized the bilateral relationship over the past 30 years. I am not going to stand here and chronicle the volatility of the ups and downs, but I do think it is important for us to lop off the peaks and the valleys in this somewhat volatile relationship with China as best we can, recognizing that we are only one side of the equation and China, of course, is the other. But the more we try and the more we engage them at lots of different levels--whether it is trade, artistic exchanges, cultural exchanges, or military exchanges--the more likely it is we will not have to be so involved in this volatile activity. That means a stronger economic relationship between our two countries, which I think will be a major consequence of the passage of this bill. I thank all my colleagues. This is going to be a good, solid vote. It is going to indicate that the United States is a player in the world community, that the United States is not retrenching itself, but moving forward, and that the United States is living up to its responsibilities as the leader, frankly, of the world in a way that is positive, constructive, and exercising its constructive roles. I am very proud of the action the Senate is about to take. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are approaching the end of our debate on PNTR. This legislation will authorize the President to grant permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China after he certifies to Congress that the terms of China's accession to the WTO are at least equivalent to those agreed in the U.S.-PRC bilateral agreement reached last November. Before the President can make that certification, the ongoing multilateral negotiations in Geneva must be completed, specifically, the Protocol of Accession and the Working Party Report to the WTO General Council. China is a nation where a free market and the rule of law are in the earliest stage of development. Accession to the WTO, and our granting PNTR, are just the first steps in that process. China's integration into the global trade community will not be completed overnight. It will take a lot of work by economic reformers in China. And it will take a lot of work by leaders in the United States and in other WTO members to ensure that China stays on course. Over the coming years, we will have to put a lot of effort into scrutinizing closely and constantly China's compliance with its commitments. That is why earlier this year I introduced the China WTO Compliance Act. I was glad that some of the provisions in my proposal were adopted by the House. Other issues raised in my bill will be dealt with in a three-year investigation that we on the Finance Committee have requested that the General Accounting Office carry out. And that is why I support the President's request for a significant increase in the resources of the Executive Branch to monitor compliance with trade agreements. Today, I would like to mention several issues in the ongoing negotiations in Geneva. In addition to informing my colleagues about these issues, I am also using this opportunity to remind our American negotiators and the Chinese leadership about the importance of resolving these issues properly. Section 401 of the bill states that it is the objective of the United States to obtain, in China's protocol of accession, an annual review within the WTO of China's compliance with its terms of accession. China is a nation where a free market and the rule of law are in the earliest stage of development. The success of the WTO, by contrast, is premised on its members having relatively free markets operating against a backdrop of the rule-of-law. For China's transition to membership in the world trading community to be smooth, China will have to undertake major reforms in many areas, from intellectual property law, to customs procedure, to judicial process. Some of this is underway. It poses a uniquely massive challenge to China and to the world trading community. Some of the issues that come up may be handled through dispute settlement. But the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism has limited resources, and a flood of China cases could overwhelm the system. Rather than deal with all of China's transition issues one dispute at a time, it is vital to deal with groups of issues as a bloc, through regular annual reviews. China has objected to having its implementation of trade obligations reviewed every other year, which is the current demand on the table in the protocol negotiations. They want to be treated as a developing country, which means a review every four years. China has also proposed that the focus of such reviews be shifted away from China and instead look at ``abuse by any Member of any specific provisions imposed especially on China in this Protocol.'' This is absolutely unacceptable. The issue is China's implementation. If China believes that other members are abusing China-specific measures in the protocol of accession, it should challenge those practices in the dispute settlement mechanism. We cannot allow attention to be deflected from China's record. In June, Canada offered an intriguing proposal, whereby each ``subsidiary body'' of the WTO, that is, the councils and committees that have responsibility for particular subject matters, would meet in special session at least once a year to review China's implementation of its trade obligations. We should support the Canadian proposal, which is a common-sense approach. China has insisted for years that it should enjoy the rights and special treatment accorded to developing country members. We must continue to reject China's position on this point. China is unique. It is not simply another developing country, and it should not automatically be allowed to avail itself of developing country provisions in the WTO. China's size, the extent of state ownership, and the transitional nature of its economy and legal institutions, all should be taken into account in deciding the developing versus developed issue in particular instances. It must be on a case-by-case basis. For example, if China automatically received developing country status for all purposes, it would receive special treatment under the subsidies agreement. Then, export subsidies and subsidies in the form of operating loss coverage would not be treated as prohibited subsidies. The burden of challenging those subsidies in the WTO would be much greater than under ordinary rules. This would be particularly troublesome, given the level of state ownership in China. This bill contains a safeguard provision (sec. 103) that lets U.S. industries, workers, and farmers obtain relief from surges of imports from China. The provision reflects the terms of the November, 1999, U.S.