Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference report on Federal Aviation Reauthorization. I am pleased that Congressional negotiators have reached an agreement providing needed resources and investment for the federal aviation programs, while maintaining budgetary discipline. The final agreement maintains the FAA on-budget status but insures that the money in the Trust Fund will be spent only on aviation programs. The agreement provides a strong and enforceable guarantee to ensure that FAA appropriations will be no less than the amounts paid annually into the Trust Fund. The final agreement also permits the use of general funds for aviation programs subject to the normal appropriation process. This combination of Trust Fund and general fund revenue will help to ensure that much needed construction and maintenance are carried out as part of our nation's aviation program. Part of the agreement reached by the conferees includes a provision which addresses what I believe is a complicated and growing problem-- flight delays and cancellations. The problem is not that delays and cancellations occur. Airlines must maintain a tight schedule and that schedule can be greatly affected by weather or equipment problems. For travelers, it is a mystery whether these delays and cancellations are caused by weather, equipment problems, or economic convenience. Nobody knows. The airlines don't have to tell you. After you finally reach your destination, there's a good chance that you'll never know why you were stranded thousands of miles from home or why you missed that important business meeting. But flights also are canceled or delayed for economic reasons, not just mechanical or weather-related problems. And when these economic delays and cancellations occur, it's usually rural America that gets the short end of the stick. For instance, if there are 40 people in Denver waiting for a flight to Billings, MT and another 120 waiting to go to San Francisco but only one plane is available, the flight to Billings will be canceled. For the Airlines, its simple. It costs less to put 30 people up in a hotel and send them on to Billings the next day than it does to send 120 California-bound people to a hotel. That is wrong. If flights are canceled for economic or other reasons, passengers deserve to know the truth. It will also allow them to shop around for the airline that has the best performance record. When you only have a couple of flights into a town, as is the case with much of rural America, cancellations are not just an inconvenience. There is an economic impact as well. As my home state of Montana, and our neighbors in North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho can attest, what business is going to relocate to an area where flight service is not reliable? Right now, Montana's economy needs work. Our state ranks near the bottom of per-capita individual income. Other measures of economic progress are also pretty low. Reliable air service doesn't guarantee economic growth. But without it, workers and employers alike have a difficult burden to bear. That is why I am pleased that the conference report contains a version of my amendment to require air carriers to more fully disclose the cause of delays. The conference report creates a task force that will modify Airline Service Quality Performance Reports to reflect the reasons for such delays and cancellations, such as snow storms, mechanical difficulties or economic reasons, like the one I just mentioned. This task force will consist of representatives of airline consumers and air carriers. Currently, the ten largest airlines have to report monthly to the Department of Transportation all flights that are more than 15 minutes late to and from the 29 U.S. airports that make up at least 1 percent of the nation's total domestic scheduled-service passenger enplanements. This statistic includes cancellations. My provision will broaden this reporting so that more passengers will have this information. I realize that simply reporting the reason will not stop the practice of delaying flights or canceling them for economic reasons. Airlines are a business. An industry. As such, they must make business decisions that will keep their operation in the black. But, if airlines have to start reporting the reasons for missed connections and disrupted lives, consumers can start making their own choices about which airline to fly. In the end I hope this information will lead to more dependable service around the country, but especially in rural America.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the China WTO Compliance Act, along with Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Akaka, Wyden, and Dorgan. This bill is designed to ensure continuous and rigorous monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It also provides new mechanisms in the Congress and in the Executive Branch to make sure that China complies with those commitments. Twenty years of negotiations with our Asian partners have demonstrated that trade agreements are often not self-executing. This is just as true with China today as it has been with Japan over these last two decades. The Congress and the Administration must both be resolutely committed to monitoring and enforcement. Only then do our trade agreements succeed and bring the desired results. Inattention by the United States leads to inaction by our trading partners. It leads to failure to achieve market opening objectives. This bill will make sure that future Congresses and future Administrations, whether they are Democratic or Republican, will keep trade agreement compliance permanently at the top of the agenda with China. We must ensure that inattention never sets in. We must also ensure that other elements in the bilateral relationship not be allowed to prevent the United States from gaining the maximum trade and economic benefit from China's WTO promises. Let me be clear that this bill is not designed to set conditions for the Congressional vote on granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. Rather, this bill addresses one of the major concerns that many in the Congress have. That is, China historical record in complying with bilateral trade agreements has been spotty. So, how can we be confident that compliance with this agreement will be any better? I hope that enactment of this bill will provide some reassurance to Senators and House members in this regard. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in approving this legislation. Let me outline the main provisions of the China WTO Compliance Act. First, monitoring. The President must submit a detailed plan to Congress for monitoring Chinese compliance three months after China accedes to the WTO. The plan must be updated yearly and include detailed tasking responsibilities for each agency. The General Accounting Office will be required annually to survey the top 50 American firms in each of five different categories. Companies that export non-agricultural goods to China. That export agricultural goods to China. That provide services in China. That invest in China. And that import goods from China. The purpose of the survey is to determine if China is abiding by its WTO commitments. The survey will also provide information about any problems confronted by those firms. The International Trade Commission will report annually on United States-China bilateral export and import statistics. They will also, as best they can, seek to reconcile the different United States-source and China-source statistics. The second element in the bill deals with compliance. USTR must submit an annual report to Congress on China's compliance with its WTO commitments. After analyzing this report, a majority vote of either the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee would require USTR to initiate a Section 301 investigation of Chinese practices that do not abide by China's WTO commitments. If USTR then determines that China is violating any of those commitments, USTR shall initiate dispute settlement action at the WTO, unless there exists another more effective action. USTR shall consult with the Congress and provide an explanation of its action. Going further, a majority vote of both the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee will require USTR to initiate immediately a case under the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. The bill also amends Section 301. It authorizes USTR to draw a negative inference if a country being investigated does not cooperate in providing information. This has become a serious problem with some of our trading partners. A 301 investigation can bog down when a country with a non-transparent trading regime refuses to provide detailed information. This provision provides an incentive for cooperation. Third, the bill calls for a special WTO review of China. It is the Sense of the Congress that there should be a special multilateral process at the WTO for a thorough and comprehensive annual review of Chinese compliance. The bill directs USTR to propose that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the TPRM, at the WTO execute such a review of China's trade policies every year. It also directs USTR to take measures to improve the TPRM process. Finally, institution-building in China. Coming out of half a century of communism, China does not have the institutions necessary to carry out fully its WTO obligations. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to provide assistance to China to build those institutions necessary to fulfill the obligations China has made as part of its accession to the WTO. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should provide such assistance through bilateral mechanisms, in particular, through appropriate non- governmental organizations. It also provides for the possibility of some multilateral assistance under the auspices of the WTO. Finally, because a primary beneficiary of the results of successful institution-building in China would be American business, efforts shall be made to develop cost-sharing with the private sector. There has been a lot of talk about the need to ensure full Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. This bill is an attempt to establish a system that will do just that. We need this legislation. And we need to pass PNTR as soon as possible. Let me conclude with a few remarks about Chinese compliance with the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect in December. Three weeks ago, I initiated a letter signed by 53 Senators to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. In the letter, we insisted that China proceed with full and immediate implementation of that agreement. I was pleased to announce on Monday the first purchase by China under this agreement. 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. This is an important step that should be followed by other agricultural purchases.