Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas, and I hope that other Senators pay close attention to her and her very persuasive remarks as to why legislation that will potentially come up in this body to repeal the 4.3-cent gasoline tax is a bad idea. The long and short of it, as the Senator said, is that the reason for the high gasoline prices is basically OPEC. OPEC made an announcement which will have the effect of lowering gas prices. I think the 4.3-cent tax is a phantom reduction. There will not be lower prices as a consequence of the proposal. I think the refineries will keep it and they won't pass it on. There are a whole host of reasons. The main point that is worth considering is that we labored mightily in this body and in the other body a couple years ago to pass a very significant highway program; we called it TEA 21. Was that significant? It said that for the first time all of the Federal gas taxes were going to the highway trust fund, and the highway trust fund would be used only for highways. It was a commitment: People who drive cars and trucks in our country and pay the Federal gas tax or diesel tax will know that tax is going to the highway trust fund and it should stay in the trust fund, with the trust fund dollars to be allocated among the States to build and repair our highways. That was it. It was that simple. So if the bill that may come before this body, which the Senator was addressing, were to be enacted, it would break that trust, break that commitment. It would open up the highway trust fund to potentially any purpose. It would just be the camel's nose under the tent. It would be the first step down the slippery slope of taking trust fund money and using it for other purposes. Why do I say that? Because part of the amendment is to say, OK, let's replenish it with general revenue. We all know ``general revenue'' is a slippery slope around here. We don't know how much general revenue there is going to be; therefore, the solidarity of the dollars going into the trust fund and dollars coming out of the trust fund to pay for highway modernization and new highways has to be kept sacrosanct. I hope the Senate rejects the position to repeal the 4.3-cent gas tax. It is a bad idea.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be temporarily laid aside and that the previous amendment then pending be the pending business.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend my good friend and colleague from Vermont for his leadership on this issue, as well as Senator Gramm from Texas, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, and others who are addressing this issue. Frankly, there is a great need in rural America. I compliment him and thank Senator Leahy for his work. I am a cosponsor with Senator Leahy in his efforts not only to help bring faster local-to-local service via satellite to rural America but also to help provide stimulus for more broad bandwidth coverage to rural America as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support increased research funding for diabetes, a devastating disease that afflicts 16 million Americans, one-third of whom do not even know that they have it. Diabetes kills one American every three minutes, discriminating neither on the basis of age, race, or belief. It is a lifelong affliction, with severe consequences. This was made painfully clear to me by a meeting I recently had with a boy and his family from Montana. Justin Windham, from Missoula, said to me: ``I want a cure for diabetes because I don't want to have any long term effects like: going blind, kidney problems, or losing my legs. Also I would like to be able to eat whatever my friends eat and not feel left out.'' Justin, and the 16 million other Americans with diabetes, should be able to live their lives without fear of medical complications or the pain of being ostracized. That is why Congress has a responsibility to fund diabetes research and prevention. I urge my colleagues to devote increased resources for research on diabetes, so that our scientists can find a cure.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Is there any reason the Senate cannot meet, do its business, and vote on matters of importance on Mondays and Fridays?

Mr. BAUCUS. Isn't it true that people at home who elect us want us to do the Nation's work? Isn't that what the people at home expect us to do?

Mr. BAUCUS. Didn't we just get a pay raise that went into effect this year?

Mr. BAUCUS. It went into effect this year. I compliment the Senator. I compliment both Senators for what they want to do. I want to join them. To me, it is a tragedy that the Senate is not doing the Nation's work, particularly on an issue such as the minimum wage. I commend the Senators.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I hope people listened to the words of the Senator from Massachusetts. He couldn't be more right on; namely, it is the right thing to do. Purely and simply, it is the right thing to do. For that reason only I urge Members of the Senate and my colleagues to take requisite action to get to the issue, pass the minimum wage, and do the right thing, which is pass this very significant increase in minimum wage.

Mr. BAUCUS. Has the Senate had many votes lately on Mondays or Fridays?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, something perplexes me. Is the Senate in session tomorrow?

Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe the Senator can answer another question. I think the Senator may have a good answer for this. But I don't. Why is it that the Senate spends so much time debating campaign contributions and campaign expenses at such astronomical and almost exponential rates so they can get elected but doesn't want to be here to do the Nation's work? Can the Senator explain that discrepancy?