-China bilateral agreement. Among its provisions is a rule that will govern the granting of relief when there is ``trade diversion''-- that is, when another country provides safeguard relief from surges of Chinese goods, and the goods are then diverted to the United States. China has proposed that ``trade diversion'' would only be considered to exist when there is clear evidence that imports are increasing ``significantly and absolutely,'' and are ``a significant cause of material injury'' to the domestic industry in the country to which the goods have been diverted. We must reject this proposal. It is counter to our bilateral agreement in November which included none of these limitations on our taking action. The safeguard provision, including insulation against trade diversion, is a very important feature of this bill. It ensures that if shifts in trade patterns following China's entry into the world trading system cause or threaten dislocations to American workers, businesses, and farmers, they will be able to obtain relief quickly. We must reject any efforts by China to weaken those commitments. Under our bilateral agreement, China agreed to protect all rights acquired by American insurance companies prior to China joining the WTO. Specifically, China committed to permit existing insurance branch operations to sub-branch in the future on a wholly owned basis. I understand USTR continues to work with China to correct this situation, both bilaterally and multilaterally in Geneva. I have written to Ambassador Li to make certain he understands the importance I attach to this matter. It is essential that China rectify this situation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Might I inquire of the Chair whether they are 15-minute votes or 10-minute votes?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for those responses to the questions from the Senator from California. In closing I would like to reiterate my admiration for the valiant efforts of the senior Senator from Oregon on behalf of this bill and rural counties. He has spent countless hours working to create this legislation and to ensure that it passes through the Senate, and should be recognized as a true hero to rural America. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to acknowledge the critical importance of this work and to give this bill, and the rural counties of America, their full support.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before I conclude, I just want to say a brief comment about the relationship between title III and the Resource Advisory Committees formed under title II. Unlike the projects in title II, the projects in title III are essentially local concerns. While they relate to the lands that are held in trust for the American people, the title III projects are not in any sense ``federal'' projects. Items such as county planning and zoning have always been seen as local matters and it is not the intent of this legislation to change that framework. For that reason we have not given the Resource Advisory Committees the same role in title III as they have in title II. Under Section 204(a) of the bill, the Secretary may make a decision to approve a project only if it is submitted to the Secretary by the Resource Advisory Committee. By contrast, under title III, the counties approve the projects and the Resource Advisory Committee serves in an advisory capacity.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me talk for a moment about the purposes of title III. As originally drafted, S. 1608 focused primarily on activities occurring on federal lands. Title III was an effort to give counties the option to focus on activities that are not necessarily ``on'' federal lands, but that clearly relate to federal lands. First, under title III, counties may use the funds as reimbursement for search, rescue and emergency services, including firefighting performed on federal lands and paid for by the county. Mr. President, after the ravages of the recent fires in Montana, some of which are still burning, it is abundantly clear that counties desperately need this funding for both fire prevention and fire fighting. Counties that are stretching to make ends meet for basic services, such as road building and funding schools, simply can't afford to suddenly incur the massive costs associated with fighting wildfires. I am pleased that we were able to change this bill to make sure that counties in Montana and across the West could get much-needed funds for firefighting this year and in future years. For similar reasons, I drafted title III to allow counties to use the funds to reimburse their expenses for search and rescue operations performed on federal lands and for the salaries and benefits of county employees who supervise adults or juveniles performing mandatory community service on public lands. Second, under title III, counties may use the funds to acquire easements to provide for nonmotorized access to public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes and to acquire conservation easements. These options are very important in states like Montana where growth is gradually shutting off access to public lands and eliminating important fish and wildlife habitat. These provisions will give counties the tools to make sure that we are able to pass the West's outdoor heritage on to our children and grandchildren. Third, counties may use funds to establish and conduct forest-related after school programs. Mr. President, the Washington Post recently reported that 20 percent of all children in America are left unattended after school. In Montana, which has one of the highest incidents of parents having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, this number may be even higher. What is clear is that