Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President. I regret that I was unable to vote on Amendment 3625 to the Labor-Health Human Services appropriations bill. It was important for me to be in Montana for a conference I had organized on the future of our state's economic development. I would like to explain how I would have voted on this amendment, had I been present. In our current era of staggering scientific achievement--as demonstrated by yesterday's announcement of the mapping of the human genome--it is easy to become complacent with medical technology. However, we cannot afford the price of complacency. One of the greatest health threats our nation currently faces is antibiotic resistant infections. These infections are the result of abuse and misuse of antibiotics--the drugs which form the keystone of modern medicine. These drug resistant infections know no barriers and are a threat to us all. The World Health Organization reports that antibiotic- resistant infections acquired in hospitals kill over 14,000 people in the United States every year. Unless steps are taken to monitor and prevent antibiotic misuse, this number can only increase. Protecting our nation and our children from antibiotic resistant infections is vital. That is why I am pleased to support this amendment. This legislation increases the ability of public health agencies to monitor and fight antibiotic resistant infections. It also seeks to reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistance by educating doctors and patients about the proper use of antibiotics. This legislation will help protect the health of all Americans and I applaud my colleagues for their support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Baucus- Roberts amendment to include China in the environmental and humanitarian U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership (USAEP). This program provides an invaluable service to the rapidly developing countries of Asia. Through sharing knowledge and technologies developed to resolve problems with the water, land and sky, the USAEP improves the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Unfortunately, China has yet to take part in this important program. Our amendment seeks to undo this outdated sanction on Asia's largest and most environmentally sensitive nation. Let me share a few highlights about the program. First, the USAEP provides trained environmental and commercial specialists that provide business counseling to Asians and Americans. They help to link prospective business partners and identify innovative, cost-effective solutions to sensitive environmental problems. Making USAEP funds available for U.S.-China Partnerships would benefit both our countries. For example, access to funding for partnerships with China would have a tremendous positive effect on many states such as Montana. These funds would open large markets for environmental services that, for all practical purposes, have been closed to business from the United States. The Chinese need for environmental services is extreme. China requires more than $10 billion in annual investment to combat water pollution, air pollution, municipal and industrial waste, agricultural runoff and protection of natural environments. Much of the expertise required to address these problems will have to come from outside of China. Montana possesses an outstanding environmental industry with the skills and experience to help China address these problems. Despite the fact that Montana companies have exactly the expertise that China needs to address its environmental problems, Montana companies have been unable to enter the Chinese market. The State government and the companies themselves lack the funding required to develop long-term relationships with appropriate Chinese companies or government officials. China already has extensive environmental cooperation with Canada, Europe and Japan. Environmental Minister Xie Zhenhua has attributed the relative lack of cooperation between U.S. businesses and China to the low level of U.S. government funding for business development and technology transfer. This lack of funding for has not only limited U.S. access to Chinese markets for environmental services but it has increased the income disparity between large exporting states and rural states like Montana. California and Washington, states that can afford to promote business development, have seen exports to China grow significantly over the past 5 years. Meanwhile, the incomes of Montanans have experienced a steady decline relative to these richer states. USAEP funding to support development of U.S.-Chinese business relationships is vital to the growth of Montana's environmental industry. Even modest funding for business development could lead to millions of dollars to the Montana economy. Without a doubt, similar opportunities would be available nationwide. It's time to do the right thing. The time is ripe for such action, particularly as China prepares to enter the rules-based trading system we know as the World Trade Organizations. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Roberts and me in this important endeavor. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am a very strong supporter of the amendment offered by my colleague from Connecticut. Very simply, it is a no-brainer. It is a bipartisan commission to look at our policy, which is supported by good Republicans--Howard Baker and Jack Danforth, former Senators of this body. It is not directed at agriculture, it is not directed at other points raised on this floor; it is just a bipartisan commission to reassess our policy with Cuba. Nothing could be more simple, direct, and appropriate than that. I also want to speak about Cuba with respect to trade. We have targeted Fidel Castro for four decades. For the last 40 years, believe it or not, we have maintained a special category in our trade and foreign policy with Cuba--a one-country category: Cuba. We have special legislation for trade with Cuba. We have special rules for travel to Cuba. We have a special system for claims on Cuba. Why does Cuba get so much of our attention? When the United States began targeting Fidel Castro, we had very serious national security concerns. Castro was openly hostile to us. He was a Soviet client and just 90 miles away from us. Thanks to Soviet aid, he had military and economic muscle to make him someone to take seriously. Castro worked against the United States throughout the sixties, seventies, and eighties. Bankrolled by the Soviet Union, he exported revolution throughout the Western Hemisphere. He sent troops to support revolutionaries as far away as Africa. Castro backed international terrorists who targeted Americans. He was a clear adversary. What is the situation today? Does Castro still favor revolution? I am sure he does. Does he still oppose American interests? Absolutely. But does he still have military and economic muscle to threaten our national security? The answer, obviously, is no. The Soviet Union is now in the dustbin of history. Their demise cut off Castro's lifeline. Today, his economy is in shambles. With 11 million educated, dynamic people, Cuba produces only $22 billion a year. It only exports about $1.4 billion worth of goods. The Cuban economy remains stuck in the 1960s in terms of trade and technology. Sugar is still the country's top export earner. Cuban farmers are forced to sell over half the country's agriculture output to the Government at below-market prices. Since Castro can no longer trade sugar for Soviet oil, his people suffer tremendously, for example, from rolling power blackouts. Since he defaulted on foreign debt payments in the 1980s, Cuba pays double-digit interest rates on short-term loans to finance sugar trade. With this country in desperate financial shape, Castro is in no position to export revolution--none whatsoever. According to the Pentagon, Castro presents no real threat to our national security. Times have changed. Forty years ago, Castro was a clear danger. Today, he is not a present danger. Has our policy toward Cuba changed? Not really. Cuba still occupies a unique position in American policy. I believe it is time for the United States to have a normal relationship with Cuba, especially a normal trade relationship. I have cosponsored legislation which we passed here by an overwhelming margin last year to lift unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. I believe we should go beyond this. We should repeal the laws that make Cuba a specific target. That includes the anti-Cuba laws we passed in 1992 and 1996, as well as other laws developed over the past 40 years. We should end our embargo of Cuba and eliminate the trade sanctions. Last month, I introduced bipartisan legislation to end the Cuba trade embargo, the Trade Normalization With Cuba Act of 2000. Senator Dodd, who is the main author of today's amendment, is one of the cosponsors of my bill to eliminate this special category we have created just for Cuba. For the past 10 years, I have worked to normalize U.S. trade with China. I am working to end the Cuban embargo for many of the same reasons--first, and most importantly, to benefit the United States. Eliminating the embargo will provide economic opportunities for American workers, American farmers, and businesses. Last week, a study was released on the impact of lifting the embargo on food and medicine--not the whole embargo, only on food and medicine. It concluded that American farmers and workers could sell $400 million in just agricultural products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated a potential Cuban market of $1 billion. The second reason to lift the embargo is to encourage the development of a Cuban private sector. Since he can no longer rely on Soviet subsidies, Castro has taken steps to allow for limited development of private business, mostly in service professions. Private business leads to a middle class which demands accountability of its government and a greater say in how things are decided. The third reason to end the embargo is to increase our contacts. Normal relations allow us to bring our social and ethical values. That has an impact over the years. Mr. President, we have in place a policy that has not worked for forty years. It was a different world in 1960. Ending the Cuba embargo is long overdue.