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious development in foreign trade. It is a development which hurts American interests. It has been brewing for quite some time, and it finally came to a head last week in Geneva. A World Trade Organization (WTO) appeals panel ruled against us in a case the European Union brought against American tax law. The ruling was not a complete surprise. A few months ago, the WTO ruled that our laws for Foreign Sales Corporations, usually known as FSC's, are illegal export subsidies. We appealed that decision. We lost the appeal. The WTO said that we have until October 1 of this year to come into compliance with the ruling. Why is the WTO dealing with this case to begin with? Why isn't it sticking to its mandate, which is international trade, and stay out of tax matters? The EU brought this case to the WTO 2 years ago. In doing so, Europe broke an agreement with us that dates back to 1981. Congress passed the FSC in 1984. I remember very well all the work that we put into crafting the rules to place U.S. exports on a more equal footing with European competition. In crafting the rules, we relied on that 1981 understanding with the EU. It confirmed that foreign source income need not be taxed, and that failing to tax such income is not a subsidy. European exporters are not taxed on such income, and they enjoy value added tax rebates on exports as well. This case is just another step in a European Union campaign which undermines the world trading system. We saw it very clearly last year in the run-up to the Seattle ministerial. EU leaders tried in every way they could to avoid coming to the table to talk seriously about their number one problem: agriculture. First, they started a public relations campaign to downplay expectations. In a number of meetings, they hinted that the Seattle talks would probably fail. Second, they tried to overload the negotiating agenda. They wanted to turn the trade talks into such a complex undertaking that we would never get to the real problem: EU agriculture. Third, they stalled in Geneva, so there wasn't any agreement on the scope of agriculture talks in Seattle. In 1995, they agreed to start agriculture talks in January 2000. But they wanted to put off getting down to business for as long as possible. They are still trying to put it off. Putting it off hurts American farmers and agro-business. Putting it off hurts developing countries. Putting it off even hurts Europe itself in the long term. It just undermines confidence in the world trading system. This FSC case makes things worse. Let's be very clear on what's going on here. We can set aside the European rhetoric about ``respecting international obligations'' in tax policy. That's not what this case is about. If the EU were serious about ``respect for international obligations,'' it would take a close look at the tax policies of its members. This case is not about respecting international obligations. This case is not about tax policy. If the EU were seriously concerned about the trade effects of tax policy, it wouldn't file a case in the World Trade Organization. That's no way to fix an international tax problem. Instead, it would seek multi-party talks in an organization like the OECD or the UN. But the EU doesn't really care about tax policy in this case. This case is not even about money. The EU has no real commercial interest at stake here. They haven't demonstrated any appreciable adverse impact on European companies from US tax laws. In fact, a number of European companies benefit from FSC! They have domestic subsidiaries in the United States, and these subsidiaries have set up Foreign Sales Corporations. So what is this case about? It's about revenge. Pure, simple revenge. The Eurocrats want revenge for losing WTO disputes with the United States over bananas and beef. That's an open secret. Everyone knows where this case came from. It didn't come from European manufacturers facing unfair competition from US firms because of FSC. It didn't come from European banks. Or from European consumers. Or from European farmers. It didn't come from the members states. It came from EU bureaucrats, the gnomes of Brussels. They were angry over losing the beef and banana disputes with the United States. The cases were long and hard. They took years. The EU fought us all the way. They lost at every turn, because we were in the right. When they refused to correct their illegal policies, the WTO authorized us to retaliate legally. And we did. For revenge, the Eurocrats wanted to poke us in the eye, and show us that they could hurt us. So they took this case, which had been sitting on their shelf for years. They dusted it off and sent it to the WTO, despite our 1981 agreement with them on tax policy. Well, they're playing with fire. Using the WTO as an instrument of revenge is dangerous for them, and dangerous for us. The WTO is a five- year old child. Its dispute settlement system is still young and fragile. The FSC case strains its resources, which are limited. But more important, the FSC case strains the political acceptability of the WTO system. The political leaders of the EU should not have let this case go forward. It was a bad judgement on their part. Now it is in their interest and in the interest of the world trade system for them to settle this case amicably and fast. It will take wisdom and courage for them to do so. I hope they find that wisdom and courage.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the China WTO Compliance Act, along with Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Akaka, Wyden, and Dorgan. This bill is designed to ensure continuous and rigorous monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It also provides new mechanisms in the Congress and in the Executive Branch to make sure that China complies with those commitments. Twenty years of negotiations with our Asian partners have demonstrated that trade agreements are often not self-executing. This is just as true with China today as it has been with Japan over these last two decades. The Congress and the Administration must both be resolutely committed to monitoring and enforcement. Only then do our trade agreements succeed and bring the desired results. Inattention by the United States leads to inaction by our trading partners. It leads to failure to achieve market opening