children are less likely to get into trouble, less likely to commit acts of violence, if they are involved in after school programs. In my mind, this provision gives us a tremendous opportunity to work with our most precious asset--the youth--and to give them opportunities to learn about our forests and to gain hands-on experience in working on matters relating to our forests. Finally, under title III, counties can use the funds for fire prevention and county planning. These activities are vitally important. I've heard from many counties in Montana who have said that they could prevent loss of life and property if they had funding available to educate new homebuilders about where to build or not build their houses to reduce their exposure to wildfires and to make sure that emergency equipment can get to their homes. And the same thing is true with respect to the materials that homes are built out of and the manner in which homes are landscaped. Homeowners need to know that a house built in the woods should have a roof made out of tin or some other material that won't burn. Seemingly aesthetic decisions can make the difference between a home and ashes during a year like this one, and counties need funding to expand this type of awareness. The same basic reasoning applies to county planning. Counties should have the funds available if they want to pass an ordinance requiring homeowners to clear brush away from their homes. this can help protect lives not only of homeowners, but also of the firefighters who will be called in to extinguish burning structure fires. This can allow counties to focus their emergency crews on problems that could not have been prevented. As written, this provision will also allow counties to fund other planning and zoning efforts to minimize the impact that unfettered development can have on our forests and streams. By providing local communities with the tools to address these types of problems, it is my sincere hope that this title will diminish the conflicts that occur around our public lands and will help ensure that our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy these lands and the fish and wildlife that they support well in to the future.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to say just a few comments about title III of S. 1608. Senators Wyden and Craig agreed to include title III in this bill at my request. I felt that it was very important that counties have flexibility, not only in how their funding is determined but also in how it is spent. This is why I proposed title III of this bill, and I am very pleased that the sponsors of the bill have accepted it. As explained by my colleague Senator Wyden, under this bill, each year, counties may spend 15-20 percent of their funding either on title II projects or on title III projects. There has been some debate about whether counties should be able to ``mix'' funds in a given year between title II and title III. Regardless of whether it would be a better policy to allow such mixing to occur or to maintain the current separation between titles II and III, it is clear that, as drafted, S. 1608 will not allow such mixing to occur. And while this may not be a perfect solution, rarely is any legislation passed by Congress that could be characterized as ``perfect.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in closing, let me thank the bill's sponsors and all of the Senators who have exerted so much effort on the behalf of our rural counties. Especially, let me thank Senators Wyden and Craig who have worked so hard to answer concerns that were raised by me and by other Senators, and who should receive full credit for the passage of this fine legislation. Mr. President, I would like to draw attention to the determined efforts of my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, on behalf of rural counties. Senator Wyden has worked tirelessly to ensure that counties with federal lands get a fair deal. As we all know, counties containing large amounts of public lands are not able to raise sufficient revenues from taxes since the federal government is not required to pay state or local taxes. Recognizing that this is fundamentally unfair to these counties, Congress has tried for some time to rectify this situation by providing funding from revenue generated on our public lands from payments in lieu of taxes in an effort to make the counties financially whole. Unfortunately, as revenue from our national forests has decreased, so too have the payments to counties. This has been seriously disruptive to counties across the West. Fortunately, Senator Wyden stepped in with a creative solution that insures that counties have the option to receive much more steady funding. The bill now before us, S. 1608, recognizes both the value of these public lands and the needs of the affected counties. It is a wise compromise which allows counties the freedom to choose the plan that best serves their needs.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate bill 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I would like to begin my comments today by drawing attention to the determined efforts of my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, on behalf of rural counties. Senator Wyden has worked tirelessly to ensure that counties with federal lands get a fair deal. He has not been alone in his efforts. Senator Craig from Idaho has been a vocal champion of this legislation. And many other senators, notably Senator Boxer of California, have offered constructive input that has greatly improved the legislation now before us. As we all know, counties containing large amounts of public lands are not able to raise sufficient revenues from taxes since the federal government is not required to pay state or local taxes. Montana has one of the highest percentages of federally owned land of any state. This has a very significant impact on the tax base of our counties, and they have suffered because of it. As revenues from our national forests have decreased, so too have the payments to counties. Fortunately, Senator Wyden stepped in with a creative solution that ensures that counties have the option to receive much more steady funding. S. 1608 recognizes both the value of these