Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from Maine for her generosity.

Mr. BAUCUS. Further reserving the right to object, this is one of the strange situations where nobody is in charge and it is very disorganized. I came to the floor and I have been prepared to speak on this issue since the Senate came in session today. I was told there was no set order for speakers, and I talked to the staff on the committee that has jurisdiction over this bill. I am here and I don't see Senator Kyl. I again ask my good friend from Maine if she would revise her unanimous consent request so I could speak after Senator Enzi.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reemphasize the first point made by my friend from South Dakota. He is entirely accurate. We hear about the specter of floods. If you look at the facts, this amendment has nothing to do with floods. Why do I say that? It is because of the Army Corps of Engineers' own analysis. Looking at the alternatives, the current master manual, compared with the spring rise/split season, there is no statistical, no difference--it is 1 percent--in the flood control benefits between the two alternatives. None. One percent is statistically insignificant. So you hear on the floor those protecting a dying industry using another scare tactic, and that is floods. That is totally inaccurate. In addition, the proposal of the spring rise/split season will be used in only 1 out of every 3 years. And the proposal also provides that if it looks as if there might be a wet year, or more precipitation in the year a spring rise might otherwise occur, there would be no spring rise. Why? Because the primary goal of the Corps of Engineers is flood protection. Let's take that off the table; take flooding and the wall of water down the river off the table. In the 1993 and 1997 flood years, if this proposal had been in effect, there would be no spring rise and no split season. It would not exacerbate the 1993 and 1997 floods. In addition, if this amendment to strike 103 is not adopted, we will have a big lawsuit on our hands. Why? Because the environmentalists will file a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers because of not protecting the Endangered Species Act. We would have a whole set of problems on our hands. Let's not have a lawsuit. Let's not have scare tactics for the sake of trying to protect a dying industry that need not be subsidized as it is now.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, all my colleagues support the intent of the Wellstone amendment. Of course, we want to protect religious freedom all over the world. It is in our American Constitution. It is in our Bill of Rights. It is enshrined in the first amendment to the Constitution. It has helped make America the great country it is. There is no doubt about it. But that is not what we are voting on. In effect, what we are voting on is whether our American farmers, ranchers, workers, manufacturers, or service providers will be able to take advantage of very significant liberalization and market openings that will occur in China once it joins the World Trade Organization. In effect, that is what we are voting on. We are also voting on whether, if we deny Americans the opportunity to trade on a more liberalized basis with China, we are going to therefore allow our Japanese and European competitors to trade with China on much more favorable terms than we Americans would. A vote for the Wellstone amendment means Americans will be closed out of the Chinese market of trade on favorable terms. It also means in effect that other countries--I mentioned before Japan and the European Union--will be able to trade on more favorable terms because they will have already ratified their PNTR with China. It is very clear at this stage of the congressional session, the Presidential election year, any amendment to H.R. 4444 will kill the bill. That is clear. I assure my colleagues that there will be no conference on this bill if there are any amendments at this stage in the congressional session. I think it is also illustrative to point out what some very prominent religious leaders have said about the WTO and China. The Dalai Lama has said: Joining the WTO, I think, is one way [for China] to change in the right direction. China must be brought into the mainstream of the world community. Forces of democracy in China get more encouragement through that way. The Reverend Billy Graham said: I believe it is far better for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship with China than to threaten it as an adversary. It is my experience nations can respond with friendship just as much as people do. Many religious leaders think we should grant PNTR to China. I believe that. It is crystal clear what the other body will do if any amendments are passed here. If those amendments are passed, we will not have a bill. We will not have PNTR. Therefore, I will vote against the Wellstone amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Wellstone amendment, even though I believe almost all of us agree with its underlying intent. It is just not appropriate at this time on this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the Hollings amendment, which takes the ``P'' out of PNTR; that is, as I understand the amendment, it provides for an annual review of normal trade relations status.

Mr. BAUCUS. I oppose that amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so, for a very simple reason. That is, if that amendment were agreed to and were to become part of the normal trading relations status with China, we automatically as Americans would be shooting ourselves in the foot, to say the least. Why do I say that? As the world becomes more complicated, more complex, we hear about globalism, trade agreements, taxation or nontaxation of products over the Internet, and whatnot. Unfortunately, we have to rise to a higher level of more sophistication and learning and know what is going on with these arrangements and agreements so that we Americans are in a better economic condition. It is difficult, but we have no choice with all the economic pressures that are advancing our world so quickly. The provisions of the World Trade Organization, I believe, very much help raise our economic standards. They are not perfect, but perfection cannot be the enemy of the good. If there were no WTO, it would be an economic free- for-all. Various countries would be doing their own deals at the expense of others, and it would be chaos. It would be a mess. At least the World Trade Organization is a vehicle, a forum, a mechanism, a way to get some civility, some process into trade matters and trade disputes that occur in this world. One of the basic principles of the World Trade Organization is nondiscrimination and unconditionality. It is written in article 1 of the WTO. That means when a country grants trade concessions to another, it must do so unconditionally and on a nondiscriminatory basis so the same benefits, same provisions apply to all countries in the world. Otherwise, it is obvious if one country had certain trade agreements with one country and gave certain benefits to one and not another, there would be chaos. Article 1 of the WTO articles provides for nondiscrimination and unconditionality with respect to trade agreements and membership in the WTO. The amendment before us is discriminatory and it is conditional by not making it permanent normal trade relations status but annual. That flatly violates article 1 of the WTO. As a consequence, if this amendment is adopted, we Americans could be giving up all the market- opening benefits to which China has agreed. That is, China would have no obligation to grant America those concessions, and they are major, whether it is auto tariffs or tariffs on other products. China is dramatically lowering tariffs. China would also say: We Chinese agree to let you Americans set up your own distribution systems; you do not have to deal through Chinese companies anymore. The list is mind-boggling. It is amazing how much China has agreed to open up and to take American products that we have been trying to export to China that, frankly, have not been exported or significantly diverted because of current Chinese barriers. My colleagues are going to hear the argument: This agreement is going to help Americans invest in China, and that takes away American jobs. Companies in America and around the world are already investing in China. It is happening today. The agreement with China says: OK, there can be a lot less pressure on companies to build factories in China and make it more easy for American companies to ship products to China because China is dramatically reducing its barriers. If this amendment is adopted, as I mentioned, China will be under no obligation to give us those breaks as we try to ship products to China. China will have no obligation to lower trade barriers that China has negotiated with the United States. However, China will be obligated to give those benefits and breaks to our competitors--to Japan, to the European Union--because they have entered WTO properly under the conditions of unconditionality and nondiscrimination. We have complied with article 1. We have heard a lot of facts and figures about a lot of different issues, but the heart of this amendment is to take away the permanent nature of normal trade relations with China that we will be granting, and that means it is conditional, it is discriminatory and flatly violates article 1 of the WTO and, therefore, is a killer amendment, an anti-American amendment. It is anti-American because all other countries get benefits, and it is a killer because it means we will not get the benefits of China opening up to American exports. Let me cite one of America's foremost experts on the GATT and the WTO, Professor John Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center: The United States must extend permanent, unconditional MFN treatment to the PRC for the US to comply with US WTO obligations, unless the US invokes the ``opt-out'' provisions of the WTO. Our own Congressional Research Service has concluded: In order to make US law consistent with WTO obligations, Congress would need to remove the PRC from the Title IV regime (i.e., Jackson-Vanik) . . . The Title IV regime is inconsistent with MFN obligations when applied to a WTO member . . . because of the conditions that it attaches to the grant of nondiscriminatory treatment to that country's goods. Let me respond to the criticism that we get nothing out of PNTR in terms of US trade benefits. The fact is that granting China PNTR will bring a significant drop in Chinese tariffs. That will reduce the pressure many companies feel to invest in China in order to do business there. Our information technology products--computers, fiber optics, and telecommunications equipment--will see tariffs in China go to zero by 2004. Auto parts tariffs will average only ten percent by 2006. When you add these significant tariff reductions to the new ability that American firms will have to import directly into China, control their own distribution and service networks, and own advertising firms, export of our goods and services will increase substantially. Yes, American companies will continue to invest in China. But their ability also to export will be enhanced significantly by PNTR. Failure to grant China PNTR will allow our Japanese and European competitors to export more, but not our workers and our farmers. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, just several points for the record. In all due respect, listening to my colleagues, there were lots of conclusions. I don't hear a lot of facts, support for the statements made. One of the statements I heard is that flood control benefits will be much worse under the preferred plan, that is the spring rise/split season. But that is not what the facts are, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. If you look at all the various data here on all the various alternatives that the Corps considered, it totaled up the flood control benefits for the river from the Fort Peck Dam down to the mouth, and I must say there is statistically no difference in flood control benefits. So this big scare tactic of floods--I have heard some say, not on this floor, a wall of water--is, according to the facts, inaccurate. It is inaccurate according to the modeling done by the Corps on all the various alternatives. The benefits under the current master manual, flood control benefits, according to the Army Corps of Engineers, are about $414 million. The spring rise/split season flood control benefits are virtually statistically the same; that is, $410 million--virtually no difference. Those are the facts. Not the rhetoric, not the abstraction, not the generalization, but the facts. Second, I have heard here that the spring rise/split season will increase Mississippi River navigation costs. That is the assertion. Let's look at the facts, again, facts according to studies done by the Army Corps of Engineers--not by that dreaded Fish and Wildlife Service, but by the Army Corps of Engineers. The facts: If you look at the average annual Mississippi River navigation costs for the Army Corps of Engineers, under the master manual it is about $45.70 million; under the spring rise alternative is it $46.85, which comes out to less than a 1-percent difference. So, again, it is a scare tactic and an inaccurate scare tactic to say that the spring rise/split season is going to increase navigational costs downriver on the Mississippi. It is just not accurate, according to studies done by the Army Corps of Engineers. I have also heard on the floor this evening that the spring rise/ split season will decrease hydropower benefits for the main stem reservoir system. That is the assertion. That is the rhetoric. Let's look at the facts. Let's look at what the Army Corps of Engineers' actual data says. I have it here before me. Under the current master manual, the average annual hydropower benefits total $676 million. Under the spring rise/split season, the average annual hydropower benefits are higher, $683 million; not lower, higher. So the hydropower benefits under the spring rise/split season are actually better, higher than they are under the current master manual. Another point, you have heard stated many times on the floor tonight this provision has been in the appropriations bill for about 4 years and there has been no objection; the President hasn't objected, so what is the big deal? The difference is in those prior years it was all abstraction. That is, there was no Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion. We were dealing with thin air, not dealing with something substantive. Now we are. The Fish and Wildlife Service issued their biological opinion. We have something definite. And they concluded the spring rise/split season is necessary. On that same point, I might say the group that peer-reviewed this proposal--I think there are seven or eight from the Missouri River basin--unanimously concluded this is necessary. I might tease my good friend from Missouri, saying his colleague at length quoted a Missourian who has had problems with the proposal alternative. I might tease my friend from Missouri, pointing out of the seven scientists on the peer review who unanimously concluded this makes sense, two of them are Missourians, one with the department of conservation and the other with the University of Missouri at Columbia. One says it is a bad idea; two say it is a good idea. I will take the majority vote from the Missourians. I might also point out that basically we want the Corps of Engineers to follow the law. Under the law, whenever a species is threatened or endangered, the Fish and Wildlife Service consults with the relevant agency--in this case the Army Corps of Engineers. And under the law, the alternative must comply with the Endangered Species Act. It will not have the devastating effect that has been asserted. I say so not as an assertion but backed up by facts, backed up by the Army Corps of Engineers' own data. Look at the data. The data shows, A, this is not going to cause all the problems that have been asserted and, B, this is probably necessary under the law. Otherwise, it is thrown in the courts, and we all know what happens when something like this is thrown into the judicial system. We will be wrapped up trying to resolve this for years and years. I strongly urge my colleagues to do what is right. Follow the science, follow the law, and vote to delete section 103 from the appropriations bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Daschle-Baucus amendment to strike section 103 from the energy and water appropriations bill. One might ask why. The answer is very simple: Because section 103 is an anti-environmental rider that prevents the sound management of the Missouri River. It is that simple. I begin by endorsing the points made so well by Senator Daschle. The Army Corps of Engineers is managing the Missouri River today on the basis of a master manual that was written in 1960. Guess what? It has not changed much since then. It is 40 years old. It is like trying to run the Internet based on a plan that was written in the heyday of rotary telephones. Conditions are different. Priorities are different. As Senator Daschle explained, the master manual favors some uses of the river, such as barge traffic, that may have made sense in 1960 but makes little sense today. That is a very important point. In effect, a 40-year-old master manual favors the barge industry, which may have made sense in 1960 but makes virtually no sense today based upon the Corps's own economic analysis of the river, and it favors those uses over other uses, such as recreation, which are much more important now than they were in 1960. As has been pointed out, the master manual also wastes taxpayers' dollars. We are today spending more than $8 million a year in operation and maintenance costs to support a $7 million barge industry. That is a bad deal for taxpayers. It is a subsidy that does not make sense. In the interest of time, I will not elaborate on all those points. The Senator from South Dakota, the minority leader, has covered that ground very well. I do not want to repeat them. Instead, I would like to make three additional points. First, the anti-environmental rider proposed by the Senator from Missouri harms my State of Montana. Second, it prevents the Corps of Engineers from complying with the law, from complying with the Endangered Species Act. And third, the rider derails a process of carefully revising the master manual, a process that is working. In addition, I want to respond to an important argument made by the Senator from Missouri and other proponents of the rider. They argue that the rider is necessary to reduce the risk of floods. I will address that in a later point. First, the impact of the rider on my State of Montana would be profound. The Missouri River flows not only through our State but through our history, as well as the history of other States. Meriwether Lewis found the source of the Missouri River on August 12, 1805. It is at Three Forks, MT. It is shown on this map up here to the left, just east of the Continental Divide. From there the river flows north, winding around near Helena, Great Falls, past Fort Benton, and then east through the lake created by the Fort Peck Dam near Glasgow. There is Fort Peck Dam right here on the map. It is one of the major dams in the Missouri River system. This is eastern Montana, an agricultural region. As the occupant of the Chair knows, agriculture has been suffering some very hard economic times for more than a decade with low prices for wheat, low prices for beef, drought. In eastern Montana, as well as in the western Dakotas, people are moving out, looking for jobs, virtually for survival. Fort Peck Lake--that is this lake shown on the map right here--is a key part of our plan in our State to revive our State's economy, at least in that part of the State. It is a center for boating, a center for fishing, and, I might say, all kinds of recreation which is related to the lake. Fort Peck is host to several major walleye tournaments