Mr. BAUCUS. Are there going to be votes on Monday?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a young man, Sean-Michael Miles. Slightly over a year ago, his life was taken tragically in an automobile accident in Bozeman, MT, while he was home celebrating the Christmas holidays with his family. Everyone privileged to know Sean was touched by his contagious zest for life. He was among the very best to emerge from our State, from ``The Last Best Place.'' He was a shining star. He is my friend. Sean's father and I grew up as neighbors. We went to school together and remained close friends ever since. I might add, Sean's grandmother, affectionately known as Granny Miles, was one of my baby sitters. I know this family well. Their strength and love for one another is an inspiration to all of us who know them. Sean-Michael's future was as bright as one could imagine. He graduated at the top of his class in Bozeman High School in 1997 and was selected by his classmates to deliver the commencement address. That same address, filled with familiar compassion for our Native American heritage, is still talked about today. Such was its honesty, its power, its celebration of promise. At Princeton University, where Sean was in his second year, he was admired as an exceptional writer, an accomplished artist and musician. Perhaps a classmate put it best: Sean was totally brilliant and completely humble, a cool combination. Following his graduation from Princeton, Sean intended to return to his beloved Montana and commit himself to a career dedicated to writing and the preservation of our last remaining wildlands. Sean enjoyed considerable gifts, and was truly living up to them. Sean wanted to make the world a better place, and believed completely that one person can truly make a difference. There was no cynicism in his life. He befriended the friendless, and remembered the forgotten. Above all, he was making a difference. It is a loss beyond Montana's boundaries as well. Professor John McPhee of Princeton echoed such sentiments: By my lights, Sean-Michael Miles was the best that we can do--bright, responsive, hardworking, clear in expression, clear in thought, and with a personality immediately likable, immediately demanding respect. We will all miss him terribly. Sean enjoyed a way with words. I would like to share a small piece of his brilliant work. After climbing atop a remote buffalo jump, he discovered the ``drive lines'' that the Native tribes of our region used centuries ago to funnel herds of bison over the cliff's edge. Looking out beyond that edge, toward the vast expanse of the Absoorka Beartooth Wilderness, Sean wrote: Whenever I think of the changes sweeping over Montana like a spring storm, a lump forms in my throat. My first breath was drawn from mountain air. Yet I know that this land may pay a price for being beautiful, as change advances, carrying with it the prospect of loss. It is a land I desperately love. It is a part of me. It hurts so much to care so much. Yet as a Westerner, I am invited to breathe it all in deeply each day. Despite change and loss, a drive line containing wisdom offered through memories stretches before me. For now I am satisfied to walk along its path, eyes fixed on what remains a geography of hope. Sean-Michael Miles was proud to live his entire life surrounded by the majestic spine of mountains that he fondly referred to with the Blackfeet phrase, ``the backbone of the world.'' Sean's death casts a dark shadow over the future of those of us who knew and loved him. Yet it is the light he offers that we commemorate today. I have risen today to announce that I will create a fellowship in Sean's name that will focus on the conservation issues that were so dear to him. I am also pleased and honored to announce that the first Congressional Fellow serving in this prestigious position will be Sean's beloved sister Michelle. Her younger sister, Shaleen, once served as Democratic page on the floor of the Senate. So today, Michelle, who is sitting behind me, I welcome you to my staff, and I know that you bring with you your brother's finest qualities. May the legacy of Sean-Michael Miles, who walked with the silent feet of reverence through the wilds, forever serve as a source of inspiration for generations to come.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an important day. Today we are finally bringing to bear over eighteen months of hard work toward reforming the Federal Crop Insurance Program. This is an issue of vital importance to Montana. First, however, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in applauding Senators Roberts and Kerrey for their hard work in bringing a comprehensive solution to the table as well as Chairman Lugar for helping us work quickly to pass this important legislation. We can all be proud of a job well done. The bill before you to day, the Risk Management for the Twenty First Century Act, is a fine example of what can be done when we work on a bipartisan basis to solve a difficult problem. I am pleased that Montana producers and crop insurance providers also contributed largely to this effort. Last spring, I held a crop insurance community hearing in Shelby, MT. Ken Ackerman, director of the Risk Management Agency, flew out for that hearing and got quite an earful. Montana farmers told us they wanted a program they could count on. A risk management tool that would be more efficient, more cost effective, more responsible, and more accountable. A program that encourages farmers to try new and innovative crops. And a reliable system that moves us away from the annual ad hoc disaster band-aids. I would like to extend a personal thank you to Ken Ackerman and his agency for listening to our concerns and helping draft them into this legislation. Today, I am optimistic that we in the Senate are soon to make those goals a reality. The $6 billion legislative package before us today will amend the Federal Crop Insurance program in several specific ways. The measure will: Make crop insurance more affordable and broaden coverage to encourage producers to purchase the highest levels of coverage; Create more realistic production history so that produces won't be penalized for losses over several years; Encourage producers to plant new specialty crops; Require producer input on the federal crop insurance program board of directors to ensure that the program works for the people who are buying the insurance product; and Make it easier for producers to get disaster assistance for crops that have no production history. I would like to highlight one particular section in this bill--that is the provision that at long last addresses the fact that during previous farm programs, Montana specialty crop producers have had little or no safety net. This is important since traditional crop prices have collapsed and farmers have ventured into specialty markets to survive. But because they have little or no production history, they are not eligible for traditional crop insurance coverage. Instead they are subject to the Non-Insured Agriculture Program. Unfortunately, the NAP program does not work. I have been told that in order for a farmer to be indemnified, she