public lands and the needs of the affected counties. It is a wise compromise which allows counties the freedom to choose the plan that best serves their needs. Mr. President, I would like to say just a few comments about title III of S. 1608. I felt that it was very important that counties have flexibility, not only in how their funding is determined but also in how it is spent. This is why I proposed title III of this bill, and I am very pleased that the sponsors of the bill have accepted it. Under this bill, each year counties may spend 15-20 percent of their funding on either title II projects or on title III projects. As originally drafted, S. 1608 focused primarily on activities occurring on federal lands. Title III was an effort to give counties the option to focus on activities that are not necessarily ``on'' federal lands, but that clearly relate to federal lands. First, under title III, counties may use the funds as reimbursement for search, rescue and emergency services, including fire fighting performed on federal lands and paid for by the county. Mr. President, after the ravages of the recent fires in Montana, many of which are still burning, it is abundantly clear that counties desperately need this funding for both fire prevention and fire fighting. Counties that are stretching to make ends meet for basic services, such as road building and funding schools, simply can't afford to suddenly incur the massive costs associated with fighting wildfires. I can't impress upon you enough the catastrophic impact that this summer's fires have had upon my state. The fires have raged out of control on our federal lands, such as the fire picture here (in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest which covered nearly 85,000 acres and has not yet been contained. Cities have spent weeks under a cloud of smoke, as you can see in this photo of Helena. People, houses, and wildlife have all been threatened, and it is thanks only to the heroic efforts of our firefighters that so few lives and structures have been lost. I was honored to spend some time with these courageous individuals, and I can tell you, you have never met a more hard- working, determined crowd of folks. We owe them a heartfelt thank you, and I would like to express my personal gratitude for everything they have done. The process of rehabilitation and clean-up has only begun, and the work we do now will be critical to ensuring the full recovery of our lands and our communities. For all of these reasons, I am very pleased that we were able to change this bill to make sure that counties in Montana and across the West could get much-needed funds for firefighting and related efforts this year and in future years. It has also become clear that we need to do more to prevent danger from fires before they start. I've heard from many counties in Montana who have said that they could prevent loss of life and property if they had funding available to educate new homebuilders about where to build or not build their houses to reduce their exposure to wildfires and to make sure that emergency equipment can get to their homes. Homeowners need to know that a house built in the woods, especially if trees are not cleared away from the building, as shown, will be very difficult to save from fires. If the right materials are used in construction, however, homes can be made much less vulnerable. Under title III, counties will have the funding to do this kind of education. They will also be able to fund county planning efforts to increase the protection of people and property from wildfires. Some of you may be under the mistaken impression that the entire state of Montana was on fire this summer, but let me assure you--the fires have not destroyed the beauty and value of our public lands. Under title III, counties can use funds to acquire easements to provide for nonmotorized access to public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes and to acquire conservation easements. These options are very important in states like Montana where growth is gradually shutting off access to public lands and eliminating important fish and wildlife habitat. These provisions will give counties the tools to make sure that we are able to pass the West's outdoor heritage on to our children and grandchildren. This photo here is of Eric and Brittany Sharpe, children of Terry and Craig Sharpe of Helena. Eric and Brittany's dad is the head of the Montana Wildlife Federation, an organization that works non-stop to try to make sure that our children will be able to enjoy Montana's great fish and wildlife resource just as we do today. Mr. President, let us never lose sight of the real reason we do the work we do. Let us never lose sight of the children or ever forget for even a moment that we have a moral obligation to pass this place on to them in as good a shape or better than we found it. Finally, counties may also use funds to establish and conduct forest- related after school programs. Mr. President, the Washington Post recently reported that 20 percent of all children in America are left unattended after school. In Montana, which has one of the highest incidents of parents having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, this number may be even higher. What is clear is that children are less likely to get into trouble, less likely to commit acts of violence, if they are involved in after school programs. In my mind, this provision gives us a tremendous opportunity to work with our most precious asset--the youth--and to give them opportunities to learn about our forests and to gain hands-on experience in working on matters relating to our forests. I was very pleased to be able to add these important options to a bill that is critically needed to ensure the fair treatment of our rural counties. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to acknowledge the vital importance of these efforts and to give this bill, and the rural counties of America, their full support. Mr. President, before I close, I want to take a moment to elaborate on two issues that were addressed in a colloquy between myself, Senator Wyden and Senator Boxer. First is the question of whether a county can choose to allocate funds to both title II and title III in the same year. As should be clear from that colloquy, the bill has been drafted so that counties may choose to send their funds to either title II or title III in any given year, but not to both. Mr. President, I submit for the Record a legal memorandum from Janet A. Poling, Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Forest Service, which reaches the same conclusion about the effect of the language in S. 1608 as modified by the managers amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legal memorandum be printed in the Record following this statement. Second is the question of the role of the Resource Advisory Committees in administering funds that a county wishes to expend under title III. As should be abundantly clear from the language of S. 1608 as amended and from the colloquy between myself, Senator Wyden and Senator Boxer, the Resource Advisory Committees are intended to have only an advisory role on projects under title III. In short, counties are to have full discretion to spend title III funds for the purposes enumerated under title III without any restrictions or limitations placed upon them by the Resource Advisory Committees. Mr. President, a second legal memorandum from the Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Forest Service reaches this conclusion based on the plain reading of S. 1608 as modified by the managers amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legal memorandum be printed in the Record following the first legal memorandum that I submitted for the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is often said that, ``Good health and good sense are two of life's greatest blessings.'' Senators Grassley, Jeffords, and I hope to further the cause of good health and good sense today, through introduction of the Health Care Safety Net Oversight Act of 2000. Mr. President, currently no entity oversees America's health care safety net. This means that all safety net providers--including rural health clinics, community heath centers and emergency rooms--are laboring on their own. They are like master musicians performing without a conductor. Each is trying their hardest and performing their part--but no one is coordinating their efforts. No one is able to tell an actor when his services will be needed, or when he can take a break. This act changes that, by creating the Safety Net Organizations and Patient Advisory Commission, an independent and nonpartisan commission to monitor the stability of the health care safety net. What does this mean? The Safety Net is made up of providers that deliver health services to the uninsured and vulnerable populations across America. These providers are often a last resort for patients who are unable to afford the health care they need and have nowhere else to turn. In my state, we have about 30 community health centers and rural health clinics, serving an estimated 80,000 persons per year. That translates into about one in ten Montanans. Were it not for these clinics and health centers, many of these folks--the uninsured and underinsured--would have no place to turn. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly one in five Montanans were uninsured in 1998. This number has risen by 36 percent over the last ten years, and there are now only five states with a higher percentage of uninsured residents. When these uninsured seek medical treatment they are often not able to pay. Last year, Montana hospitals reported over $67 million in charity care and bad debt. And the problem is not going away. At current growth rates for the uninsured, as many as one in four Montanans will be uninsured by the year 2007. But Mr. President, these people are not uninsured of their own volition. Eighty three percent of uninsured Montanans are in working families. And self-employed workers--including owners of small businesses--and their dependents account for one-fifth of the uninsured in our state. In fact, Montana ranks last in the nation with only 40 percent of firms offering a health insurance benefit. So what do we do about this problem? How do we ensure that all Americans, irrespective of color, creed gender or geography, have access to quality health care? Six or seven years ago, Congress and the administration worked on the problem of the uninsured. A tremendous amount of time and effort went into the Health Security Act, on both sides of the issue. As we know, passage of that bill failed. Since then, Congress has taken a more incremental approach to health care. Congress passed legislation in 1996 to ensure portability of health insurance. A year later, the CHIP program was signed into law, bipartisan legislation to cover children of working families. And last year, Congress passed the Work Incentives Improvement Act to allow disabled folks to continue working and not lose health care benefits. But while these legislative actions are extremely important, they affect relatively few Americans. The fact remains, for most uninsured and underinsured Americans, the safety net is still the only place to turn. Yet the safety net has been seriously damaged in recent years. According to a recent report by the Institute of Medicine, the health care safety net is ``intact but endangered.'' For instance, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act cut payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals and Community health centers. It also cut reimbursement to rural health clinics, so critical to providing coverage to rural uninsured individuals. At the same time, Congress mandates that emergency departments care for anyone and everyone that darkens their door. Though not a reimbursement issue per se, the EMTALA dictates that all ER's care for all individuals, regardless of ability to pay. Despite all these developments, there is no entity responsible for making changes to the safety net. And though SNOPAC will not solve the problem of America's uninsured, it will work to ensure that no holes develop in the Safety Net. An independent, non-partisan commission, modeled on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), SNOPAC will include professionals from across the policy and practical spectrum of health care. And like MedPAC, SNOPAC will report to the relevant committees of Congress on the status of its mission: tracking the well-being of the health care safety net. Though it's not a panacea, SNOPAC is a positive step toward a coordinated approach in caring for the uninsured. Absent large-scale improvements in the number of insured Americans, we should at least work to monitor and care for what we already have--an intact, but endangered, health care safety net. I urge all my colleagues to join me in this effort towards good health and good sense.