each summer. The biggest is called the Governor's Cup, which attracts people from all around the State, all around the Nation, and all around the world. I was there last July with one of the major sponsors of it, Diane Brant. I might say, she provides the gusto that makes the tournament work. It is incredible watching everybody line up to go out and go walleye fishing. Hundreds of boats went by the review stand, in single file, as walleye anglers set forth to prove their mettle. This tournament brings jobs and excitement to the area. We are working hard to get more done. For example, I am working with Diane and local community leaders, and others, to establish a warm water fish hatchery on the north bank of the river to improve the walleye fishery. But we face a problem. It is a big one. Under the master manual, water levels in the Fort Peck Lake are often drawn down in the summer, largely to support the barge traffic downstream, which is an industry that need not be subsidized near to the degree that it is, and certainly according to the Army Corps of Engineers' information. In fact, there have been times when the lake has been drawn down so low that boat ramps are a mile or more from the water's edge. This is what this photograph shows. This is a photograph of a boat landing at Fort Peck Lake. It is called Crooked Creek. It is a mile from the boat landing to the edge of the lake. Why? Because Fort Peck has been drawn down to support a barge industry downstream. Frankly, the industry is dated and does not need to be supported near that much at the expense of people upstream, upriver, who, frankly, do not have many means of recreation. But the main thing they want to do is to be able to put a boat in the river. They are unable to do so because the boat ramp is over a mile from the river. These drawdowns have occurred frequently. The effect is devastating. Obviously, drawdowns prevent people from boating and fishing. They also reduce the numbers of walleyes, sturgeon, and other fish. Let me be specific. Right now the water level at Fort Peck has been drawn down about 10 feet, to increase flows for downstream barge traffic. That is right now. A few weeks ago there was another walleye tournament at Crooked Creek, and it could well have been canceled. There was a lot of concern because ramps could not be used. Fortunately, it did not happen this year, but very often it does. The drawdowns are a big part of the economic raw deal that eastern Montana has been getting for years. More balanced management of this system, which takes better account of upstream economic benefits is absolutely critical to reviving our State's economy in eastern Montana. I am not going to stand here and try to kid anybody. This debate is, to a significant degree, about who gets Missouri River water, and when. That is accurate. But that is not all this debate is about. There is an awful lot more to it. The section 103 rider prevents the Corps of Engineers from obeying the law of the land. Let me repeat that. The section 103 rider prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from obeying the law. It is that simple. It is that specific. It is that accurate. Specifically, it prevents the Corps from following the Endangered Species Act. Before I get into the details, let me say a couple things about the Endangered Species Act. A lot of people are watching tonight. They may wonder: What is all this fuss about? There is less than a month left of the congressional session. Big issues need to be addressed--the budget, prescription drug coverage, trade with China. Why in the middle of all of this are we debating the fate of two birds and a fish? Good question. This is why. Any time an issue such as this comes up, it is tempting to think only about the particular species that are being involved--the snail darter, the spotted owl. In this case, the piping plover, the least tern, and the pallid sturgeon. But that is thinking too narrowly. In a much broader sense, the debate is about whether we really are serious about protecting endangered species. It is about whether our generation is going to meet its moral obligation to preserve the web of life that sustains us, and pass it along, as a legacy, to future generations. If we create a loophole here, there will be pressure to create another loophole somewhere else--and another and another. Before you know it, the law will be shredded into tatters. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the Endangered Species Act is perfect. It is not--far from it. I have worked for years to come up with reforms that would improve the act, that would increase public participation, assure that decisions are based on sound science, give a greater role to the States, get more certainty to landowners, bring people together, rather than drive them apart. Over the last decade, I have worked as hard as anyone to reform the Endangered Species Act. But those reforms have not passed. They have been reported out of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, but they have been kept off this Senate floor, as good as they are. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the Endangered Species Act today remains the law of the land. We have to respect it. It is the law. With that as background, let me turn to specifics and explain how Senator Bond's rider prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from managing the Missouri River in a way that is consistent with the law. The river provides habitat for three endangered species: the piping plover, the least tern, and the pallid sturgeon. Each of these species evolved along a river that had higher flows in the spring and lower flows in the summer. That is the natural order of things. Each species depended on a life cycle that depended on this pattern. The tern and the plover need higher flows in the spring. Why? To create the sandbars they nest on. Higher flows create sandbars. They need lower flows in the summer. Why? To create a buffer that reduces the risk that the nests might be washed away by, say, a storm. That is the natural order of things. The sturgeon needs high flows in the spring for breeding and lower flows in the summer for the development of young fish. This is a photo of a piping plover, a female, nesting over three eggs. But the way I just described the natural order is not the way the river is being managed today. Under the master manual, today's management system, the Corps tries to maintain steady water levels through the spring and summer so there is always enough water to support the barge traffic downstream. It is this steady, even, but unnatural, flow that is driving the three species to the brink of extinction. The management plan in the master manual may have made sense in 1960, before we knew about the threat to these species and before the Endangered Species Act was passed--I remind my colleagues, it was passed 13 years later, in 1973--but the master manual does not make sense today. It may have made sense in 1960, not today. Therefore, when the Corps began to revise the master manual 10 years ago--they have been at this for a long time--it was the first time the Corps seriously considered how the dams on the river affect endangered species. There have been a lot of reports, a lot of discussions, a lot of give-and-take, but finally, after a decade of work, the process is moving forward. We are close to revising the master manual, revising it so we have a better, more balanced current use of the river, such as flood control, navigation, but also more to protect the plover, the tern, and the sturgeon. How do we do this? Basically by providing for a moderate rise in flows in the spring and reduced flows in July and August. This is the so-called spring rise/split season alternative. This alternative has strong support. Fish and game officials from all seven Missouri River basin States say it is the right thing to do. Last summer, they recommended that we--I will not read the whole quote, I will begin in the middle-- . . . provide higher flows during critical spring and early summer periods for native fish spawning and habitat development followed by lower flows during the critical summer period. That is the recommendation. They have studied this thing, believe me. Guess what? The Fish and Wildlife Service agrees. Its draft biological opinion says: Spring and summer flow management is an integral component of the measures to avoid jeopardy to listed species . . . This would include higher spring flows and lower summer flows than currently exist. They have studied this. Guess what again? The Army Corps of Engineers recognizes the benefits of a spring rise and a split season. The Corps has said that ``periodic high flows are required for terns and plovers to remove encroaching vegetation, but during the nesting season, stable or declining flows are needed to avoid nesting flight.'' The Corps has made similar observations about the pallid sturgeon. In other words, the fish and game experts from the Missouri River basin States, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers all recognize the importance of higher flows in the spring and lower flows in the summer. This is where the section 103 rider comes in. Simply put, the rider prevents the Corps from revising the master manual to provide for higher water levels in the spring. The Senator from Missouri said so. He said that is what he intends to do. Those are the words of the rider: Prevent the master manual from providing higher water levels in the spring. By doing so, the rider contradicts what fish and game experts from the basin States and Federal agencies involved all recognize is necessary to provide more protection for the three endangered species and comply with the law. Again, the debate is not just about the allocation of water between upstream and downstream States. The debate is also fundamentally about whether in one fell swoop we tell the Corps of Engineers to ignore the law; ignore the Endangered Species Act regarding the management of one of the country's largest rivers. The answer, of course, is obvious. The Corps should obey