must be a ``very lucky person.'' A loss suffered per se does not trigger payments. Instead, at least five other producers in a defined 320,000 acre area must also suffer severe losses in order to trigger NAP coverage. Clearly, unless all the pieces fall together in a perfect puzzle, it is likely that the producer will not be paid. Last year, I offered legislation that will help Montana farmers try new and innovative crops by streamlining the NAP. Among other provisions, our proposal eliminates the area trigger. That way if disaster strikes, the producer will be covered. Plain and simple. Senator Larry Craig joined me in that effort, and I am pleased that our legislation is included in the Senate bill that we are currently considering. Folks at home want to farm. They can not control the weather, but they should be able to invest in a program that helps them manage nature's unpredictable whims. With an improved crop insurance program, Montana farmers will be able to diversify, take risks and move beyond our traditional way of thinking. We have before us the perfect opportunity to do what is right for Montana and rest of rural America--pass comprehensive crop insurance reform. I thank everyone who contributed to this effort and look forward to passage in the Senate, a successful conference and President signing the bill into law in the very near future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the DCA Perimeter Rule and its impact on the West. This is very important to me because it affects western States, like Montana. I support the recent conference provisions that allow exemptions to the current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The Conferees should be commended for working to create a process that balances interests of Senators from states inside the perimeter and those of us who are from western states that do not have convenient access to National Airport. Right now passengers from small and medium-sized communities in the West are forced to make double and sometime even triple connections to fly to National Airport, or any other Washington airport. Let me talk for a minute about my home state of Montana. It takes an entire day to get from Washington to Montana or visa versa. In order to fly into Montana you need to fly in to Salt Lake, or Denver, or one of the other western hubs and wait for one of the two or three 60 passenger flights that flies into Montana that day. This is true for small communities throughout the West, especially in the Northwest corner that use hubs like Salt Lake City. The conference report has the potential to improve access throughout the West. I believe it is important that the Department of Transportation ensure that this benefit is not limited to a few large cities which already have a variety of options for flying to Washington. By enforcing this rule we are making access to DC easier for western states. The nation's Capital should be accessible without hassle to the entire country. I do not like the fact that if someone from my home state of Montana wants to come here to talk to their nations representative that they need to spend an entire day traveling, and waiting in airports for a connection. My support for this effort dates back to when this legislation was first introduced. I want to ensure that these limited exemptions benefit the people of the West. I want to make it very clear that the limited number of exemptions should not be awarded to any one airport or airline. I hope, and expect that the Department of Transportation will ensure that the 12 slots granted by the conference are distributed proportionally, so that as many cities in the West, and especially the Northwest can benefit.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work Act. I am a cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, S. 2074. The earnings test, to remind my colleagues, is a Depression-era holdover which reduces Social Security benefits for working retirees. When Social Security began 65 years ago, its creators hoped older workers would withdraw from the work force and make more room for younger workers. This was back in the 1930s, in the Depression. So they reduced retiree's Social Security benefits according to a formula, which today causes the loss of $1 in benefits for every $3 earned over $17,000 for those between the ages of 65 and 69. While this might have made sense during the Great Depression, which at its peak saw one out of every four Americans without jobs, driving older workers out of the workforce simply does not reflect the needs of today's America. Americans today are retiring sooner, and the number of employed males over the age of 65 has fallen from 47 percent 50 years ago to less than 17 percent today. In addition, we all know the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds is threatened because our society is aging. In 1950, there were 17 people in the workforce for every person drawing Social Security benefits. By 1999, this number had dropped to less than 4 people working for every one person drawing benefits. And under the intermediate projections of the Social Security trustees, this number will drop even further, to less than 2 people working for every one beneficiary by 2075. In today's era of low unemployment, it simply makes no sense to penalize retirees who want to continue working. And as we look at the continued graying of our society throughout the 21st century, it will become even more critical to eliminate disincentives to work for this growing segment of our population. Working seniors are a vital employee pool for America's businesses. We need the experience they bring from a lifetime of learning to help train our younger workers. And many seniors need the income that comes from these jobs to help make ends meet. The earnings test especially hurts senior citizens who face heavy medical bills or other expenses in caring for a spouse or other family members. Yet over 630,000 seniors today are receiving reduced Social Security benefits simply because they want or need to work. And there is no way to know how many more only work part of the year because they don't want to earn more than the $17,000 limit. We should recognize that enacting this legislation is not without its tradeoffs. Those who have their benefits reduced because of the earnings test today receive higher lifetime benefits after they turn 70. For some retirees, this tradeoff could cost them in the long run. But for seniors who are having trouble making ends meet today, the promise of higher benefits after they turn 70 seems hollow indeed. So I am glad that we are finally at least taking this first step toward restructuring the Social Security system to face the realities of our workforce in the 21st century. I am also glad, that even in this highly charged political climate, Democrats and Republicans can still find some issues that we can agree on. I hope we can continue to look for more issues like this as the session continues. Putting aside our political differences for the good of the American people, after all, is what the public wants. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to make two sets of comments on Japan today. The first relates to Japanese telecommunications deregulation. The second involves a recently issued report about the lack of compliance by Japan with the trade agreements it has signed with the United States. I am introducing today, along with Senator Grassley, a sense-of-the- Senate resolution designed to encourage the Japanese Government to deregulate and open the Japanese telecommunications sector. Intense negotiations are going on between our government and Japanese authorities, and I hope that the Senate, by speaking out forcefully, will give support to the progressive elements in Japan as they do battle with the eternal forces of protection. The United States has worked tirelessly to promote deregulation and openness in the Japanese telecommunications sector over the past 20 years. These efforts have led to significant changes in the procurement policies of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, or NTT, which used to be the government owned, monopoly domestic telecommunications provider, and is still the 800-pound gorilla in the sector. The efforts included agreements on devices for interconnection, cellular phones, and international value added networks. It involved use of U.S. laws like section 301 and section 1377, the MOSS talks, the GATT, the WTO, and the Information Technology Agreement. The United States has probably negotiated more on Japanese telecommunications than we have with any other nation over one specific sector. We have made a lot of progress, going from almost no sales by Americans in this sector in Japan two decades ago to several billion dollars today. But considerable work remains, and the focus now is under the rubric of the Enhanced Initiative on Deregulation. Japan, despite a decade of stagnation, is still the world's second largest economy with incredible cutting edge technology. Nevertheless, its pattern of consumption of high tech telecommunications goods and services makes it look more like a second tier economy. While Japan's penetration of cellular phones is among the highest in the world, it falls far behind in many other measures of high tech telecommunications usage. For example, Japan has only 20 million Internet users, compared to 80 million in the United States. Japan hosts two million web sites, while the United States hosts over 30 million. Electronic commerce in Japan is valued at less than one billion dollars, versus at least 30 times as much in the United States. And only 19 percent of Japan's schools are connected to the Internet, while in the United States 89 percent of schools are: The explanation is that Japan has a non-competitive regulatory system in telecommunications that prevents market forces from fully operating. Foreign telecommunications service and equipment providers are limited in their ability to do business in Japan. This means that Japanese consumers are prevented from obtaining the highest quality telecommunications technology at the lowest price. They are not allowed to choose from the incredible array of services and products available around the world. And they pay higher prices than they should. Japanese firms also suffer for the same reasons in their procurement of telecommunications goods and services. They cannot get the best, and they overpay for what they can buy. Many modern services are simply unavailable in Japan. If the Japanese Government wanted to follow a path that would lead to higher economic growth, greater choice and lower prices for its consumers, and increased efficiency for its industry, it would deregulate this sector immediately. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution I am introducing today simply stresses the need for significant regulatory reform in Japan, supports USTR in vigorously pursuing this, and sends the message to Japan that the Senate is strongly behind such an effort. Deregulation serves American and international business. It serves the Japanese economy. It serves the Japanese consumer. It serves Japanese industry. And it serves the regional and global economy which needs a growing Japan. In the long run, everyone would be a winner if Japan let market forces operate. The second issue I want to address today is a report issued earlier this month by the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, the ACCJ, on Japan's compliance, or, rather, insufficient compliance, with trade agreements. The study, ``Making Trade Talks Work 2000: An On-the-Ground Analysis of US-Japan Trade Agreements by American Businesses,'' looked at 58 major United States/Japan trade agreements reached between 1980 and 1999. The ACCJ rates 51 of them on a numerical basis, using four measures. Their astounding conclusion was that 53 percent were fully or mostly successful, while 47 percent were rated as partially successful, successful in only one or two ways, or unsuccessful. This rating, performed by American companies and industry associations on the ground in Japan, working every day in the trenches to penetrate the Japanese market, should be a wake-up call to all of us. Despite all the attention spent on opening the Japanese market during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, barely half of the agreements signed actually worked. This is an utterly unacceptable result. I commend this report to my colleagues. Not only is its analysis excellent, but the ACCJ offers a range of recommendations for future action. Compliance by other nations with trade agreements is a serious problem for our country, and it will likely get worse. Many of the easy trade barriers around the world, such as tariffs and quotas, have been significantly reduced or eliminated. Now, we face the tougher trade barriers, such as anti-competitive practices and internal regulations and standards designed to keep out foreign goods and services. These barriers are harder to identify, harder to get agreement on, and it is harder to measure the results. I am very worried about our government's system of monitoring trade agreements and ensuring that our trading partners will comply with their commitments. The GAO has told us that there is not even a place in the government where you can go to get a list of all trade agreements. When the ACCJ did its earlier study in 1997, they spent months just assembling all United States-Japan bilateral trade agreements. If you don't know what agreements exist, how can you enforce them? In its most recent report on this subject, the GAO concluded that the Executive Branch needed a more integrated approach to monitoring and enforcing trade agreements and should pursue a process of comprehensive and sustained strategic planning. GAO also concluded that declining staff levels have limited agencies' monitoring and enforcement activities. Some of the special skills needed to deal with the new complex trade agreements is also lacking. I deeply appreciate the ACCJ's diligence in presenting us with an objective analysis of the Japanese market situation. But, as GAO indicates, this may be just the tip of the iceberg internationally. The problem is pervasive, and I don't see any trends that will make it better. That is why, among other reasons, I recently introduced the China WTO compliance bill to make sure that, once China enters the WTO, we won't have this massive violation of our trade agreements as has happened with Japan. That is why I recently introduced a bill to establish a Congressional Trade Office to provide the Congress with precisely the type of objective information that the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan has provided, and to help those of us in the Congress ensure that trade agreements reached are trade agreements implemented. I call on my colleagues to work with me to develop a system that will ensure that American workers, farmers, and businesses will benefit from the trade agreements that our trade officials so diligently negotiate.