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot on the Senate floor the last few days about the advantages to the United States of granting PNTR to China. In commercial terms, PNTR means that American farmers, ranchers, workers, manufacturers, and service providers can take advantage of what will be an unprecedented liberalization in the world's most populous market, and an economy that has grown almost ten percent annually for two decades. PNTR and China's accession to the WTO means that China will enter the global trade community, liberalize and open up much of its economy, and be subject to the operating rules and regulations of the WTO. I would like to focus my remarks on the effect of PNTR on one very important sector of America's economy--agriculture. We are in the third year of a severe agricultural crisis in the United States. Our farmers are suffering terribly from drought, record low prices, increased costs, and now damage due to unprecedented forest fires this summer. At the same time, the American food market is a mature one with almost no room for growth for our farmers and ranchers. Therefore, one part of the solution to the agricultural crisis lies in increasing the quantity and value of our agricultural exports, bringing the products of the world's most efficient farming to the people of the world. That means ensuring that our producers are not besieged by dumped imports. That means our producers need time to adjust to surges in imports. That means working to dismantle the European Union's system of massive trade-distorting export subsidies to its farmers. That means reversing the trends that have reduced our agricultural exports by ten billion dollars since 1996. And that means bringing China into the WTO and granting them PNTR so that our farmers and ranchers can benefit from the significant liberalization commitments that China is making. Let me review those changes that China has agreed to make as part of its WTO accession commitments. And remember, if we don't grant China PNTR, our competitors can take advantage of this new liberalization in China, while our ranchers and farmers will lose out. First, the US-China Agricultural Cooperation Agreement. Although this was technically separate from China's negotiations for WTO accession, it was an integral part of our bilateral negotiations. This agricultural agreement provides three specific benefits to American producers. On wheat, China agreed to end a thirty year ban on Pacific Northwest wheat. This ban was based on spurious sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards. We completed the first shipment of Pacific Northwest wheat to China earlier this year. On beef, under the agricultural agreement, China will accept meat and poultry from all USDA Food Safety Inspection Service-approved plants, honoring USDA inspection certificates. On citrus, the agreement provided for a series of measures that would approve citrus for export to China. Chinese officials made several inspection trips to the United States, and the first shipment occurred earlier this year. Second, China made significant trade concessions on bulk commodities. For example, China agreed to a tariff rate quota on wheat of 7.3 million metric tons for its first year of membership in the WTO, increasing to 9.6 million tons in 2004. This contrasts with recent annual import of wheat at around two million tons. Ten percent of the tariff rate quota will be allocated to non-state trading entities. If state trading entities do not use their portion of the quota, the unused part will be given to non-state entities. Tariff rate quotas at similarly high levels will also be in effect for other commodities such as corn, cotton, rice, and soybean oil. Third, tariffs themselves will be cut significantly. By January, 2004, the overall average for agricultural products of importance to the United States will drop from 31 percent to 14 percent. Beef goes down from 45 percent to 12 percent for frozen and to 25 percent for fresh. Pork drops from 20 percent to 12 percent. Poultry goes from 20 percent to 10 percent. Fourth, foreigners will have the right to distribute imported products without going through a state-trading enterprise or middleman. Fifth, China has committed not to use export subsidies for agricultural products. They have also committed to cap, and then reduce, trade-distorting domestic subsidies. Sixth, there are several provisions that most people think apply only to manufactured goods, but, in fact, apply to agriculture as well. The United States can continue to use our non-market economy methodology in anti-dumping cases for 15 years, an important protection against dumped Chinese products. Also, for the next 12 years, we can take safeguard measures against specific products from China that cause, or threaten to cause, disruption in our market. In short, once we grant China PNTR and the WTO accession process concludes, our farmers, ranchers, and food processors can begin to take advantage of vast new opportunities in China. Americans need to move aggressively to follow-up on these Chinese commitments. And we in the Congress and in the Executive Branch must put resources into monitoring closely Chinese compliance with those commitments. Following my own advice about follow up, I will lead a delegation of Montana ranchers, farmers, and business people to China in December. I encourage all my Congressional colleagues to do likewise. I have also sent a letter to Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji insisting that China fully comply with its agriculture commitments. We have a lot to do in the Congress this year and next to help our farm economy. Approving PNTR is one important part of that agenda.