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will take 2. This is a National Highway System. What does that mean? President Eisenhower saw this. It was his conception. As a young soldier, he traveled across America and realized the highway system needed help. That means we know, as we travel across the country, that the highways in Montana, New Jersey, Ohio--highways around the country are all in pretty good shape. It is a National Highway System. What is going to happen? I have the highest respect for my friends from New Jersey and Delaware. What is going to happen in those States which are essentially, by comparison, Amtrak States? They are not highway States; they are Amtrak States. We know what is going to happen. Those Governors and legislators are going to say we are going to take money out of the highway trust fund. Because we don't have as many highways in our State, we are going to Amtrak. What are Americans going to think when the highways in those States start to deteriorate? It is no longer a National Highway System. The same thing about Amtrak. One Governor says Amtrak; the one next-door says, no, not Amtrak. It gets to be quilt work, gets to be patchwork, it gets to be confused, and we do not have a national system anymore. I think we need to expand Amtrak. I am a strong Amtrak supporter-- very strong. But the way to do it is not here on the floor saying Governors decide what a national Amtrak program is. The way to do it is for the Congress of the United States to do its business and come back with a national Amtrak program. That is the way to do it. We have a budget surplus here. Let's talk about Amtrak in the context of how we put a national Amtrak program together, and not say Governors do this and do that and sometimes some States will have a little more highway money. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to not succumb to this siren song because in the long run, it is going to hurt us.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this has an intriguing, alluring, siren call: Let the Governors and State legislatures divert it. It sounds good on the surface. But like a lot of issues, let's stop and think about the actual consequences. First of all, when we passed the last highway bill, even though we increased the amount of dollars to go from Federal gasoline taxes into the trust fund, back out to the States for highway construction, we all knew we had not even begun to fully take care of our Nation's roads, highways, and bridges. And we have not. The Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, has done study after study that shows we only meet one-half of our Nation's needs-- one-half. Some of you saw on television last night the report about all the red lights, people caught up in traffic. We know about the potholes. We know about roads and bridges and highways that are not up to snuff. What do we also know? We also know that our highways, as good as they are, are not as durable and as lasting as, say, some European highways, German highways. Why is that? That is because so much more research and development and expense in dollars goes into that highway system to make those the best in the world. We have problems. We think we have a good highway system--it is good, but the Department of Transportation has concluded, from study after study, we are only halfway there, even with ISTEA that we passed a couple of years ago. So anybody who thinks we should start diverting money from the highway fund better think twice about whether or not we are keeping up with our Nation's highway needs. The answer is that we are not. Second, the highway program is trusted by Americans. Why is that? Basically because Americans know the Federal gasoline tax, as well as the State gasoline tax, goes into highway construction and maintenance and that is it. A few years ago, we decided to divert 4.3 cents, which was the additional tax we put on for highways, the gasoline tax, away from general revenues in the trust fund. We wanted to restore the trust in the highway trust fund. We did that. So basically all Federal gasoline taxes go in the highway trust fund and a small percent, half a cent, go into mass transit. The rest goes into the highway trust fund. Americans know that. They know where their dollars are going. That gives Americans confidence. Not along ago, the suggestion was made to repeal the 4.3 cents. That was during a time when gasoline prices were going up. It sounded like a good idea, repeal 4.3 cents of the Federal gasoline tax, get those highway taxes down, get those gasoline taxes down. A siren song? Sounds good on the surface. What happened? We thought about it a little more and realized it was not a very good idea and we decided not to do that. We wanted to keep the 4.3 cents in the highway trust fund, knowing in the long run that is much more in our national interest. This trust is very important. I can see this as the beginning of a slippery slope, giving Government discretion to take money out of the fund for Amtrak. Then what is next after that? We start to nibble away at the trust. One other point, the highway system in America is a National Highway System.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the successful completion of the Fourth Annual Mansfield Pacific Retreat. The focus of this retreat centered upon ``Urban Air Quality Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region.'' Pacific Rim air quality is very timely and important matter for discussion. Environmental and public health research in the United States and Asia has increasingly shown that people living in urban areas are exposed to high levels of pollutants. This exposure can cause many impacts such as developmental problems in children, asthma, pneumonia, cancer, and even premature death in the elderly or sensitive populations. The U.S. has removed lead from its fuel supply for several of these reasons. Soon, because of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 which I shepherded through the Congress, EPA will be issuing a comprehensive urban air toxins reduction strategy. I am hopeful that this will be a model for other nations to consider. I applaud the Mansfield Retreats' participants to discuss these critical issues in depth, and I look forward to their recommendations about how to resolve these issues. Along, that line, Mr. President, I would like to insert for the Record the Final Retreat Declaration. Mansfield Pacific Retreat--Final Declaration The Fourth Annual Mansfield Pacific Retreat was held in Kumamoto, Japan from May 29-June 1, hosted by the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center of the University of Montana and with special support from the Kumamoto Prefectural Government. The theme of the Fourth Annual Retreat was ``Common Issues--Shared Solutions: Environmental Issues and Technology in the Asia-Pacific Region.'' The Retreat participants placed emphasis on urban air equality and discussed solutions to these common problems via new technologies and partnerships. The Retreat featured representation from Japan, South Korea, China and the United States. Delegates were drawn from the sectors of government, academia, non-governmental organizations and private corporations. In discussing the topic of urban air quality, the Retreat participants focused on the following observations. First, there was a clear consensus that environmental problems in the urban context extended across borders and were truly transnational in their nature. Delegates acknowledged that solutions to these problems needed to focus on greater collaboration among affected governments and societies across the Asia-Pacific region for the benefit of our children and planet. At the same time, there was recognition of the important and timely contributions that participants outside the government could provide. Representatives from among the private sector acknowledged their involvement in urban environmental issues and offered insight on the availability of new and appropriate technologies. In addition, the participants confirmed that they would maintain the trust and relationships established through the Retreat in order to address shared problems in local, regional, and international contexts. Retreat members paid tribute to the efforts of Senator and Ambassador Mike Mansfield who has devoted nearly six decades of his life to fostering greater understanding among nations in Asia. The participants expressed their appreciation to representatives from Montana and Minamata who shared their experiences in how communities have responded to local environmental crises. The accounts related to the Clark Fork River cleanup in Montana and Minamata City's transformation into a model environmental city. The Retreat participants offered tribute to the late Governor George Fukushima whose dynamic vision made the Mansfield Pacific Retreat a reality in Kumamoto. At the same time, delegates thanked Governor Shiotani for her support of the Retreat. The tireless efforts of the Kumamoto Prefectural and Mansfield Center staffs in organizing and supporting the Retreat were appreciated. In conclusion, the Retreat delegates noted that the Fifth Retreat will be held in Glacier National Park, Montana in September 2001. Mr. President, I believe that this declaration is evidence of a commendable venture of which I have had the honor of participating in the past three successful events. Over the years, it has been a pleasure to work with Madame Li Xiaolin and the China People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, and Dr. Phillip West and Ambassador Mark Johnson from the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center in Missoula, Montana. Their vision, dedication and cooperation make the Retreats a success year after year. I congratulate them and look forward to the fifth annual Mansfield Pacific Retreat when it will be held in my home state of Montana next year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Chafee, Lautenberg, and Smith in introducing the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. This bill is a ``win-win.'' It is good for the environment. It is good for communities. And it is good for the economy. More hazardous waste sites will be cleaned up. We'll have more parks and open space, more economic redevelopment, and more jobs. I'd like to emphasize that this is not just an east-coast, big city bill. Montana may not have as many brownfields as some of our more industrialized and densely-populated states, but our economic history has left us with our share. Wood treatment facilities. Railroad yards. Sawmills. Getting these sites remediated and back in use makes good sense in Montana and throughout the country. The Brewery Flats site outside Lewistown is a perfect example of a place where this bill can really make a difference in Montana. This 57 acre site is located on the Big Spring Creek flood plain, two miles south of Lewistown. It is a railroad site, consisting of a former branch line, railroad switching yard, and roundhouse locomotive service facility. Chicago-Milwaukee railroad operated the site, then sold it to Burlington Northern. The city would like to acquire the site and convert it to recreational and educational uses. The owner is willing to transfer the land to the city, but the city needs to have a more complete understanding of the extent of the contamination before moving acquiring the