the law, just like everyone else. Forget about the species for a minute, think about basic fairness. We require private landowners to comply with the Endangered Species Act, so why shouldn't we also require the Federal Government to do so. They shouldn't get a free pass, especially when the Federal Government is the main cause of the problem. The Federal Government should not get a free pass. The Federal Government--in this case, the Army Corps of Engineers-- should be held to the same standard as everybody else, and the Corps agrees that it should be held to that same standard. That brings me to a related point; that is, government by litigation. Stop and think about this for a moment. If we think about it, we probably all know what will happen down the road if this rider becomes law. What is going to happen? The Fish and Wildlife Service will issue its final biological opinion. Like the draft, it probably will recommend higher flows in the spring, lower flows in the summer. Normally, the Corps would then revise the master manual. But because of the rider, the Corps cannot make the revisions necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The rider says: Army Corps of Engineers, you cannot follow the law. So what is going to happen? At that point there is certain to be a lawsuit brought by environmental groups challenging the Corps' failure to obey the law. Guess what? The environmental groups are likely to win. Why? Because the master manual will effectively ignore the needs of the species and therefore violate the Endangered Species Act. It is not just my opinion that a master manual without a spring rise and a split season would ignore the needs of the endangered species. This is the unanimous opinion of the experts who reviewed the biological opinion. This unanimous recommendation was based on sound science. I might add, two people from the State of Missouri were on the peer review committee. They unanimously agreed that this is the alternative--that is spring rise/split season--which is necessary to protect these species. Let's go back a little bit. Let's say that the rider passes. Let's say a lawsuit is brought. As I mentioned, the likelihood is very high that the plaintiffs, the environmentalists, would win. What happens next? We wind up with the river being operated not by the Corps of Engineers, not influenced by the Congress, but by the courts, a judge in some Federal court somewhere--they will get venue probably somewhere along the Missouri River--will be overseeing the operation of the entire Missouri River system; again, because of a lawsuit that wins. That might be politically convenient for some, but it is an abdication of our responsibility. As we have seen along the Columbia and Snake Rivers, it generates much more litigation and much more uncertainty. Let us not go down the path of litigation. We do have a process in place to carefully revise the master manual. It has been underway for years; 10 years to be more specific. Now at the last moment, when the end is in sight, here we find a rider on an appropriations bill which would derail the process by taking not only one of the alternatives right off the table but the one that probably is necessary to comply with the law. Of course, that is not fair; of course, it is not right. It is not the right way for us to be doing business here. Instead, we should give the process we began 10 years ago a chance to work. Now that we have a draft biological opinion, there will be an opportunity--this is a very important point--for public comment, both on the draft and on the later environmental impact statement. That way we have a decision that is not made in a vacuum. But this rider makes a mockery of that process. There will be an extensive period for public comment, but the public agencies cannot take any of those comments into account. That is what this rider does. It says: OK, here is your alternative, but you can't be implemented so the comments are irrelevant. What kind of message does that send to our people, already cynical about the way Government works? I say there is a better way: allow the process to work. With that, I will briefly respond to a point made by the Senator from Missouri and some of his supporters. Concern has been expressed that if we have higher flows in the spring, there is a greater chance of flooding--a wonderful metaphor, floods; wonderful picture, floods; wall of water; risky proposition. It gets people scared and nervous, obviously. That is what it is designed to do. It is designed to scare people, scare them into supporting the rider. But we are not only emotional entities, we are supposedly analytical beings. We are supposed to think about this stuff a little bit, look at the facts, not just the emotion. So let's look at the facts, I say to my other good friend from Missouri who is managing this bill at this time. First of all, nobody wants floods. Flood control comes first. There is no question about it. Flood control comes first. I might say, though, the Corps and other agencies have taken flood control into account. In fact, the Corps has modeled many different river management alternatives. Their models show that under a spring rise/split season, there is no difference in flood control. Statistically, it is about 1 percent, which is basically zero. The Army Corps of Engineers has taken this question fully into account already. Of course, they would; it is their responsibility, and they have done that. Their conclusions show that under this alternative, there is virtually no difference in flooding compared with the current master manual--virtually none. I heard one of my good friends from Missouri say, well, gee, nobody can predict the weather. Mr. President, that is a total red herring, totally irrelevant. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. We can't predict the weather today under the current master manual or tomorrow if the spring rise/split season are adopted--in either event. The two floods mentioned--in 1993 and 1997--under this proposal, the spring rise/split season, would not have been in effect; that is, the spring rise/split season proposal would not have been permitted because of the modeling and the anticipation of the flood years 1993 or 1997. Actually, the spring rise is to be implemented only once every 3 years. Say year No. 1 comes up, and 4 years later year No. 1 comes up again, and this might be a flood year. The model says, no, we don't implement a spring rise; we are not going to take the risk of more flooding. So let's get the flood scare tactic off the table here. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The Army Corps of Engineers' own models conclude that the risk of flooding is virtually insignificant. In closing, I want to also point out one other thing. The basic argument of the Senator from Missouri is that we are just taking one item off the table--spring rise/split season. That is all we are doing. We are not taking other alternatives off the table, other environmental enhancement measures, wetlands restoration, and habitat restoration. We are not taking that off the table. So what is the big fuss here? That is the basic argument. The flaw in that argument is that the people who have studied this, the peer reviewers, have unanimously concluded that both are needed in order to solve this problem--that is, both a spring rise/split season and legislation to help restore habitat. Both are needed. They have concluded you can't have one without the other; you have to have both. You have to have the spring rise/split season. It makes sense because that is the natural order of things; that is the way the river runs naturally. It tends to flood in the spring and not later on. The argument has also been made that this is going to hurt Mississippi barge traffic downstream. Frankly, that is another red herring designed to scare Senators downstream from Missouri, from St. Louis. It is a scare tactic because if you look at the data, at the facts, the facts show that, actually, because more water is being let out of the dams in the spring, and it is saved in the summer, on a net basis, they are going to have to let a little bit more out in the fall, which benefits the barge industry on the Mississippi. So it is a red herring. It is inaccurate--more to the point--that this proposal would hurt barge traffic down from St. Louis. That is not right. The Corps data shows more water is going to be released at the time it is more necessary. To sum it all up, let's pass this amendment that strikes section 103. Let the process continue to work. There is ample opportunity for public comment. But let's not disrupt it in a way that will cause a lawsuit and will cause a lot more problems than it will solve. I understand Senators who feel obligated, regardless of the facts, to support the Senator. But let's do what is right and not pass this. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to say it has been a good debate. Our views have been aired. I deeply respect that different Senators might have different points of view on this issue. After all, that is why we run for this job. That is why we are here. We all have various points of view. I do not want to be corny, but that is what makes democracy strong--various points of view. I very much respect and appreciate my good friend from Missouri and others who are arguing to include this provision in the appropriations bill to prevent the spring rise. My basic point is we have different points of view on this. My basic point is let the process work, do not preempt it. There will be plenty of opportunities for comments on the draft opinion and on whatever alternative the Army Corps of Engineers picks. There are lots of different options. Let's not prejudge it by saying it cannot be one as opposed to others. Somebody might come up with a better idea between now and then. My belief is we should let the process work. We can let it work by not adopting this rider to the appropriations bill. We should work through this as it evolves. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask that we let the process work.