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. About 15 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I note that would be three Republicans in a row. I don't see Senator Kyl on the floor. I am wondering if that could be modified so I could speak following Senator Enzi.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Thompson- Torricelli Amendment. I am very concerned, along with all of my colleagues, about missile proliferation and the development of weapons of mass destruction. However, this particular amendment does not enhance our ability to prevent dangerous proliferation. Just the reverse. The amendment will make it even harder for the United States to contain proliferation. It will seriously damage important American economic interests. And, if added to H.R. 4444, it will kill PNTR. Let me outline some of the principal problems I see in this proposal. First, we already have a broad body of law covering proliferation of missiles, weapons of mass destruction, and the inputs to those weapons. Those laws provide sufficient authority to the President to take action. Some may argue that there are cases where the President has not acted in a timely fashion or in the appropriate way. But he does have the proper authority and needs no more. Second, the proposal effectively ties the hands of the next President and all future Presidents. The proposal reduces a President's flexibility in using the threat of sanctions as leverage to force a change in behavior by a proliferating state. In recent months, we have seen, for the first time in 50 years, that reconciliation between South Korea and North Korea seems possible. We have been able to resume discussions with the North on missiles. What a tragedy it would be if we were required to impose sanctions against North Korea just at the moment when significant progress is possible in that potential tinderbox! Third, the scope of this proposal is so broad that sanctions would hurt innocent people and innocent entities. It could restrict purely commercial transactions. Stop scientific and academic exchanges that are important to our nation. And reduce military-to-military discussions that provide our own military forces with the information and insight necessary for them to do their job. Fourth, these sanctions are unilateral. We have seen, repeatedly over the last two decades, that unilateral sanctions don't work. Multilateral sanctions do work. Enactment of this legislation would antagonize some of our closest allies, with the result that they may not cooperate with us in the future on multilateral non-proliferation regimes. It may feel good to take a unilateral sanction, but any effective program to stop proliferation must involve all of our allies. Unilateral sanctions also hurt American farmers, workers, and businesses. While we are taking these unilateral measures and reducing the ability of Americans to pursue commercial activities with China, our Japanese and European competitors will be very happy to take our place in that growing market. Little harm to China. Great economic harm to America. A real boon for Japan and Europe. And once markets are lost, getting them back at some later time will be very, very hard. The impact of this proposal on our agricultural sector could be very serious. It would prevent the use of various commodity credit programs for sales to China. Our European, Canadian, and Australian competitors would happily step in. Also, our farmers would be the likely first target of Chinese counter-retaliation. For these reasons, almost every major agricultural organization involved in trade opposes this legislation. Finally, possible sanctions in this amendment include being barred from access to U.S. capital markets. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, testified on July 20 at the Senate Banking Committee. He said: Most importantly, to the extent we block foreigners from investing or raising funds in the United States, we probably undercut the viability of our own system. . .The only thing that strikes me as a reasonable expectation is it can harm us more than it would harm others. This would be the first time America's capital markets have been used as a unilateral foreign policy sanction. This idea is plain nutty. Why would we want to damage the capital markets that have contributed so much to our current prosperity? As we vote on granting China permanent Normal Trade Relations status, this amendment would effectively nullify much of the progress we have made in our economic negotiations with China. We need to integrate China into the international community. Chinese participation in the World Trade Organization and our granting them PNTR is a critically important first step. We also need to work closely with our allies to bring China into the Missile Technology Control Regime and to ensure Chinese compliance with it and other weapons control agreements. We need to work with our allies to address Chinese human rights abuses forcefully at the United Nations Commission on Human rights and elsewhere. We need to work with the international community to help ensure peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. I support strong action against proliferation of missiles or weapons of mass destruction by China or any other country. But the Thompson- Torricelli amendment moves us backwards in these efforts. In addition to these very important substantive reasons to vote against this amendment, there is another reason--the very survival of the underlying PNTR legislation. This amendment, like all amendments, is a killer. An amendment to H.R. 4444 means a conference will be required. At this stage of the Congressional session in this Presidential election year, there can be no conference. There will be no conference. A positive vote on this amendment is a vote to kill PNTR. Every Senator must understand this and decide whether you want to kill PNTR, with all the negative ramifications for our economy and our ability to influence China in the future. If this, or any, amendment passes, it will be a sign that the Senate has voted to kill PNTR. I will not be complicit in that effort. Therefore, if there is a successful amendment, I will vote against invoking cloture, and I will encourage all my colleagues to join me.