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ years ago, when the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) was enacted, few Members of Congress paid much attention to a small section in the BBA that created a new program for hospitals in frontier and rural communities. This program, called the Critical Access Hospital, was buried among hundreds of provisions affecting Medicare. Yet, in many ways, it may well be one of the most lasting achievements of that session of Congress. The Critical Access Hospital idea is based on a very successful demonstration project in Montana. This project, called the Medical Assistance Facility Demonstration Project, was coordinated by the Montana Health Research and Education Foundation (MHREF). This foundation is affiliated with MHA, an Association of Montana Health Care Providers, formerly the Montana Hospital Association. As is usually the case, many people can claim at least some of the credit for the huge success of the MAF demonstration project. But the person who should claim the lion's share of the credit has never chosen to do so. It is that person--Keith McCarty--who I would like to recognize today. Keith McCarty joined MHREF in 1989. At that time, even the concept of an MAF was vague. Several years earlier, a citizens' task force had dreamed up the idea of a limited service hospital to provide access to primary hospital and health care services in rural and frontier communities. Acting on the recommendations of the task force, the Montana Legislature had created a special licensure category for these hospitals. MHA, the state department of health and others seized the opportunity created by the Legislature and, working with the regional office of the Department of Health and Human Services, developed a demonstration project aimed at determining whether MAFs would actually work. Keith was hired with the unenviable task of transforming this amorphous concept into reality, a job few gave him much hope of performing successfully. Keith brought a broad range of skills to his job. Trained as a psychologist, from 1968 to 1975, he worked with the developmentally disabled in a variety of positions, including serving as the Superintendent of the Boulder, Montana School and Hospital, the state's school for developmentally disabled children. Beginning in 1975, he provided professional contract services for a wide variety of health care and social service organizations. By the time he joined MHREF, Keith was skilled at managing projects, preparing grant applications, coordinating and supervising grant-funded projects, program development and evaluation, research and data analysis, facilitating community decision-making and inter-agency cooperation. All these were skills he would use in developing the MAF demonstration project. The MAF demonstration project brought its share of challenges. Among Keith's toughest challenges was convincing communities that the quality of their health care would not decline if they converted to MAF status. Once beyond that hurdle, Keith worked tirelessly with the state's peer review organization, fiscal intermediary, facility licensure and certification bureau and HHS officials to remove other potential roadblocks. First one facility made the conversion, then another and before long there were more than twice as many as the project thought might convert to MAF status. I pushed for the Medicare waiver in the early 1990s, and the Medical Assistance Facility became a reality. As the demonstration neared completion, Keith worked closely with my staff to draft the Critical Access Hospital legislation that I introduced in 1997 and saw through to final passage as part of the BBA. His insights about how Critical Access Hospitals might function, in practical terms, proved invaluable. And the model embodied in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 closely parallels the experience Montana's MAFs enjoyed. Keith McCarty retired on December 31, 1999. He retired only after ensuring that Montana's MAFs were able to seamlessly transition into the new Critical Access Hospital program. His departure from MHREF marks a fitting transition for the Critical Access Hospital program. Once only a dream in the minds of a few people in the sparsely-populated areas of central Montana, the Critical Access Hospital has already become an institution in many communities across America. Keith is far too modest to take credit for his labors. So, what he won't say, we should. Keith's efforts--and the MAF demonstration project--have been recognized in special awards from the National Rural Health Association and the American Hospital Association. But perhaps the most fitting tribute that can be paid is to note that today, in 15 communities in Montana, routine health care services are provided in Critical Access Hospitals. If there had been no MAF demonstration project, health care services in at least half of these towns would no longer be available. I want to acknowledge and thank Keith McCarty for the service he has provided to so many Montanans.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce critical legislation in the fight against methamphetamine use in rural America. Methamphetamine, also known as ``meth'' is a powerful and addictive drug. Considered by many youths to be a casual, soft-core drug with few lasting effects, meth can actually cause more long-term damage to the body than cocaine or crack. I recently invited General Barry McCaffrey, our drug czar, along with Dr. Don Vereen, his deputy, to Montana to focus attention on the problem of meth use. Their visit was well-received by residents of our state, and much-needed. The fact is, there are a good many talented Montanans working on the meth problem, but they have few resources with which to wage the battle. Moreover, their efforts are often fragmented, not coordinated to the extent they could be, particularly among the treatment, prevention, and law enforcement communities. To make their job easier, Montana has petitioned to be considered part of the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Although the Rocky Mountain HIDTA authorities have stated their willingness to include Montana in its organization, they lack the resources to make that happen. The bill I am introducing today would authorize funding to make Montana's admission to the Rocky Mountain HIDTA a reality. Here's why that's necessary. In 1998, the number of juveniles charged with drug-related or violent crimes