land and undertaking a cleanup. The site has outstanding potential to enhance the community. It is adjacent to land on the Big Spring Creek that is owned by Montana Fish and Wildlife, so cleaning it up will allow the expansion of existing open space. Big Spring Creek itself is a blue-ribbon trout stream, and the Brewery Flats site boasts several wetland areas. Local students have planted trees in the area, and the educational and recreational potential of these adjacent sites is excellent. Lewistown has worked hard to utilize existing programs and resources. Montana DEQ performed some initial sampling on the site several years ago. More recently, EPA conducted a targeted site assessment, which revealed light contamination on half of the site, and more extensive contamination near the roundhouse. Although EPA did not find anything alarming, the assessment is a first cut, and the city does not feel comfortable taking ownership of the property before more extensive sampling is done. Lacking the resources to do this work, Lewistown has applied for an EPA brownfields ``showcase communities'' grant. This process is still pending. In addition, the city has applied to the Montana DNRC for a cleanup grant. The brownfields bill could greatly help Lewistown acquire and clean up Brewery Flats. And it could do the same for hundreds of sites in Montana and thousands around the country, by providing funding for brownfields revitalization programs, by giving liability protection in certain cases, and by providing funding and increased authority to state brownfields cleanup programs. Let me explain each of these provisions. Title I of the bill authorizes funding to states, tribes and local government to inventory, assess, and remediate brownfield sites. Funding is particularly critical for sites that will be used for non- profit purposes, such as parks. In some cases, it is also needed to fill gaps in private financing at sites that will be redeveloped for commercial use. To make the funding as effective as possible, it is structured to provide states, tribes and local governments the flexibility to utilize the brownfields money and EPA's capacity in the way that best suits their particular needs. For site assessment, states, tribes and local governments can seek grants from EPA. For remediation, governments that wish to establish a program can seek grants to capitalize revolving loan funds for remediation. Out of these revolving loan funds, they can then provide loans, and grants to public and nonprofit entities, for remediation. Governments that do not wish to establish revolving loan funds, on the other hand, can seek grants from EPA for specific remediation projects. In addition, Title I authorizes EPA to conduct brownfields-related technical assistance and job training and facilitate community participation. This package of funding and EPA authority builds on the successes of EPA's existing brownfields program, and strengthens it by adding increased flexibility. To serve all of these purposes, Title I authorizes $150 million per year for five years. I note that, at my urging, the bill includes mine-scarred lands in the definition of brownfields and contains a provision that will ensure that funds are distributed fairly between urban and rural areas. Turning to Title II of the bill, Superfund's critics have long argued that the threat of Superfund liability has been a drag on the redevelopment of brownfields sites. Title II addresses this problem by protecting several classes of persons from Superfund liability. It protects contiguous property owners, whose property has been contaminated solely by migration of contamination from contiguous property. It protects bona fide prospective purchasers, who exercise appropriate care when purchasing property and did not contribute to any existing contamination. And it protects innocent landowners, who did not have reason to know of and did not contribute to contamination of property they already own. These provisions make Superfund more fair, and will promote brownfields redevelopment by providing certainty to property owners and developers about what they need to do to avoid Superfund liability. Title III clarifies the relationship between state cleanup programs and EPA's Superfund program. Superfund critics have long argued that the possibility that EPA could second-guess state-approved cleanups has discouraged brownfields remediation. At the same time, I and other have argued that we need to preserve the federal government's ability to use Superfund authorities to deal with dangerous situations at sites cleaned up under state programs in the rare case in which the cleanup is inadequate and there is a threat to human health or the environment. The tension between these two views has been one of the major obstacles to moving brownfields legislation in the past. This bill forges a new compromise on this issue, one that should appeal to both sides in the debate. On the one hand, it gives more certainty to those who clean up brownfield sites under state programs. On the other hand, it preserves EPA's ability to use Superfund authorities to address serious problems. Mr. President, putting these changes all together, the bill will expedite cleanups at Brewery Flats and all across the country. That, again, is good for the environment, good for communities, and good for the country. One final point. This bill reflects a moderate, bipartisan, compromise. It shows that we can roll up our sleeves and resolve our differences. For that, I complement the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, and the chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee, Senator Chafee. They've done a great job. I'd also like to pay a special complement to the ranking member of the Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg. He has accomplished many things during his 18 years in the Senate. One of the most important has been his leadership on environmental issues. More than anyone else, he has protected, and improved, the Superfund program. If we enact the Chafee-Lautenberg bill this year, and I believe we can, it will be a fitting capstone to his Senate career.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Injury Compensation Act of 2000. I am joined in this effort by Senator Bond, my fellow co-chairman of the Senate Beef Caucus, and Senators Bingaman, Dorgan, Daschle, and Kerrey. The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a Beef Industry Compensation Trust Fund to help the United States cattle industry withstand the European Union's illegal ban on beef treated with hormones. Over a year ago, the World Trade Organization endorsed retaliation when the EU refused to open to American beef. Since that time, the EU has continued to stall in its compliance which is frankly, outrageous. For over a decade we've fought the beef battle. Now its time to try something new to help producers who continue to be injured by the ban. The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using the tariffs imposed on the EU to directly aid U.S. beef producers. Normally, the additional tariff revenues received from retaliation go to the Treasury. This bill establishes a trust fund so that the affected industry will receive those revenues as compensation for its injury. Our legislation authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants to a nationally recognized beef promotion and research board for the education and market promotion of the United States beef industry. In particular, the fund shall: (1) Provide assistance to United States beef producers to improve the quality of beef produced in the United States; and (2) Provide assistance to United States beef producers in market development, consumer education, and promotion of the beef industry in overseas markets. The Secretary of the Treasury shall cease the transfer of funds equivalent to the duties on the beef retaliation list only when the European Union complies with the World Trade Organization ruling allowing United States beef producers access to the European market. In a perfect world we would not need this legislation because the European Union would abide by its international trade commitments. And it is still my hope that the European Union simply comply with the WTO Dispute Settlement rulings and allow our beef to enter its borders. Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow. We all recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of my colleagues, are working on ways to fix it. We must bring credibility and compliance to the system. The Trade Injury Compensation Act will give some relief to our producers as we strive toward this endeavor. I thank my colleagues for their sponsorship of this measure and strongly urge support for its expeditious passage.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join with Senator Moynihan in introducing the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000. This legislation provides a tax incentive to stimulate rapid deployment of high-speed communication services to residential, rural, and low-income areas. Although our nation continues to experience a period of unprecedented economic growth, it is important to remember that this growth is not shared evenly throughout the country. My State, Montana, is unfortunately an example of areas in which the economy continues to lag behind the rest of the nation. Montana is ranked last in per-capita earned income and first in the number of people holding multiple jobs. Our children and grandchildren are constantly faced with a difficult dilemma--will they be able to find jobs in Montana, where they can continue to enjoy living in ``the last great place'', or will they be forced to move elsewhere just to be able to earn a decent wage. More and more of them are choosing to leave, costing Montana some of her best and brightest young people, and along with them much of our hope for the future. One of the keys to turning our State's economy around is to make sure the appropriate infrastructure is in place so that we can attract the kinds of businesses that will provide jobs for ourselves and our children. I have worked for years as ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure that Montana and other rural states receive our fair share of highway construction funds, so that the transportation infrastructure of our great State can support economic growth. But today's economy is not just about bricks and mortar. Technology is transforming traditional ways of doing business, as it is creating entirely new forms of business that never existed before. And high- speed Internet access is the key to advancing technological growth. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000 provides graduated tax credits for deployment of high-speed communications to residential and rural communities. It gives a 10 percent credit for the deployment of at least 1.5 million bits per second downstream and 200,000 bits per second upstream to all subscribers--residential, business, and institutions--in rural and low income areas. This is what we call the ``current generation'' broadband. The bill also gives a 20 percent credit for the deployment of at least 22 million bits per second downstream and 10 million bits per second upstream to all subscribers in rural and low income areas, and to all residential customers in other areas. This is what we are calling ``next generation'' broadband. Mr. President, as we look around us today and see the many streets that are being torn-up to lay cables for high-speed communication, and the communication dishes that are constantly ``sprouting'' from our buildings, we may wonder why we need a tax credit to advance an industry that is already growing by leaps and bounds. The reason, again, is that this growth is most extensive in selected areas. Market forces are driving deployment of high-speed communication capabilities almost exclusively to urban businesses and wealthy households. Rural businesses and rural families like those in Montana again find themselves at the back of the line. And by the time our turn comes for this technology, the rest of the country will already be well into the next technological generation. The Digital Divide, which is already a wedge between our citizens, will be perpetuated and grow into a chasm. This bill is designed to even the playing field. By giving private industry economic incentives to accelerate high-speed communication capabilities to Americans who are at the end of the line, we will help people like my constituents in Montana share in our nation's economic growth. As a member of the Senate Broadband Caucus, which was established to develop solutions to the problem of bringing high-speed Internet access to rural and underserved areas, I have worked hard on initiatives which would help rural areas bridge the Digital Divide. These initiatives include: the Rural Broadband Enhancement Act, which provides $5 billion in low interest loans for broadband development; the Rural Telework Act of 2000, to provide grants to develop National Centers for Distance Working which would provide access to technology and training for rural residents; the Universal Service Support Act, which lifts the cap on the universal service support fund for rural telecommunications providers; and the amendment I offered to the Rural Television Bill, to give consideration to projects which offer high speed Internet access in addition to television programming. I believe these initiatives, along with the Broadband Internet Access Act we are introducing today, will go a long way toward finally bridging the growing Digital Divide and help rural areas grow and flourish. With this legislation, I hope to create an economic environment that will make sure Montana's children and grandchildren will no longer have to sacrifice enjoying the beauty of the ``last great place'' in order to earn a living wage.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join with Senator Moynihan in introducing the Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000. This legislation provides a tax incentive to stimulate rapid deployment of high-speed communication services to residential, rural, and low-income areas. Although our nation continues to experience a period of unprecedented economic growth, it is important to remember that this growth is not shared evenly throughout the country. My State, Montana, is unfortunately an example of areas in which the economy continues to lag behind the rest of the nation. Montana is ranked last in per-capita earned income and first in the number of people holding multiple jobs. Our children and grandchildren are constantly faced with a difficult dilemma--will they be able to find jobs in Montana, where they can continue to enjoy living in ``the last great place'', or will they be forced to move elsewhere just to be able to earn a decent wage. More and more of them are choosing to leave, costing Montana some of her best and brightest young people, and along with them much of our hope for the future. One of the keys to turning our State's economy around is to make sure the appropriate infrastructure is in place so that we can attract the kinds of businesses that will provide jobs for ourselves and our children. I have worked for years as ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to ensure that Montana and other rural states receive our fair share of highway construction funds, so that the transportation infrastructure of our great State can support economic growth. But today's economy is not just about bricks and mortar. Technology is transforming traditional ways of doing business, as it is creating entirely new forms of business that never existed before. And high- speed Internet access is the key to advancing technological growth. The Broadband Internet Access Act of 2000 provides graduated tax credits for deployment of high-speed communications to residential and rural communities. It gives a 10 percent credit for the deployment of at least 1.5 million bits per second downstream and 200,000 bits per second upstream to all subscribers--residential, business, and institutions--in rural and low income areas. This is what we call the ``current generation'' broadband. The bill also gives a 20 percent credit for the deployment of at least 22 million bits per second downstream and 10 million bits per second upstream to all subscribers in rural and low income areas, and to all residential customers in other areas. This is what we are calling ``next generation'' broadband. Mr. President, as we look around us today and see the many streets that are being torn-up to lay cables for high-speed communication, and the communication dishes that are constantly ``sprouting'' from our buildings, we may wonder why we need a tax credit to advance an industry that is already growing by leaps and bounds. The reason, again, is that this growth is most extensive in selected areas. Market forces are driving deployment of high-speed communication capabilities almost exclusively to urban businesses and wealthy households. Rural businesses and rural families like those in Montana again find themselves at the back of the line. And by the time our turn comes for this technology, the rest of the country will already be well into the next technological generation. The Digital Divide, which is already a wedge between our citizens, will be perpetuated and grow into a chasm. This bill is designed to even the playing field. By giving private industry economic incentives to accelerate high-speed communication capabilities to Americans who are at the end of the line, we will help people like my constituents in Montana share in our nation's economic growth. As a member of the Senate Broadband Caucus, which was established to develop solutions to the problem of bringing high-speed Internet access to rural and underserved areas, I have worked hard on initiatives which would help rural areas bridge the Digital Divide. These initiatives include: the Rural Broadband Enhancement Act, which provides $5 billion in low interest loans for broadband development; the Rural Telework Act of 2000, to provide grants to develop National Centers for Distance Working which would provide access to technology and training for rural residents; the Universal Service Support Act, which lifts the cap on the universal service support fund for rural telecommunications providers; and the amendment I offered to the Rural Television Bill, to give consideration to projects which offer high speed Internet access in addition to television programming. I believe these initiatives, along with the Broadband Internet Access Act we are introducing today, will go a long way toward finally bridging the growing Digital Divide and help rural areas grow and flourish. With this legislation, I hope to create an economic environment that will make sure Montana's children and grandchildren will no longer have to sacrifice enjoying the beauty of the ``last great place'' in order to earn a living wage.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senators Roberts, Dorgan, and Lincoln, to introduce the Trade Normalization With Cuba Act of 2000. For 40 years, we have implemented a series of policies designed to end Fidel Castro's leadership of Cuba. The instruments we have used have included a trade embargo, an invasion of Cuba, assassination attempts, and multilateral pressures. None of these measures has moved Cuba any closer to democracy and a market economy. In fact, the result has been just the opposite. Castro is as entrenched as ever. The economy is in tatters. The Cuban people are suffering. For four decades, Castro has suppressed his own citizens. He has been responsible for the imprisonment and mistreatment of thousands, and the emigration of hundreds of thousands. He has dispatched Cuban troops around the world to support revolution. During the Cold War, Cuba was an integral member of the Soviet bloc. Castro was an eager and active participant in the proxy battles fought between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Cold War has been over for a decade. The embargo, which had the goal of forcing Castro out of power, has failed totally. And it will continue to have no impact on the longevity of Castro's rule. What has the embargo and American policy actually done? It has certainly done nothing to advance liberty and democracy for the Cuban people. And there are no prospects that it will. What has the embargo done? First, it prohibits all trade with Cuba. It does include an exception for the sale of food and medicine. However, the requirements are so complex and burdensome on U.S. suppliers that very little food or medicine has been exported to Cuba. We hurt the Cuban people. We hurt American business, American farmers, and American workers. And we have had no impact on the regime. We have succeeded in alienating virtually all potential allies who would be willing to work with us in developing a realistic policy to influence change in Cuba--the nations of the European Union, Canada, the Organization of American States, the United Nations, even the Pope. Another accomplishment of our policy of our trade embargo, we now have a law, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, that prohibits lifting the embargo until there is a transition government in Cuba that does not include Castro. This is an ``all or nothing policy'' that cannot work in the real world. Unilateral trade sanctions don't work. This is as true with Cuba as it has been with China, Myanmar, Iraq, or North Korea. In some cases, it hurts the people in those countries. And it hurts Americans, our farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses. Forty years of sanctions have accomplished nothing in Cuba. It is time for the Congress to recognize that. I fully support the efforts being made again this year in both the Senate and the House to remove the unilateral restraints we have put on our export of food and medicine to a number of countries, including Cuba. This bill is not a substitute for those efforts. Rather, this bill is directed only toward Cuba, and goes far beyond liberalization of food and medicine exports. Thomas Jefferson said ``Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of the day.'' Current US policy turns Jefferson's statement on its head. Our effort to isolate Cuba through the trade embargo and other policies has failed to bring human rights improvement, has provided a pretext for Castro's continued repression, makes the United States the scapegoat for Castro's failed economic policies, and hurts the Cuban people. It is time to put together a responsible strategy to improve the human condition in Cuba and set the stage for increased freedom and respect for human rights once Fidel Castro leaves the scene. Obviously, Cuba will not change overnight with the removal of the trade embargo. But this bill is a first step down the road to a peaceful transition to a democratic society and a market economy in Cuba. Before I conclude, I want to recognize my friend, Congressman Charles Rangel, who has been a leader in trying to end the embargo and move toward normalization of relations with Cuba. I look forward to working closely with him to make this happen. I urge my Senate colleagues to support our effort.