Mr. BAUCUS. I don't know if the Senator from Missouri wants to speak now. I have maybe 5 or 10 minutes of points I want to make, but if the Senator wants to speak now----

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to my friend from Minnesota for purposes of making a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as we begin the debate about whether to grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR, we need to remind ourselves what the Senate vote is all about and what it is not about. We are voting on whether American companies, American farmers, American workers, and American consumers will be able to take advantage of the new market opportunities afforded by changes that China will make over the next 5 years once it becomes a member of the World Trade Organization, the WTO. If we grant PNTR, China will have to give Americans all the benefits that we, and other WTO members, successfully negotiated after an arduous 13 years. If we fail to grant China PNTR status, then our Japanese and European competitors will be able to do business in China in ways that will be unavailable to us and at the expense of our exporters, our farmers, our manufacturers, our financial service companies, our Internet companies. During the Senate debate this month, we will hear a lot about other issues, with Senators offering a plethora of amendments. The list will probably include human rights, worker rights, religious freedom, prison labor, Taiwan security, arms proliferation, and export of American jobs, among others. Most, if not all, of these subjects are important. They should be of concern to the United States Senate, and to all Americans. A number of issues that go beyond the strict granting of PNTR to China, such as human rights, monitoring and enforcement of Chinese commitments at the WTO, promotion of the rule of law, and Taiwan's accession to the WTO, are included in the bill we are considering. Other issues, such as proliferation and Taiwan security, are best dealt with apart from this legislation. I share many of the concerns that some of my Senate colleagues will express over the coming days. But we are not voting on whether China is our friend. We are not voting about whether China should be an ally of the United States. And we are not voting about whether China should be a democracy or not. To repeat, we are voting about whether American workers, farmers, and businesses will benefit from a decade-long negotiation, or whether we will allow our competitors in Japan and Europe to benefit while Americans do not. That said, there are also broader implications involved in the Senate vote on PNTR. Let me mention a few. First, a rejection of PNTR will be seen by China as an American policy decision to isolate them, to impair their growth and development, and to prevent China from emerging as a great regional power. That is how they will see it. Our intention should be to incorporate China into the global trading system, to get them to follow the same rules that we all use in international trade, and to make them accountable to an international institution for their trade policies and trade actions. The more China is integrated into the global system, the more responsibly they will act. It is that simple. Second, a rejection of PNTR will likely lead to an indefinite delay in Taiwan's accession to the WTO. On the other hand, passage of PNTR will result in Taiwan's accession. What will happen after both China and Taiwan accede to--that is, are members of--the WTO? They will participate together, along with all other WTO members, in meetings ranging from detailed technical sessions to Ministerials. There will be countless opportunities for interaction. Under the WTO's most-favored-nation rule, they will have to provide each other the same benefits that they grant to other members. Taiwan's current policy limiting direct transportation, communication, and investment with the mainland will likely be found to violate WTO rules. Both will be able to use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism against the other. And WTO-induced liberalization, in both Taiwan and the PRC, will increase and deepen ties between them in trade, investment, technology, transportation, information, communications, and travel. It will promote stability across the Taiwan Strait. Third, consider Chinese behavior once it joins the WTO. We should not expect to see changes overnight; nobody does. Those people in business and government fighting to maintain their vested interests in the status quo will not disappear. The reformers will be strengthened, but they will still be under constant attack as the battle between the forces of reform and the forces of reaction continues. But it is certainly a vital interest of the United States to do everything we can to support those who favor reform over totalitarianism, to support those who favor private enterprise over state-owned enterprises, to support those who favor incorporating China into the global trading community over autarky. We need to engage China to promote responsible behavior internally and externally, to encourage them to play by international rules, to integrate the Chinese economy into the market-driven, middle-class- participatory economies of the West. China's entry into the WTO will help anchor and sustain these economic reform efforts and empower economic reformers. China will not become a market-driven economy overnight, but it is in our interest that they move in this direction, and WTO will help. I look forward to a vigorous debate in the best tradition of the Senate. I urge all my colleagues to support this PNTR legislation without amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. In an earlier request, I thought I heard my name at the top of the list.

Mr. BAUCUS. I am asking what happened between then and now.

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I am curious. Before, I was going to speak earlier in the line up. Now it is close to last. What happened?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join the minority leader and others who have expressed strong opposition to section 103 of the energy and water appropriations bill, which affects the management of the Missouri River. From the debate that we've had thus far, you might think that this is pretty straightforward. Upstream states against downstream states, in a conventional battle about who gets water, how much they get, and when they get it. I'm not going to kid anybody. That is a big part of the debate. I'm from an upstream state. We believe that we've been getting a bad deal for years. We want more balanced management of the system. That will, among other things, give more weight to the use of the water for recreation upstream, at places like Fort Peck reservoir in Montana. Under the current river operations, there are times when the lake has been drawn down so low that boat ramps are a mile or more from the water's edge. Our project manager at Fort Peck, Roy Snyder, who does a great job at that facility, has talked to me about how much healthier the river would be with a spring rise/split season management. But it's not just a conventional battle over water. There's more to it. A lot more. You wouldn't necessarily know that from the text of the provision itself. It says that none of the funds made available in the bill: . . . may be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or official to which the funds are made available that such revision provides for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam. That's what the bill says. Here's what it does. Simply put, it prohibits the Secretary of the Army from obeying the law of the land. Specifically, it prohibits the Secretary from complying with the Endangered Species Act. Let me explain. Like any other Federal agency, the Army Corps of Engineers has a legal obligation, under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, to operate in a way that does not jeopardize the existence of any endangered species. That's just common sense. After all, private landowners have to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Why should federal agencies get a free pass? They shouldn't. The federal government should do its part. That's why section 7 is a fundamental part of the ESA. Without section 7, the ESA would be unfair to private landowners and, in many cases, would provide no protection for endangered species whatsoever. Let's turn to the Missouri River. The river provides habitat for three endangered species: The pallid sturgeon, the piping plover, and the least interior tern. Accordingly, in developing its new master manual, which will govern the operation of the river, the Corps is legally required to propose a management approach that protects the habitat for these three species. Now, under section 7, when there's a pretty good chance that a federal agency's actions might jeopardize a species, the agency must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service. That's the right approach. When it comes to the nuts and bolts of running a river system, the Corps is the expert. But, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of protecting a species, the Fish and Wildlife Service is the expert. No question. So, as it is legally required to do, the Corps has consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service, initially under what's called the ``informal consultation process.'' There have been problems. Serious problems. When the Corps issued the first Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Manual, back in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a draft opinion saying that, in it's judgment, the proposed operation would jeopardize the three species. In 1998, the Corps issued a revised EIS. Once again, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that, in it's judgment, the proposed operation still would jeopardize the three species. Then we made progress. On March 30 of this year, the Corps announced that it was entering into a formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and would rely on the Service's biological judgment to propose an alternative that does not jeopardize the species. In other words, it would fully comply with the ESA. We expect the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue it's biological opinion any day now. That opinion will explain, based on the best scientific information available, how to provide the needed protection for the recovery of the 3 endangered species on the river. Nobody outside the agency knows for sure what the biological opinion will say. But, based on all of the scientific discussion that's gone on so far, there's a good likelihood that it will require more releases of water in the spring, to maintain the instream flows necessary to provide habitat for the sturgeon, plover, and tern. That probably will mean fewer releases in the summer which, some will argue, could affect barge traffic downstream. That's where section 103 of the bill comes in. It prevents the Corps releasing more water in the spring. In other words, if the biological opinion comes out the way most folks expect it to, section 103 prevents the Corps from complying with the