in the Yellowstone County Youth Court rose by 30 percent. In Lame Deer--the community of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation-- kids as young as 8 years old have been seen for meth addiction. Last November in our state, a meth lab blew up in Great Falls, leading to a half dozen arrests. Meth use in Montana has doubled in the past few years. Cases are growing and the states law enforcement can no longer fight the problem. Mr. President, the DEA reported an increase of meth lab seizures in Montana of 900% from 1993 to 1998. And according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, based on methamphetamine admission rates per 100,000 persons, Montana is one of eight states with a ``serious methamphetamine problem.'' The meth problem is particularly severe on Montana's Indian reservations, of which our state has seven. Life is hard there. In some reservation towns, over half of the working age adults are unemployed. Because meth is cheap and relatively easy to make, these lower-income individuals are a natural target for meth peddlers. Without viable employment options, too often these young people turn to drugs. And that's the case throughout Montana, not just on the reservations. In 1998, Montana ranked 47th in the nation in per-capita personal income, 50th in personal income from wages and salaries, and second in the nation for the number of people who work two or more jobs. Since poverty and drug use often go hand in hand, it came as little surprise to me when a recent report showed a dramatic uptick in the incidence of drug abuse in rural America. The report, commissioned by the Drug Enforcement Administration and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, focused primarily on 13- and 14-year-olds. It showed that eighth graders in rural America are 83 percent more likely to use crack cocaine than their urban counterparts. They are 50 percent more likely to use cocaine, 34 percent more likely to smoke marijuana, 29 percent more likely to drink alcohol. Even more shocking, the report showed that rural eighth graders were 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines, including methamphetamine. Let me clarify, Mr. President. That is double the rate of urban eighth graders. The bill I am proposing today would provide Montana the resources to put forth a coordinated effort in the fight against meth in Montana. By admitting Yellowstone, Cascade and Missoula counties to the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, Montana can focus its efforts on the three largest problem areas for meth use. It would increase law enforcement and forensic personnel in Montana; coordinate efforts to exchange information among law enforcement agencies; and engage in a public information campaign to educate the public about the dangers of meth use. Mr. President, the time has come to fight this scourge. Montana is under seige by meth, and we must do all we can to stop it--for the good of our state and those around us.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the passage of S. 1653, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments, a bipartisan bill that will encourage cooperative approaches to wildlife conservation. By way of background, in 1984, with broad bipartisan support, Congress created the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a nonprofit corporation with the mission of conserving our nation's fish, wildlife, plant, and other natural resources. Over the past 15 years, the Foundation has established a solid track record. It has achieved on-the-ground results. it has also stretched federal dollars and built public-private partnerships essential to conservation efforts. All told, the Foundation has provided more than 3,500 grants to over 940 private local organizations, state and country governments, tribes, federal and interstate agencies, and colleges and universities in all 50 states. By requiring grantees to match Foundation grants with non-federal funds, the $135 million in federal funds invested by the Foundation have been leveraged to deliver more than $440 million to natural resource conservation efforts. Significantly, these funds are used to help build public-private partnerships among individual landowners, government and tribal agencies, conservation organizations, and business. The result is the development of consensus, locally-driven solutions to the challenges involved in protecting and managing fish, wildlife, plants, and other natural resources. In my home state of Montana, where fishing, hunting, and the enjoyment of our natural resources are deeply ingrained into our way of life, the Foundation has made important contributions to conservation efforts. These contributions include supporting environmental education, habitat restoration and protection, resource management, and the development of conservation policy. In 2000, the Foundation will support nine important projects in Montana, for a total $821,700. These projects include restoring arctic grayling within their historic range in the upper Missouri River basin; improving trout passage through the Milltown Dam to assist fluvial westslope cutthroat and bull trout moving upstream to spawn; supporting the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee; supporting a comprehensive K thru 12 environmental education program for 300 Bitterroot Valley students; and partnerships with private landowners to conserve Montana's shortgrass prairie habitat and the bird species it supports. Let me describe one of these efforts in a little more detail. In Northwest Montana, westslope cutthroat and bull trout have declined throughout their historic range over the last 100 years, in part because of barriers that limit their spawning migrations. To address this problem, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, working with the Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited will capture, tag, and transport mature westslope cutthroat and bull trout around Milltown Dam near Missoula and release them upstream of the dam so the fish can continue their spawning migration in the upper Clark Fork watershed (including the Blackfork River and its tributaries, and the Rock Creek drainage). Radio transmitters will be implanted in the fish to monitor their spawning sites and success. This is just one example. Over the years, the Foundation has funded 187 projects and delivered a total of almost $13 million to conservation projects in Montana. Mr. President, even with these accomplishments, the need to conserve the nation's natural resources remains. Today, in too many areas of the country, the health and sustainability of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which they depend, are threatened. Bitter disputes continue to arise among interests when solutions to difficult natural resource problems are sought. Tight budgets often severely limit the ability of governments and private entities to adequately address conservation challenges. Because of all these factors, the Foundation, which promotes conservation by building partnerships and consensus, is as important today as it was in 1984. The bill we are considering, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments, will increase the Foundation's ability to carry out its mission. First and foremost, the legislation authorizes federal appropriations through 2004 to support the Foundation's work. The legislation also strengthens the Foundation by increasing the size of its board of directors and allowing board members to be removed for nonperformance. Finally, the bill broadens the Foundation's authority by allowing it to work with all agencies within the Departments of Interior and Commerce. The legislation is nearly identical to legislation the Senate passed last year. Mr. President, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has provided valuable assistance to this nation's natural resource conservation efforts over the past 15 years. If the legislation we are considering today is enacted, I have no doubt that the Foundation will continue its solid record of accomplishment. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year I introduced a bill to create a Congressional Trade Office. That bill was designed to provide the Congress with new and additional trade expertise that would be independent, non-partisan, and neutral. Today, I am introducing the same bill with several small changes. The role of Congress in trade policy has expanded in the few short months since I introduced my bill in September. We went through Seattle and the failure to launch a new multilateral trade round. The public is more interested in trade issues than ever before. There is a new urgency to reconcile labor and environmental issues with trade. We are on the cusp of seeing China enter the WTO with permanent Normal Trade Relations with the United States. The General Accounting Office has told us of the deficiencies in the Executive Branch in following trade agreements and monitoring compliance. And, for the first time, trade will be an issue in the Presidential campaign, as well as in Senate and House races. Congress needs to be much better prepared. And that means we need access to more and better information, independently arrived, at from people whose commitment is to the Congress, and only to the Congress. Congress has the Constitutional authority to provide more effective and active oversight of our Nation's trade policy. We must use that authority. Congress should be more active in setting the direction of trade policy. I believe strongly that we must re-assert Congress' constitutionally defined responsibility for international commerce. A Congressional Trade Office would provide the entire Congress, through the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, with this additional trade expertise. It would have three sets of responsibilities. First, it will monitor compliance with major bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. Last week, along with Senator Murkowski and several other Senators, I introduced the China WTO Compliance Act. That bill is designed to ensure continuing and comprehensive monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It is also designed to ensure aggressive Administration action to ensure compliance with those commitments. But that bill deals only with China. Congress needs the independent ability to look more closely at agreements with other countries. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze the performance under key agreements and evaluate success based on commercial results. It will do this in close consultation with the affected industries. The Congressional Trade Office will recommend to the Congress actions necessary to ensure that commitments made to the United States are fully implemented. It will also provide annual assessments about the agreements' compliance with labor and environmental goals. Second, the Congressional Trade Office will have an analytic function. For example, after the Administration delivers its annual National Trade Estimates report, the NTE, to Congress, it will analyze the major outstanding trade barriers based on the cost to the US economy. It will also provide an analysis of the Administration's Trade Policy Agenda. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze proposed trade agreements, including agreements that do not require legislation to enter into effect. It will examine the impact of Administration trade policy actions, including an assessment of the Administration's argument for not accepting an unfair trade practices case. And it will analyze the trade accounts every quarter, including the global current account, the global trade account, and key bilateral trade accounts. Third, the Congressional Trade Office will be active in dispute settlement deliberations. It will evaluate each WTO decision where the US is a participant. In the case of a US loss, it will explain why it lost. In the case of a US win, it will measure the commercial results from that decision. It will do a similar evaluation for NAFTA disputes. Congressional Trade Office staff should participate as observers on the US delegation at dispute settlement panel meetings at the WTO. The Congressional Trade Office is designed to service the Congress. Its Director will report to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It will also advise other committees on the impact of trade negotiations and the impact of the Administration's trade policy on those committees' areas of jurisdiction. The staff will consist of professionals who have a mix of expertise in economics and trade law, plus in various industries and geographic regions. My expectation is that staff members will see this as a career position, thus, providing the Congress with long-term institutional memory. The Congressional Trade Office will work closely with other government entities involved in trade policy assessment, including the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and the International Trade Commission. The Congressional Trade Office will not replace those agencies. Rather, the Congressional Trade Office will supplement their work, and leverage the work of those entities to provide the Congress with timely analysis, information, and advice. Dispute resolution and compliance with trade agreements are central elements of US trade policy. The credibility of the global trading system, and the integrity of American trade law, depend on the belief, held by trade professionals, political leaders, industry representatives, workers, farmers, and the public at large, that agreements made are agreements followed. They must be fully implemented. There must be effective enforcement. Dispute settlement must be rapid and effective. Often more energy goes into negotiating new agreements than into ensuring that existing agreements work. The Administration has increased the resources it devotes to compliance, and I support that. But an independent and neutral assessment in the Congress of compliance is necessary. It is unrealistic to expect an agency that negotiated an agreement to provide a totally objective and dispassionate assessment of that agreement's success or failure. Looking at the WTO dispute settlement process, I don't think we even know whether it has been successful or not from the perspective of U.S. commercial interests. A count of wins versus losses tells us nothing. The Congressional Trade Office will give us the facts we need to evaluate this process properly. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says: ``The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' It is our responsibility to provide oversight and direction on US trade policy. The Congressional Trade Office, as I have outlined it today, will provide us in the Congress with the means to do so.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year I introduced a bill to create a Congressional Trade Office. That bill was designed to provide the Congress with new and additional trade expertise that would be independent, non-partisan, and neutral. Today, I am introducing the same bill with several small changes. The role of Congress in trade policy has expanded in the few short months since I introduced my bill in September. We went through Seattle and the failure to launch a new multilateral trade round. The public is more interested in trade issues than ever before. There is a new urgency to reconcile labor and environmental issues with trade. We are on the cusp of seeing China enter the WTO with permanent Normal Trade Relations with the United States. The General Accounting Office has told us of the deficiencies in the Executive Branch in following trade agreements and monitoring compliance. And, for the first time, trade will be an issue in the Presidential campaign, as well as in Senate and House races. Congress needs to be much better prepared. And that means we need access to more and better information, independently arrived, at from people whose commitment is to the Congress, and only to the Congress. Congress has the Constitutional authority to provide more effective and active oversight of our Nation's trade policy. We must use that authority. Congress should be more active in setting the direction of trade policy. I believe strongly that we must re-assert Congress' constitutionally defined responsibility for international commerce. A Congressional Trade Office would provide the entire Congress, through the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, with this additional trade expertise. It would have three sets of responsibilities. First, it will monitor compliance with major bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. Last week, along with Senator Murkowski and several other Senators, I introduced the China WTO Compliance Act. That bill is designed to ensure continuing and comprehensive monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It is also designed to ensure aggressive Administration action to ensure compliance with those commitments. But that bill deals only with China. Congress needs the independent ability to look more closely at agreements with other countries. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze the performance under key agreements and evaluate success based on commercial results. It will do this in close consultation with the affected industries. The Congressional Trade Office will recommend to the Congress actions necessary to ensure that commitments made to the United States are fully implemented. It will also provide annual assessments about the agreements' compliance with labor and environmental goals. Second, the Congressional Trade Office will have an analytic function. For example, after the Administration delivers its annual National Trade Estimates report, the NTE, to Congress, it will analyze the major outstanding trade barriers based on the cost to the US economy. It will also provide an analysis of the Administration's Trade Policy Agenda. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze proposed trade agreements, including agreements that do not require legislation to enter into effect. It will examine the impact of Administration trade policy actions, including an assessment of the Administration's argument for not accepting an unfair trade practices case. And it will analyze the trade accounts every quarter, including the global current account, the global trade account, and key bilateral trade accounts. Third, the Congressional Trade Office will be active in dispute settlement deliberations. It will evaluate each WTO decision where the US is a participant. In the case of a US loss, it will explain why it lost. In the case of a US win, it will measure the commercial results from that decision. It will do a similar evaluation for NAFTA disputes. Congressional Trade Office staff should participate as observers on the US delegation at dispute settlement panel meetings at the WTO. The Congressional Trade Office is designed to service the Congress. Its Director will report to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It will also advise other committees on the impact of trade negotiations and the impact of the Administration's trade policy on those committees' areas of jurisdiction. The staff will consist of professionals who have a mix of expertise in economics and trade law, plus in various industries and geographic regions. My expectation is that staff members will see this as a career position, thus, providing the Congress with long-term institutional memory. The Congressional Trade Office will work closely with other government entities involved in trade policy assessment, including the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and the International Trade Commission. The Congressional Trade Office will not replace those agencies. Rather, the Congressional Trade Office will supplement their work, and leverage the work of those entities to provide the Congress with timely analysis, information, and advice. Dispute resolution and compliance with trade agreements are central elements of US trade policy. The credibility of the global trading system, and the integrity of American trade law, depend on the belief, held by trade professionals, political leaders, industry representatives, workers, farmers, and the public at large, that agreements made are agreements followed. They must be fully implemented. There must be effective enforcement. Dispute settlement must be rapid and effective. Often more energy goes into negotiating new agreements than into ensuring that existing agreements work. The Administration has increased the resources it devotes to compliance, and I support that. But an independent and neutral assessment in the Congress of compliance is necessary. It is unrealistic to expect an agency that negotiated an agreement to provide a totally objective and dispassionate assessment of that agreement's success or failure. Looking at the WTO dispute settlement process, I don't think we even know whether it has been successful or not from the perspective of U.S. commercial interests. A count of wins versus losses tells us nothing. The Congressional Trade Office will give us the facts we need to evaluate this process properly. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says: ``The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' It is our responsibility to provide oversight and direction on US trade policy. The Congressional Trade Office, as I have outlined it today, will provide us in the Congress with the means to do so.