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Senators Roberts, Dorgan, and Lincoln, to introduce the Trade Normalization With Cuba Act of 2000. For 40 years, we have implemented a series of policies designed to end Fidel Castro's leadership of Cuba. The instruments we have used have included a trade embargo, an invasion of Cuba, assassination attempts, and multilateral pressures. None of these measures has moved Cuba any closer to democracy and a market economy. In fact, the result has been just the opposite. Castro is as entrenched as ever. The economy is in tatters. The Cuban people are suffering. For four decades, Castro has suppressed his own citizens. He has been responsible for the imprisonment and mistreatment of thousands, and the emigration of hundreds of thousands. He has dispatched Cuban troops around the world to support revolution. During the Cold War, Cuba was an integral member of the Soviet bloc. Castro was an eager and active participant in the proxy battles fought between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Cold War has been over for a decade. The embargo, which had the goal of forcing Castro out of power, has failed totally. And it will continue to have no impact on the longevity of Castro's rule. What has the embargo and American policy actually done? It has certainly done nothing to advance liberty and democracy for the Cuban people. And there are no prospects that it will. What has the embargo done? First, it prohibits all trade with Cuba. It does include an exception for the sale of food and medicine. However, the requirements are so complex and burdensome on U.S. suppliers that very little food or medicine has been exported to Cuba. We hurt the Cuban people. We hurt American business, American farmers, and American workers. And we have had no impact on the regime. We have succeeded in alienating virtually all potential allies who would be willing to work with us in developing a realistic policy to influence change in Cuba--the nations of the European Union, Canada, the Organization of American States, the United Nations, even the Pope. Another accomplishment of our policy of our trade embargo, we now have a law, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, that prohibits lifting the embargo until there is a transition government in Cuba that does not include Castro. This is an ``all or nothing policy'' that cannot work in the real world. Unilateral trade sanctions don't work. This is as true with Cuba as it has been with China, Myanmar, Iraq, or North Korea. In some cases, it hurts the people in those countries. And it hurts Americans, our farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses. Forty years of sanctions have accomplished nothing in Cuba. It is time for the Congress to recognize that. I fully support the efforts being made again this year in both the Senate and the House to remove the unilateral restraints we have put on our export of food and medicine to a number of countries, including Cuba. This bill is not a substitute for those efforts. Rather, this bill is directed only toward Cuba, and goes far beyond liberalization of food and medicine exports. Thomas Jefferson said ``Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of the day.'' Current US policy turns Jefferson's statement on its head. Our effort to isolate Cuba through the trade embargo and other policies has failed to bring human rights improvement, has provided a pretext for Castro's continued repression, makes the United States the scapegoat for Castro's failed economic policies, and hurts the Cuban people. It is time to put together a responsible strategy to improve the human condition in Cuba and set the stage for increased freedom and respect for human rights once Fidel Castro leaves the scene. Obviously, Cuba will not change overnight with the removal of the trade embargo. But this bill is a first step down the road to a peaceful transition to a democratic society and a market economy in Cuba. Before I conclude, I want to recognize my friend, Congressman Charles Rangel, who has been a leader in trying to end the embargo and move toward normalization of relations with Cuba. I look forward to working closely with him to make this happen. I urge my Senate colleagues to support our effort.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a select few individuals from my home state of Montana. I have personally nominated these individuals to represent Montana in the Library of Congress' Local Legacies Project as part of their Bicentennial Celebration. The Local Legacies project has allowed citizens to participate directly in this great celebration. The participants have documented America's grassroots heritage in every state, the U.S. Trusts and Territories, and the District of Columbia. Their documentation provides a snapshot of the nation's unique traditions as we begin a new century. My nominees for Montana's Local Legacies have worked hard to represent the beauty and deeply rooted heritage of our rugged and wide open state. The survival of our heritage is important for knowing not only where we came from, but where we are going. And for this, I commend them. Native Reign, is composed of Northern Cheyenne youth to promote the need for education, respect for the environment, development of personal skills, respect of tribal elders and a strong spiritual foundation. They have been supported by their adult leader Ken Bisonette and his efforts to make Native Reign the role model it has become. They combine traditional Native American dances, skits, with contemporary music to celebrate the history and traditions of the tribe. On April 9, 1999, they received the Governor's Award at the State Capitol Building in Helena from Montana Governor Marc Racicot for their success in showing Montana youth an alternative lifestyle to teen pregnancy, drugs and alcohol abuse, gangs, and violence. They are a role model for not only the young people of Montana, but for the rest of the United States as well. Congratulations Native Reign, you are truly a legacy! Mike Logan, Montana's very own Cowboy Poet has contributed a book of poetry illustrated with original photographs he took during his travels throughout our breathtaking state. His book is entitled ``Montana Is . . .'' Mike wanted to share some of the beauty he had been privileged to experience and photograph in his 21 years living in Montana. As part of his introduction to the book, Mike states: ``I love everything about Montana. . . . I still feel like I'm spending every day in heaven.'' Words that ring so true to my own heart. Mike paints a verbal and visual picture true to the very poetic nature of Montana's scenic beauty and spectacular wildlife. I would encourage everyone to pick up his book and take a journey into Montana's rich heritage. Thank you Mike, your poetry is one more part of our history we are lucky to have! The Metis Project: When they Awake--was created and produced by Helena Presents, a production, presentation and film center based in Helena, Montana. It is a celebration of the extraordinary legacy of fiddle music of the Metis people. The project explores the musical and social legacy of a tribe without boundaries, whose heritage results from marriage between Indians and Europeans throughout the Northern Plains from Sault St. Marie, Michigan, to Choteau, Montana, across both sides of the 49th parallel. Central to the project is the creation of a new musical work that references the indigenous American rhythms and diverse European fiddle heritage that is present in Metis music. The name of the presentation is based on a prediction of Louis Riel, a teacher, writer, and hero to the Metis people: My people will sleep for one hundred years, but when they awake, it will be the artists who give them their spirit back. Composer and performers Philip Aaberg and Darol Anger collaborated with master Metis fiddler, Jimmie LaRocque to revive once again the melodious spirit of the Metis people. Gentlemen, I take my hat off to you! Five St. Ignatius High School students from St. Ignatius, Montana, who present and preserve their area's native traditions using interviews with farmers and ranchers of the Mission Valley of Montana along with poignant photographs which paint a dramatic picture of farm life in the Mission Valley. The report summarizing their findings was written by their teacher Marta Brooks. Students in Brooks's English and history classes used the ``heritage education'' approach to the study of local culture. They collected stories, oral histories, historical documents, art and geological information that reflect the unity of landscape and culture. Montana's traditional farmers and ranchers are becoming a dying breed so because of the change in the local landscape with the inevitable change in the local culture the students were prompted to initiate this project as a way to document and preserve the area's native culture and traditions before they cease to exist. Thank you all for your efforts to immortalize our rich agricultural heritage. Your hard work brings a lot of pride to Montana! Montana Horse Story, was brought to us through the use of still photography, film, and field reporting, by a mother/son team, Allison and Joshua Collins. Allison and Joshua are part of a company called Related Images. Their project documents the legacy of the horse for work, transportation, and recreation as preserved by various Montana events such as rodeo, the Miles City Bucking Horse Sale, Indian rodeo, and O-mok-see. Their work was last seen locally, in an exhibit of rodeo photography, at the Holter Museum, in Helena, Mt. Much like the other Local Legacies projects, Montana Horse Story pinpoints a vital part of Montana's rich traditions, that without it we would not be the people that we have become. Joshua and Allison, you have captured our spirit in some of its best moments. Without your talents and dedication, our story would never be heard. Thank you! I conclude with one final remark: Without the hard work of all these individuals, Montana's rich cultural heritage may never be known. You should all be very proud of your efforts. I know Montanans are. And I most certainly am.