Endangered Species Act. So, again, this debate is not just about the allocation of water between upstream and downstream states. The debate is also, fundamentally, about whether, in one fell swoop, we should waive the application of the Endangered Species Act to one of the largest rivers in the country. The river, I might add, that is the wellspring of the history of the American west. I suggest that the answer is obvious. We should not. Mr. President, let me also respond to a point that some of the supporters of section 103 have made. They argue, in essence, that we've lost our chance. Sort of like the legal notion of estoppel. This provision has been in the bill for several years, they argue. We've never tried to delete it before. So, I suppose they're trying to imply, it's somehow inappropriate for us to raise it now. This argument is a red herring. A distraction. Up until now, we've never been in a situation in which there was an impending biological opinion under the endangered Species Act. So, by definition, the earlier provisions did not override the Endangered Species Act. What's more, in the absence of a biological opinion, there was no real likelihood that the Corps would implement a spring rise. So the provision was theoretical. Symbolic. It had absolutely no practical effect. Now, Mr. President, it most certainly will. That's why we are raising the issue. One final point. If we pass section 103, and the Corps is directed to operate the system in violation of the Endangered Species Act, there will be a lawsuit. That will have two effects. First, it will slow things down. Second, it may well put us in the position of having the river operated, in effect, by the courts rather than by the Corps. We've seen this happen along the Columbia Snake River system, and it's not been an easy experience for anyone. In closing, I suggest that there's a better way. After all, once a biological opinion is issued, there will be an opportunity for public comment, so this decision will not be made in a vacuum. In fact, there have been countless public meetings and forums on the revision of the Master Manual over the years. And that's as it should be. So let's not create a special exemption for the Corps. Let's require them to abide by the same law that we apply to everybody else. Let's allow the regular process to work. Let's allow the agencies to continue to consult and figure out how to strike the balance that's necessary to manage this mighty and beautiful river: for upstream states, for downstream states, and for the protection of endangered species; that is, for all of us.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very glad the Senate has voted to invoke cloture and will finally get to the bill granting China permanent normal trade relations status. That bill will come up in September. That legislation has the strong support of at least three- quarters of the Members of this body, and it is deeply in our national interests. We should have rapidly disposed of it months ago. But later is better than never. I hope very much when we bring it up in September that we have a very large vote--at least three-quarters, as I earlier stated. When we make that vote, it will be a profound choice. The question will be, Do we bring China into the orbit of the global trading community with its rule of law? Or do we choose to isolate and contain China, creating a 21st century version of a cold war in Asia? China is not our enemy. China is not our friend. The issue for us is how to engage China, and this means engagement with no illusions-- engagement with a purpose. How do we steer China's energies into productive, peaceful, and stable relationships within the region and globally? For just as we isolate China at our peril, we engage them to our advantage. The incorporation of China into the WTO--and that includes granting them PNTR--is a national imperative for the United States of America. I might add that when the debate comes up on PNTR in September, various Senators will offer amendments, as is their right, to that legislation. I think it is essential that we maintain the integrity of the House-passed bill. Many of those amendments that will be coming are very worthy amendments, and in another context they should pass. I would vote for them. But to maintain the integrity of the House-passed bill, I will strongly urge my colleagues to vote against amendments that are added on to the PNTR legislation, as worthy as they are, even though Senators certainly have a right to bring them up, because if those amendments were to pass, we would no longer be maintaining the integrity of the House-passed bill. But the bill would have to go back to conference, and that would, in my judgment, jeopardize passage of PNTR to such a great degree that we should take the extraordinary step of not passing those amendments. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this morning we voted on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I rise to address an issue that will certainly arise in the debate. The issue is the U.S. embargo on Cuba as it relates to food and medicine. Earlier this month, I traveled to Havana along with Senators Roberts and Akaka. It was a brief trip, but it gave us an opportunity to meet with a wide range of people. We met with Cuban Cabinet Ministers and dissidents, with the head of the largest NGO in Cuba, and also with a good number of foreign ambassadors, and with President Fidel Castro himself. I might say that was a marathon 10-hour session, about half of it dining. I left those meetings more convinced than ever that it is time to end our cold war policy towards Cuba. We should have normal trade relations with Cuba. Let me explain why. First, this is a unilateral sanction. Nobody else in the world supports it. Not even our closest allies. Unilateral economic sanctions, don't make sense unless our national security is at stake. Forty years ago Cuba threatened our national security. The Soviet Union planted nuclear missiles in Cuba and aimed them at the United States. Twenty years ago, Cuba was still acting as a force to destabilize Central America. Those days are gone. The missiles are gone. The Soviet Union is gone. Cuban military and guerilla forces are gone from Central America. The security threat is gone. But the embargo remains. My reason for my opposing unilateral sanctions is entirely pragmatic. They don't work. They never worked in the past and they will not work in the future. Whenever we stop our farmers and business people from exporting, our Japanese, European, and Canadian competitors rush in to fill the gap. Unilateral sanctions are a hopelessly ineffective tool. The second reason for ending the embargo is that the US embargo actually helps Castro. How does it help Castro? I saw it for myself in Havana. The Cuban economy is in shambles. The people's rights are repressed. Fidel Castro blames it all on the embargo. He uses the embargo as the scapegoat for Cuba's misery. Without the embargo, he would have no one to blame. For the past ten years I have worked towards normalizing our trade with China. My operating guideline has been ``Engagement Without Illusions.'' Trade rules don't automatically and instantly yield trade results. We have to push hard every day to see that countries follow the rules. That's certainly the case with China. I have the same attitude towards Cuba. Yes, we should lift the embargo. We should do it without preconditions and without demanding any quid pro quo from Cuba. We should engage them economically. But we should do so without illusions. Once we lift the embargo, Cuba will not become a major buyer of our farm goods or manufactured products overnight. We need to be realistic. With Cuba's failed economy and low income, ending the embargo won't cause a huge surge of U.S. products to Cuba. Instead, it will start sales of some goods, such as food, medicine, some manufactures, and some telecom and Internet services. In addition, ending the embargo will increase Cuban exposure to the United States. It will bring Cubans into contact with our tourists, business people, students, and scholars. It will bring Americans into contact with those who will be part of the post-Castro Cuba. It will spur more investment in Cuba's tourist infrastructure, helping, even if only a little, to further develop a private sector in the economy. In May of this year, I introduced bipartisan legislation that would repeal all of the Cuba- specific statutes that create the embargo. That includes the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act and the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. I look forward to the day when that legislation will pass and we have a normal economic relationship with Cuba. Until that day, I support measures such as this amendment which dismantle the embargo brick by brick. The sanctions on sales of food and medicine to Cuba are especially offensive. Last year, legislation to end unilateral sanctions on food and medicine passed the Senate by a vote of 70 to 28. That legislation was hijacked by the House in conference. This year we passed similar legislation again as part of the Agriculture appropriations bill. I hope our conferees stand firm and ensure its passage this year, with one correction. This year the sanctions provisions of the Agriculture appropriations bill contain a new requirement. The bill requires farmers who want to sell food to foreign governments of concern to get a specific license. That is needless red tape which will make it harder to export. Last year the bill we passed had no such licensing requirement. We should strike that provision in the Agriculture appropriations conference this year. When we begin debate on the bill, one of my colleagues will offer an amendment to address unilateral sanctions on food and medicine from a different angle. The amendment will cut off funding to enforce and administer them. The House passed a similar measure by a substantial majority. We should do the same in the Senate. Mr. President, I hope that all of my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment and will support the ultimate lifting of the entire Cuba trade embargo.