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Roberts to include an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill which will benefit both the United States and China. In particular, Mr. President, our amendment allows United States business to include China in the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership. The time is ripe for such action, particularly as China prepares to enter the rules-based trading system we know as the World Trade Organization. China's participation is good news for China and better news for United States business. Mr. President, the Senate has already shown its support for including China in the Asian Environmental Partnership through passage of an identical amendment in the 105th Congress. However, such efforts were stifled in conference. Now is the opportune time to take up and pass this amendment and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Roberts and me in this endeavor. amendment no. 3160

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the innovative work of the Drug Treatment Court in Gallatin County, Montana. Recently I worked for a day at the Drug Court, where I witnessed the process of evaluating drug court cases and determining who was following the rules--and who was not. I must say, Mr. President, I was very impressed and inspired by the whole process--Judge Olson, his staff, the prosecutors, defense attorneys, parole and probation officer, counselors. And, most important of all, the people who have voluntarily decided to turn their lives around. This pilot project in Bozeman, Montana should be replicated around the state and nation. In the morning, I sat in on the briefing, where judges and all the parties involved in sanctioning defendants discussed--with compassion and sometimes frustration--their attempts to help these people get off and stay off of drugs and alcohol. Their discussions centered not on punishment, but on finding common- sense ways to help these people addicted to drugs and alcohol find ways to improve their lives and be positive contributors to their communities. And, sitting later in court, I saw the genuine and sincere attempts of the defendants to correct their lives and stay out of jail. Judge Olson was remarkable. He mixed just the right amount of compassion with tough love to help the defendants. He counseled them, warned them, cajoled them, and told them he personally would help them find jobs so they could stay ``clean.'' His work is to be highly commended and copied throughout Montana. The defendants also showed that they can beat drugs and alcohol. One middle-aged man told me later that the Treatment Court was the best thing that ever happened in his life. He had become clean for the first time in 30 years. He owed his life to the Treatment Court. Now he is trying to find ways to help other people. The Treatment Court is a success story waiting to be copied. It is a way to keep people out of jail, off the streets and in a job. Yes, some people slip up and don't abide by the rules. When they do, Judge Olson cracks down on them. But when they succeed, Judge Olson praises them, and shakes their hand. His personal involvement in the lives of these people shows that justice does know compassion, that courts can be places where people headed for jail can make a detour--and be given a chance to redirect their lives. Mr. President, I want to say that I was inspired by what I saw last Friday in Treatment Court in Bozeman. And I want to help to find funding for the Bozeman Treatment Court, as well as funding for similar courts throughout Montana. Such an investment in people--in helping them become positive citizens in their communities rather than burdens--will save us money-- and lives--in the long run. And I will also work hard to help the Treatment Court find funds to help defendants locate affordable housing, get a good education and good jobs. What struck me, Mr. President, was that many of the defendants suffered from a lack of education. My work day in Treatment Court reminded of the importance and power of education, as well as the importance of creating good-paying jobs. Along with families, they are the building blocks of a strong and health society, and help keep people off drugs and alcohol. Count me a supporter of this successful program. The treatment court idea embodies steps crucial to curbing the influence of drugs on our society. Nationally, such treatment courts are a relatively new idea. The first drug courts were created in Florida in 1989, under the supervision of Janet Reno. She and others realized that the solution to the rising number of drug related cases was not to increase the capacity of the criminal justice system--but to reduce the number of drug users. The Gallatin Treatment Court is only seven months old. And while its first participants have yet to graduate, based on my experience I believe most will succeed. Roger Curtiss, who works with the Drug Court and heads the non-profit Alcohol and Drug Services program of Gallatin County, told me how he overcame his own drug addiction problems after being placed in a similar program. I also learned what a dedicated and talented staff Roger has supporting him in his efforts to reduce the scourge of drugs. I remain committed to fighting illegal drug use in Montana. While I believe that treatment courts such as Gallatin County's will play an increasing role in the fight against drugs, other steps must be taken. In January I invited drug czar Barry McCaffrey to Montana for a conference. He spoke to dozens of Montanans about the challenge posed by methamphetamine and other drugs. One experience sticks out in particular. At the town hall meeting we had a man named Wayne approach the microphone to address the group. He fidgeted as he told his story about being addicted to meth for nearly 20 years. He said, ``People don't understand the affect of this drug. It tears the brains up. It rips the family apart. It has a hold that never lets go.'' Mr. President, Wayne is not alone. Across Montana and rural America, meth and other drugs are tearing families--and communities--apart. In January the DEA reported that eighth graders in rural America are 83 percent more likely to use crack cocaine than their urban counterparts. And they are 104 percent more likely to use meth. The bottom line is that drugs destroy lives and communities. The solution to the ongoing fight against drugs will be found only through constant innovation of the type demonstrated by Gallatin County's Treatment Court and similar programs across the nation. To that end I have introduced legislation to make Montana part of the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. The bill would allow Montana to embark on an intensive, statewide media campaign and hire additional personnel for methamphetamine prosecution. And because WHAT you know depends so much on WHO you know, the measure would establish a state-wide criminal intelligence network, allowing law-enforcement officials in all 56 counties to share information on criminal activity. Mr. President, if I learned one thing from my meetings with the General McCaffrey and last Friday's visit to the treatment court, it is that there are many committed individuals fighting the drug problem. The trick is to get them all together working to the same end: treatment, prevention and law enforcement must all coordinate their efforts to fight the scourge of drugs. We in Congress must do the same. At the end of last session the Senate passed legislation to fight meth, by beefing up law enforcement and treatment resources throughout the nation. Both S. 486--sponsored by Senator Ashcroft--and an amendment to the Bankruptcy Bill--sponsored by Senator Hatch--passed the Senate. Unfortunately, both bills have languished in the House of Representatives. Neither has been acted upon, and the legislative days for the 106th Congress are numbered. I urge my colleagues in the House to act now to strengthen resources in the fight against illegal drugs, meth in particular. Finally, I want to again recognize the efforts of the Bozeman Drug Court and thank them for allowing me to witness their innovative and inspiring work first-hand. Drug Court is an alternative, but it's not easy. For many it is just as difficult as serving time. In fact, I witnessed one individual who, after continually breaking the rules, was kicked out of drug court. Now he faces five years of jail time. But with our jails bursting at the seams and the drug problem mushrooming in rural areas, I believe the Drug Court is an effective tool in fighting the drug problem we face. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for American men and women serving overseas in our Armed Services. These men and women are faced with difficult missions--made even more difficult by the fact that they are serving far from home and loved ones. Despite these difficulties, the men and women of our armed forces have met every expectation, fulfilled every mission, and upheld the trust of the American people. This is especially commendable because over the last several years, our Armed Forces have been charged with restoring peace and maintaining order in some of the most intractable conflicts around the globe. Out of many service members, one individual I am proud to recognize is Army Staff Sgt. Travis Elliston. I am proud to say that he is a Montana native, from the town of Kalispell. Elliston is a squad leader with Company B, 3rd Battalion, 504th Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C. During his time in Vrbovac, Kosovo, Elliston has shown the dedication and innovation required in today's military. The quality of his work is reflected in his own words. In a February interview with Stars and Stripes Magazine, Elliston spoke about his work with Vrbovac's residents--many of whom are just now returning after fleeing their homes. Describing his work with town residents, Elliston said, ``I try to put a smile on their faces and give them hope that we will protect them.'' This protection has taken many forms. One Vrbovac resident told Stars and Stripes, ``Before Elliston came here, we locked all the doors. Now that [Elliston] is here we leave the doors open every night because we feel much more safe with him here.'' Elliston and the men and women serving with him have also been able to put an end to many killings, hijackings and kidnapings. Elliston has also spearheaded measures to improve the quality of life in Kosovo. He has taken steps to facilitate the spread of news from the outside world to local residents and has even installed speed bumps to solve the problem of speeding vehicles. These are but a few examples illustrating the dedication and innovation of Elliston and those serving with him. It is these qualities upon which our nation depends. The same Vrbovac resident said of Elliston, ``The people in Montana must be proud because he is a great man.'' I am here today to say that the people of Montana are proud. We are proud of Elliston, and we are also proud of all the other men and women who serve overseas. These sacrifice and dedication of these individuals must be recognized and I call on my colleagues in the Senate to do so. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Montana's Law Enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty. These individuals have given their lives protecting the innocent and I can think of no more noble endeavor. We have recently considered a resolution that will make May 15th a national memorial day for peace officers. I think it is high time that the nation joins Montana in setting aside time to honor our law enforcement officers. For the past twelve years Montana has celebrated the dedication of its law enforcement officers on this day. I wish to commend Terry Tyler and the other members of the Professional Justice Community of Montana whose hard work and sacrifice to preserve and recognize the officers who have died in the line of duty are the best examples of the ``Montana Spirit'' that I know so well. I was pleased to support that resolution as I am pleased to commend and commemorate the Montana Law Enforcement Museum for its continuing commitment to honoring our fallen law enforcement officers who placed public safety before their own. Montana law enforcement traditions can be traced back to April 1863 when Henry Plummer became the state's first elected sheriff. Since that time Montana's law enforcement officers have been charged with the protection and defense of the public and our laws. In Montana, our citizens enjoy a life style not marred by daily occurrences of gun violence and crime. Our children do not feel threatened in our schools and it is commonplace to leave your door unlocked. I can think of no greater testament to the hard work and dedication of our law enforcement officers and the people of Montana who support their efforts. It is only right that we take a day to remember those who have died so that others may live in a safe and secure environment. It is an honor and privilege to stand and recognize the efforts of these people and those who will not let their efforts go unnoticed. So, I wish to close with gratitude for those individuals who have dedicated their labors to a higher cause and who continually put their lives on the line to protect me and my family. On behalf of the state of Montana and the Nation, thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Conference Report on the Trade and Development Act of 2000. It is important to remind everyone this is the first substantive trade bill we have passed since the Uruguay Round implementation bill in 1994. It is about time. We Americans have, by far, the largest and most dynamic economy in the world. We are the world's only superpower. We better act like one. And that means taking leadership on global trade issues and trade policy, not burying our heads in the sand. Completion of this bill is a first step. Passage of PNTR for China is another. I would like to make several general comments about this legislation. Then I will highlight some of its major sections and explain why they are in the best interest of the United States. In two weeks, the House is scheduled to vote on whether to extend permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China. The Senate vote will follow. I am confident that it will pass in both houses. These two pieces of legislation have a common underlying set of principles. First, a market-based economy, the rule of law, and the reduction and elimination of barriers to foreign trade. These all lead to greater growth, both for our trade partners domestically, as well as and for the global economy. Second, greater interchange of goods, services, investment, and people between the United States and developing countries. This leads, over the long-run, to domestic stability in those nations, and greater global stability. Third, if the United States were to turn inward today, we would be turning our back on a global trade and economic system that has brought us to the greatest height of prosperity in the history of the world. Although the disparities in income around the world are greater than in the past, hundreds of millions of people have been raised out of poverty over the last two decades. We need to do a lot more to ensure that people in America and people overseas are not passed over by this growth. But raising trade barriers, reversing trade liberalization, and halting our efforts to open markets around the world is not the answer. That would only worsen income disparities and increase the number of people living in poverty. The outcome of our conference is not perfect. It never is. But the result is absolutely in our national interest. The two major sections of the bill are the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, and the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. The Africa portion is but one step in bringing Africa into the global economic system. And in promoting development on this terribly poor continent. Many of the problems of Africa are home grown. Many of the problems are the vestige of totally inept and irresponsible colonial rule. We can provide ways, in this case through economic development, industrial growth, and debt relief, for Africa to begin to emerge from its cycle of poverty. The Caribbean Basin was put at a competitive disadvantage once NAFTA came into effect. This bill brings the CBI nations up to parity with Mexico. At the same time, it requires important commitments from those nations on intellectual property rights, on WTO obligations, on participation in negotiations in the free trade area of America, on fighting the war against corruption, on respecting internationally recognized worker rights, and on protecting against the worst forms of child labor. Under this bill, a country in Africa or the Caribbean must commit to protect internationally recognized worker rights in order to receive benefits. Congress has debated the issue of the relationship between trade and labor for years. I am very pleased we have acted in support of one of the most basic sets of human rights. I hope this is an indication that we will start making real progress in reconciling trade and labor in future trade legislation. Let me mention several other provisions of the bill that are of particular import. I deeply regret the provision passed by this Senate to provide trade adjustment assistance for farmers was not included in the conference report. Our farmers have suffered as much as any sector of our economy. Yet they fall between the cracks in our TAA policy, and that was not the intention when trade adjustment assistance was originally conceived. As a compromise, the Secretary of Labor must submit a report examining the applicability to farmers of trade adjustment assistance programs. Further, the Secretary must make recommendations, either to approve the operation of those programs as they apply to farmers, or to establish a new program for farmers. These provisions are utterly inadequate. I guarantee we will revisit this issue. Farmers suffering adversely from the impact of trade should be provided with the means to adjust, just as factory workers do today. I strongly support the provision establishing a chief agricultural negotiator at USTR, with the rank of ambassador. Agriculture is at the core of our economy and our society, and our agricultural trade negotiators need this high visibility to represent American interests properly. I might add that agriculture disparities around the world are the only major remaining trade distortion not yet addressed either in GATT or WTO. It is agriculture trade distortions which are the major remaining significant barrier to trade with which we have not yet dealt. I am very pleased this effort includes provisions dealing with the ways we deal with products made with forced or indentured child labor. Every time I hear that phrase ``forced or indentured child labor,'' I get chills down my spine. It bothers all of us when we hear that. This conference report also includes provisions to deal with that and it includes new eligibility criteria in the GSP, Generalized System of Preferences, regarding the elimination of the worst forms of child labor. I wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, for his tireless efforts on behalf of the rights of children globally. Everyone who is concerned--and we are all--with this problem should remember the name Tom Harkin. As has Senator Harkin, I have traveled to some of the most inhospitable places in the world, and I have seen children working and living in conditions that would not be shown in a R-rated movie. I am proud to join him in supporting these measures. Finally, wool tariffs. For years, there have been efforts to reduce the tariffs on the finest worsted wool. This is a complex issue affecting the manufacturers of wool suits, the manufacturers of wool fabric, the yarn spinning industry, wool growers, and retailers. The conference report provides for the temporary reduction of tariffs on a limited quantity of certain wool fabrics. It temporarily suspends the duty on certain wool yarns, fibers, and tops. And it establishes a $9 million wool research development promotion trust fund. This fund will assist wool producers in improving the quality of wool produced in the United States and help develop and promote the wool market. I welcome this thoughtful compromise that serves all concerned groups. In sum, I am pleased the House has passed this comprehensive and historic trade package. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. America is the world leader in promoting a market economy and knocking down trade barriers in order to improve the quality of life, both in our country and abroad. We need to continue this, first, by approving this conference report, and then, shortly, by approving PNTR for China. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of S. 2370. S. 2370 names the new Foley Square Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York City, after Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But even more, I wish to pay tribute to a colleague, a mentor, and a friend. When Senator Moynihan retires from the Senate at the end of this year, he will be deeply and perhaps uniquely missed because he has contributed so much to our debates and, in fact, to our lives. There will be plenty of time for extended tributes later. Each Senator will stand up and explain in his own words the work and wonder of Senator Moynihan, particularly as the session draws to a close, and I hope to participate in those tributes at that time. The bill we are considering today is also a fitting tribute for two reasons: First, one of the many special contributions that Pat Moynihan has made to our Nation is the contribution to our public architecture. Thomas Jefferson said: Design activity and political thought are indivisible. In keeping with this, Pat Moynihan has sought to improve our public places so they reflect and uplift our civic culture. Senator Moynihan, himself, said it well back in 1961. We all know he has held many important positions in Government, in fact, so many I don't think any of us can remember them all. But only recently did I learn that he once was the staff director of something called the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space. That is right. He was. In addition to everything else, he once wrote a document called the ``Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture'' back in 1961. And that remains in effect today. It is one page long. It says that public buildings should not only be efficient and economical but also should ``provide visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American Government.'' For many years, he has worked with energy and vision to put the goals expressed in the guidelines into practice. As an assistant to President Kennedy, he was one of the driving forces behind the effort to renovate Pennsylvania Avenue, to finally achieve Pierre L'Enfant's vision. He followed through. There is the Navy Memorial, Pershing Park, the Ronald Reagan Building, and Ariel Rios. And there are other projects. Along with John Chafee, he had the vision to restore Union Station--a magnificent building--and then to complement it with the beautiful Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building. It is absolutely remarkable, leaving a lasting mark on our public places that bring us together as American citizens. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Daniel Patrick Moynihan has had a greater positive impact on American public architecture than any statesman since Thomas Jefferson. That brings me to my second point. The new courthouse in Foley Square bears Pat Moynihan's mark. It is the Nation's largest courthouse, for the Nation's oldest Federal court. Senator Moynihan was the principal sponsor of the bill authorizing its construction back in 1987. And characteristically, he followed through, paying close attention to details. At times, the courthouse has been controversial. But no one can deny its grandeur. It preserves history, uses space to great effect, and it features a graceful sculpture in the form of a fountain designed by Maya Lin, who also designed the Vietnam War Memorial. The building itself is designed by a very distinguished American firm, Kohn Pederson Fox, and it was designed, as Senator Moynihan himself has said, ``with dignity and presence.'' I am sure Senator Moynihan will correct me later if I am wrong, but I believe in St. Paul's Cathedral in London there is an inscription memorializing the architect of the cathedral, Sir Christopher Wren. It reads: If you would see his memorial, look about you. If, years from now, you stand outside the Capitol and look west, down Pennsylvania Avenue, or you stand on the steps of the Jacob Javits Federal Building in New York City and look east at the courthouse that will bear his name, you can say the same about Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: If you would see his memorial, look about you. Mr. President, this bill is a fitting tribute to a distinguished scholar, an outstanding Senator, and a great American. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are several here on the floor who would like to speak to the cloture motion. We don't have a lot of time. I would like to inquire of the assistant majority leader if he would agree to extending the time for the vote, say, another half hour at least.

Mr. BAUCUS. I make that request, if the leaders will come out on the floor to make an adjustment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there have been a lot of statements on the floor, a lot of words. A lot is accurate and a lot is inaccurate. I would like to set things straight on what it is we are voting and on what it is we are not voting. It has been said here that 100 percent of the benefit in the majority bill goes to married couples. That is true. But this is not a marriage relief bill we are talking about today. Marriage has its own rewards. We are not talking about a marriage relief bill. We are talking about a marriage tax penalty relief bill. The proposition offered by the minority Members, all Democrats on the Finance Committee, which is the amendment we hope can be offered to solve the marriage tax penalty, is a marriage tax penalty relief bill. It is not a marriage relief bill. It is a marriage tax penalty relief bill. What I am saying is 60 percent of the benefit in the majority bill goes to people who have no penalty; 100 percent of the provisions in the Democratic bill go to those who are in a penalty position. Let's remember, a little over half of Americans are in a marriage bonus situation; that is, as a consequence of marriage, they pay less taxes than they would pay if they filed singly; whereas a little less than half of Americans are in a penalty position; that is, they pay more taxes as a consequence of being married compared to what they would pay if they were married filing singly. So we are addressing the marriage tax penalty by focusing our benefits on the marriage tax penalty, not on marriage relief, which is what the majority is talking about--marriage relief. They must think marriage is a bad thing. They want to give relief to married couples. We are giving relief to married couples who suffered a tax penalty. Marriage has its own rewards. I am surprised, frankly, the majority would think that, by implication, they have to give their benefits for the sake of marriage. The proposal the Democrats are offering totally addresses marriage. It also totally addresses the marriage tax penalties. There are 65 provisions in the code today which cause a marriage tax penalty situation--65. The Democratic provision addresses all of them, all 65, so there will be no penalty consequence under the Democratic bill because of marriage. How many of the 65 penalties in the code do you think the majority bill addresses: 5? 10? 15? 20? 65? No. Three, only 3, only 3 out of the 65. One of them is Social Security differentiation. That is the penalty a couple suffers as a consequence of the Social Security tax provisions affected by marriage. There are 61 others. There is a huge difference. On the one hand, you have the majority that does not want to address the other 62 provisions of the code which cause a marriage tax penalty, whereas our bill addresses all of them. How does it address all of them? By saying to the taxpayers who are married: You have a choice. Your choice is this: You file singly or you file jointly. It is your choice. Whichever results in the lowest taxes, that is what you pay. So it has the benefit not only of addressing all the 65 provisions of the code--theirs addresses only 3 provisions of the code--but the Democratic provision, the minority provision, also has the benefit of choice, allowing taxpayers to choose what they want to do. Not theirs. You cannot choose in theirs; this is the way it is. You only get to address 3 out of the 65 on theirs. What else is going on here? The majority party wants a vote on a parliamentary procedure so many amendments--or few amendments--that both sides want to offer could not be offered. They are afraid of these amendments. They are afraid of an amendment to provide prescription drug benefits for senior citizens. They are afraid of an amendment to deal with Medicaid. They are afraid of an amendment which will help Americans provide education for their children. They are afraid of amendments on their side. They are afraid of an amendment, perhaps, dealing with estate taxes. They are afraid of that. They do not want amendments. They are afraid of them. Why are they afraid of them? I don't know why they are afraid of them. They don't want the Senate to vote on these amendments, amendments which are of very great concern to a vast majority of American citizens. Frankly, that is why we are here, to try to serve the public interest by offering and voting on amendments which affect American citizens. The problem, I might say, is this. There are maybe 80 legislative days this year. That is all. We have not been voting Mondays or Fridays, so there are probably about 50, that is all, remaining this year--50 days, maybe, we will have votes. If we cannot offer amendments that the American people want us to discuss and debate on this bill, when in the world are we going to have time to do it with only 50 days left? Basically, the majority does not want a vote on issues that concern the American people. They also do not want a vote on a better idea on how to address the marriage penalty because technically, if cloture is invoked, the amendment offered by Senator Moynihan, which is the Democratic amendment--a better idea--will not be in order. It will not be in order to address all the 65 provisions of the code called the marriage tax penalty. It will not be in order for Americans to choose; that is, choose to file jointly or separately. An amendment will not be in order to allow Americans to choose. It is no wonder all this smokescreen is being put up over here, playing politics, lots of folderol. Cut right down to the bone, the issue is, Should we be able to vote for a better way to address the marriage penalty or not? I think we should; therefore, that amendment should be in order. It will not be in order if cloture is invoked. They know that. They don't want us to be able to vote on that. In addition, they don't want a vote on other amendments, such as education and prescription drug benefits, which are a good idea. They don't want a vote on those. That is all this comes down to. I say let's vote on a couple of these amendments. Then let's vote on which of the two marriage tax penalty provisions is best. We will be doing the American people a great service by solving the marriage tax penalty problem. I yield the floor.