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000. We are living in a time of unprecedented prosperity. However this prosperity has not reached every American equally. The boom on Wall Street has not reached Main Street in many regions of our nation. The problem is quite simple. Many of our lower income communities are unable to attract the investment capital that is allowing more affluent areas to flourish. As the United States economy continues to grow it has become more and more apparent that attracting capital to these communities is one of the largest challenges facing the private sector and all levels of government. It is important to keep in mind that this is not just an urban problem. Many rural communities, especially those that rely on agriculture, are watching their jobs disappear with nothing on the horizon in the form of new business or industry to offer much hope. My home state of Montana is facing this economic turmoil right now. A state that was built on agriculture, mining, and timber has watched these industries diminish to the point that Montana is now 50th in per- capita income relative to other states--dead last. We often hear the phrase ``digital divide.'' Well, Montana is standing on the edge of an economic divide, but we are not quitters. Montana has much to offer. We have an unparalleled quality of life, a highly-educated work force, a burgeoning high-tech sector, and top- notch schools. In many respects, we are right on the cusp of an economic upswing. However, we are having an extremely difficult time attracting the investment capital that we need to become a partner in the Internet mainstream, create good paying jobs, and truly turn the economic corner. This past June over the course of two days, I convened a Montana Economic Development Summit that brought together not only our state's leaders and decision makers, but also outside experts in various disciplines in an effort to build a road map for improving Montana's economy. We covered many issues, but primarily focused on high-tech, business development, and marketing and trade. We tackled tough questions such as how we retain and support our current businesses and also attract new businesses that truly fit with Montanans and their values. Three points came up time and again. First, the need for and inability to get the necessary investment capital. We simply do not have the population or resources available that larger states enjoy. Second, our window of opportunity is closing. Time moves faster than it used to and if we don't act quickly the world will move right past us. Third, and most importantly, any action or strategy that we take must come from begin locally. Economic development initiatives must be bottom-up and not top-down or they just will not work. It is for these three reasons that I am cosponsoring this legislation. The New Markets proposals are a quick and efficient way to leverage the necessary investment in lower-income communities through private/public partnerships. And it will give these communities the tools they need to map their own economic destiny and create the better paying jobs that are so desperately needed. Two portions illustrate the private/public partnership. On the public side, the Trade Adjustment Assistance provision will enhance the ability of each community to be proactive in crafting a long-term strategy for economic development. This is crucial for communities and regions in rural areas that are natural resource dependent and have suffered severe employment losses in the past decade. For the private sector, the New Markets tax credit will create opportunity by providing a tangible incentive for companies to take a serious look at areas of the country that are currently being ignored. In closing, this legislation will provide the necessary ingredients for revitalizing America's less fortunate rural areas. It will help target investment to these communities and it will allow them the flexibility to build their economies on their terms and their ability. I commend my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb, for introducing such proactive legislation that addresses several of the most urgent issues facing economically troubled areas. Finally, I urge my colleagues to work together and pass this legislation so that states like Montana can begin their long climb back up to economic stability and prosperity.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Creating New Markets and Empowering America Act of 2000. We are living in a time of unprecedented prosperity. However this prosperity has not reached every American equally. The boom on Wall Street has not reached Main Street in many regions of our nation. The problem is quite simple. Many of our lower income communities are unable to attract the investment capital that is allowing more affluent areas to flourish. As the United States economy continues to grow it has become more and more apparent that attracting capital to these communities is one of the largest challenges facing the private sector and all levels of government. It is important to keep in mind that this is not just an urban problem. Many rural communities, especially those that rely on agriculture, are watching their jobs disappear with nothing on the horizon in the form of new business or industry to offer much hope. My home state of Montana is facing this economic turmoil right now. A state that was built on agriculture, mining, and timber has watched these industries diminish to the point that Montana is now 50th in per- capita income relative to other states--dead last. We often hear the phrase ``digital divide.'' Well, Montana is standing on the edge of an economic divide, but we are not quitters. Montana has much to offer. We have an unparalleled quality of life, a highly-educated work force, a burgeoning high-tech sector, and top- notch schools. In many respects, we are right on the cusp of an economic upswing. However, we are having an extremely difficult time attracting the investment capital that we need to become a partner in the Internet mainstream, create good paying jobs, and truly turn the economic corner. This past June over the course of two days, I convened a Montana Economic Development Summit that brought together not only our state's leaders and decision makers, but also outside experts in various disciplines in an effort to build a road map for improving Montana's economy. We covered many issues, but primarily focused on high-tech, business development, and marketing and trade. We tackled tough questions such as how we retain and support our current businesses and also attract new businesses that truly fit with Montanans and their values. Three points came up time and again. First, the need for and inability to get the necessary investment capital. We simply do not have the population or resources available that larger states enjoy. Second, our window of opportunity is closing. Time moves faster than it used to and if we don't act quickly the world will move right past us. Third, and most importantly, any action or strategy that we take must come from begin locally. Economic development initiatives must be bottom-up and not top-down or they just will not work. It is for these three reasons that I am cosponsoring this legislation. The New Markets proposals are a quick and efficient way to leverage the necessary investment in lower-income communities through private/public partnerships. And it will give these communities the tools they need to map their own economic destiny and create the better paying jobs that are so desperately needed. Two portions illustrate the private/public partnership. On the public side, the Trade Adjustment Assistance provision will enhance the ability of each community to be proactive in crafting a long-term strategy for economic development. This is crucial for communities and regions in rural areas that are natural resource dependent and have suffered severe employment losses in the past decade. For the private sector, the New Markets tax credit will create opportunity by providing a tangible incentive for companies to take a serious look at areas of the country that are currently being ignored. In closing, this legislation will provide the necessary ingredients for revitalizing America's less fortunate rural areas. It will help target investment to these communities and it will allow them the flexibility to build their economies on their terms and their ability. I commend my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb, for introducing such proactive legislation that addresses several of the most urgent issues facing economically troubled areas. Finally, I urge my colleagues to work together and pass this legislation so that states like Montana can begin their long climb back up to economic stability and prosperity.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to follow on with the comments of my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and praise him for pointing out that the conference system is becoming bankrupt. Way too often conferees put in measures and take out measures that have nothing to do with the underlying bill that goes to conference. It is becoming so bad that I think sometime--my hope is in the next Congress--the Senator from Iowa, myself, and others should meet with our leadership to prevent this from continually happening. It bankrupts the process. It also causes more Americans to become even more concerned about the political process. We, as Senators, cannot go home and say what is or is not happening. Rather, we have to go home and report just what the Senator from Iowa reported--that somehow, by magic or by mystery, things sort of appear and disappear. It does not make us feel good as Senators because we like to know what is occurring. It certainly doesn't help our constituents feel any better about the process because they hope we know what is happening. More than that, they hope we are fighting for their case. But if we don't know the contents of the conference process, we don't know how something gets put in or taken out, and we look foolish. It is a major abrogation of our responsibility as a Senate to the American people for whom we work. They are, after all, our employers. At times, the Senate is too secretive. It reminds me of an incident I was involved in when I first came to the House more than 20-some years ago. At that time, I was a freshman House Member. I had a few free minutes one afternoon--about an hour or two. I thought that I would go to the conference on the tax bill; I might learn something. I thought I would go to the conference and learn a little about tax law and the conference process. I called around to try to figure out where the conference was meeting. Nobody would tell me. At that time, Mike Mansfield from Montana was the majority leader of the Senate. I thought I could call Senator Mansfield's office; certainly they could tell me where the conference was meeting. They did. They told me. It was in the big hearing room over in the Longworth Building. There was a policeman standing at the door leading to the executive room. I knew what was going on. He challenged me. I said I was a Member. I intended to reply that I was a member of the conference, but, rationalizing, I said I was a Member of Congress, and he waved me in. I walked back into the executive room. There were Senate Members in the hearing room on one side of the table with conferees, and Russell Long was at the table with House conferees. Russell Long was talking about when he was a kid in Louisiana. It was great listening to it. There was a sea of executive branch people. In the hearing room with Treasury Secretary Simon was a sea of Treasury employees. I took an out-of-the-way spot. I found a chair over on the side, and I sat down out of the way to watch. After about 10 minutes, Congressman Jim Burke from Massachusetts shuffled over to me--an elderly man. He came to me and said: I am sorry. I have to ask you to leave. Leave? Why? He said it was just the rules. I said respectfully that I would like to know what rule was requiring me to leave. He said, well, it is the Senate rules. So I said, well, I appreciate that. As a House Member, I wanted to know which Senate rule it was that prohibited my attendance as a Member of Congress watching this conference. He said, well, it is just the Senate rule. I thought for a while. I thought: That is wrong; it is not right. I am not going to make a big fuss about it right here; I will later. I am going to leave because he asked me to leave, but I will see what I can do about it. It is the rule. For example, Congressman Bill Green couldn't be there either. Bill Green was then a Congressman and the member of the House Ways and Means Committee in the House who authored a provision to delete the depletion allowance that was in the House bill. Even he could not attend, the rule then being nobody could attend a conference except conferees-- nobody else. But there were more people from the executive branch. They were there, along with Treasury Secretary Simon. I came over to the House floor. I mentioned this to Congressman Mikva from Illinois. He said: Max, you are entirely right. That is wrong. I have been fighting that rule for years. A few of us stood up on the House floor that afternoon and explained how we thought it was wrong. In the next session of Congress, the rules were changed. Afterwards, all conferences were totally open to the public. I know some Members of Congress don't like that. They do not like the sun shining in conferences. But that was the rule. We started it back then. I think it is in the public interest. It is a good rule. It seems things have changed slowly; conferences should not be secret. They are bipartisan. Both political parties attend, but often the minority party is shut out. One wonders what is happening. The real danger is, if and when the Democrats are in the majority, the Democrats are going to be tempted to do the same thing. It is wrong. Neither side should do that. They should be much more open and much more closely should enforce that rule, and matters not pertaining to the conference should not be included in the conference report. It is something we have to stand up and enforce for the good of the Senate and for the good of the country; otherwise, there will be chaos, or anarchy, or a dictatorship--whatever it is. Based upon the comments of my good friend, I am very inclined to work with him next year to see if we can do something about that. I think there are many others in the Senate who share the same view. It has gotten out of hand. I thank the Senator from Iowa for the statement.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak a few words on a matter that will be coming before this body, I hope, later this week; that is, beginning the process of the United States agreeing to extend permanent normal trading relations status with China. I would like to step back for a few moments and reflect a bit on its significance and on its implications. The irony is that we are even talking about this today because I think the bill to grant China PNTR has the strong support of at least three-fourths of the Senate. It is deeply in our national interest. I wish it had been passed some time ago. Actually, we should have passed it months ago. Instead, we have had to struggle to find time to consider it in this chamber. We are now approaching the eleventh hour of this session of Congress with a week left this month and a few weeks in September. I personally believe this issue should have been handled differently. We should have brought it up much earlier. But later is better than never. I am glad we are finally approaching the denouement. For over two millennia, China was ruled by a series of imperial dynasties. The last Emperor was overthrown in 1912. Warlords, dictators, and the Japanese military then took over parts of the country at various times. In 1949, the Chinese Communists took control of the entire Chinese mainland. Chiang Kai-shek and his supporters were forced to flee to Taiwan. Then followed three decades of absolute, totalitarian, Communist rule by Mao Zedong. To oversimplify, in 1979, Deng Xiaoping signaled the beginning of the end of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology as the underlying construct of the Chinese economy, polity, and society. Another critical turning point was Deng's so-called ``Southern Journey'' in 1992. He visited Shenzhen, other parts of Guangdong Province, and Shanghai. On that journey, he advocated more economic openness, faster growth, and more rapid progress toward a market-based economy. For the next two decades, we witnessed both progress and retreat in China's economic and political developments. Dramatic opening to foreign products and foreign investment. Yet a continuing government effort to maintain control over telecommunications. The massacre of students at Tiananmen Square in 1989. Yet relatively unfettered access today by many Chinese to the Internet. Repeated violations of contract sanctity. Yet the development of domestic stock markets and Chinese companies placing issues on foreign stock exchanges. The battle in China between the forces of reform and the forces of reaction continues. No one can predict how it will end, or when. But it is certainly in the vital interest of the United States to do everything we can to support those who favor reform over totalitarianism. Those who favor private enterprise over state-owned enterprises. That means we must work to incorporate China into the international community. We need to engage China with the goal of promoting responsible behavior internally and externally. Encouraging them to play by international rules. Integrating the Chinese economy into the market-driven, middle-class, participatory economies of the West. Economic reforms never have an easy time. And the forces in China that want to maintain the status quo are strong. But, economic reform, moving to a market economy, transparency, direct foreign investment, listing of companies on overseas markets. Progress in all these areas is of vital importance to the United States as they relate to stability in China, accountability, and the development of a middle class. China's entry into the WTO will help anchor and sustain these economic reform efforts and empower economic reformers. China will not become a market-driven economy overnight. But it is in our interest that they move in this direction. And the WTO will help the process. Around the world, we have seen that economic growth leads to the development of a large and strong middle class. Eventually, the middle class makes demands on political leaders for greater participation, accountability, and openness. It takes time. For example, eighty years ago, the Kuomintang, the KMT, was created by the same Soviet advisors who created the Chinese Communist Party. Fifty years ago, the KMT massacred Taiwanese citizens. Twenty years ago, the KMT still ruled Taiwan under martial law. Yet Taiwan just held its second truly democratic election. There are many other examples. Look at Korea. A quarter of a century ago, the Korean government tried to murder the dissident Kim Dae Jung. Now, President Kim Dae Jung has begun to transform Korea's economic structure. He has traveled to Pyongyang in one of the most remarkable initiatives in modern world history. He is worried about being turned out of office in the next democratic election; such is the way of democracy. The Philippines in 1986, Thailand in 1990, Indonesia in 1999. They all showed us the power of the development of a middle class. There is nothing fundamentally unique about China that makes a similar type of change impossible, or even improbable, over time. Once China joins the WTO, China will be accountable for its behavior to the outside world, for perhaps the first time in history. The dispute settlement system at the WTO is far from perfect. Many members are working to open up dispute settlements and make it more available to the outside world. I have been among its most vociferous critics. But WTO dispute settlement will allow other countries to examine Chinese domestic economic practices. It will force China to explain actions that other members believe violate global rules for the first time in world history. When a violation is found, it will put pressure on China to change and comply with the internationally accepted rules of the WTO. Not a perfect organization, but certainly better than none. This type of external scrutiny of China is virtually unprecedented. It has implications that may go far beyond trade, as China learns about the need to respect the rule of law among nations. Let me turn to Taiwan for a moment. Taiwan will accede to the WTO very shortly after China does. What will happen when both enjoy full membership? They will participate together, along with all other WTO members, in meetings ranging from detailed technical sessions to Ministerial level gatherings. There will be countless opportunities for interaction at many levels. Under the WTO's most-favored-nation rule, they will have to provide each other the same benefits that they grant to all other members. That is a very important principle. Taiwan's current policy limiting direct transportation, communication, and investment with the mainland will not stand up to WTO scrutiny. Each will be able to use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism against the other. They will have to meet directly and deal with economic differences in a peaceful way. Presumably, either could take reservations, such as a national security exception, against the other in certain areas. That is a decision still to be made. But, no matter what, membership in the WTO and WTO-induced liberalization will increase and deepen ties between Taiwan and the PRC in trade, investment, technology, transportation, information, communications, and travel. And that has to contribute to the maintenance of peace across the Taiwan Strait. China is emerging from one hundred and fifty years of national torpor. How we in America, and how the leadership in China, manage this relationship will set the stage for regional and global politics, security, and economics for decades to come. We must make a profound choice. Do we bring China into the orbit of the global trading community with its rule of law? Or do we choose to isolate and contain China, creating a 21st century version of the cold war in Asia? It is a truism in international relations that rising powers have proven to be the most dangerous. Germany at the end of the 1800s and the Soviet Union in the 1940s. But this is not 1900 or 1945. As the world has become smaller for us because of revolutions in information, transportation, and production, so for China has the world come closer. China is not our enemy. China is not our friend. The issue for us is how to engage China, and this means engagement with no illusions. Engagement with a purpose. How do we steer China's energies into productive, peaceful and stable relationships within the region and globally? For just as we isolate China at our peril, we engage them to our advantage. Incorporation of China into the WTO, and that includes granting them PNTR, is a national imperative for the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask to speak as if in morning business, and I believe my time is taken from the time controlled by Senator Durbin.