objectives. This bill will make sure that future Congresses and future Administrations, whether they are Democratic or Republican, will keep trade agreement compliance permanently at the top of the agenda with China. We must ensure that inattention never sets in. We must also ensure that other elements in the bilateral relationship not be allowed to prevent the United States from gaining the maximum trade and economic benefit from China's WTO promises. Let me be clear that this bill is not designed to set conditions for the Congressional vote on granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. Rather, this bill addresses one of the major concerns that many in the Congress have. That is, China historical record in complying with bilateral trade agreements has been spotty. So, how can we be confident that compliance with this agreement will be any better? I hope that enactment of this bill will provide some reassurance to Senators and House members in this regard. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in approving this legislation. Let me outline the main provisions of the China WTO Compliance Act. First, monitoring. The President must submit a detailed plan to Congress for monitoring Chinese compliance three months after China accedes to the WTO. The plan must be updated yearly and include detailed tasking responsibilities for each agency. The General Accounting Office will be required annually to survey the top 50 American firms in each of five different categories. Companies that export non-agricultural goods to China. That export agricultural goods to China. That provide services in China. That invest in China. And that import goods from China. The purpose of the survey is to determine if China is abiding by its WTO commitments. The survey will also provide information about any problems confronted by those firms. The International Trade Commission will report annually on United States-China bilateral export and import statistics. They will also, as best they can, seek to reconcile the different United States-source and China-source statistics. The second element in the bill deals with compliance. USTR must submit an annual report to Congress on China's compliance with its WTO commitments. After analyzing this report, a majority vote of either the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee would require USTR to initiate a Section 301 investigation of Chinese practices that do not abide by China's WTO commitments. If USTR then determines that China is violating any of those commitments, USTR shall initiate dispute settlement action at the WTO, unless there exists another more effective action. USTR shall consult with the Congress and provide an explanation of its action. Going further, a majority vote of both the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee will require USTR to initiate immediately a case under the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. The bill also amends Section 301. It authorizes USTR to draw a negative inference if a country being investigated does not cooperate in providing information. This has become a serious problem with some of our trading partners. A 301 investigation can bog down when a country with a non-transparent trading regime refuses to provide detailed information. This provision provides an incentive for cooperation. Third, the bill calls for a special WTO review of China. It is the Sense of the Congress that there should be a special multilateral process at the WTO for a thorough and comprehensive annual review of Chinese compliance. The bill directs USTR to propose that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the TPRM, at the WTO execute such a review of China's trade policies every year. It also directs USTR to take measures to improve the TPRM process. Finally, institution-building in China. Coming out of half a century of communism, China does not have the institutions necessary to carry out fully its WTO obligations. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to provide assistance to China to build those institutions necessary to fulfill the obligations China has made as part of its accession to the WTO. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should provide such assistance through bilateral mechanisms, in particular, through appropriate non- governmental organizations. It also provides for the possibility of some multilateral assistance under the auspices of the WTO. Finally, because a primary beneficiary of the results of successful institution-building in China would be American business, efforts shall be made to develop cost-sharing with the private sector. There has been a lot of talk about the need to ensure full Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. This bill is an attempt to establish a system that will do just that. We need this legislation. And we need to pass PNTR as soon as possible. Let me conclude with a few remarks about Chinese compliance with the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect in December. Three weeks ago, I initiated a letter signed by 53 Senators to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. In the letter, we insisted that China proceed with full and immediate implementation of that agreement. I was pleased to announce on Monday the first purchase by China under this agreement. 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. This is an important step that should be followed by other agricultural purchases.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to respond to comments made over the past week in the press and elsewhere questioning Vice President Gore's support of the superb agreement negotiated by Ambassador Barshefsky with China as part of the WTO accession process. I have spoken with the Vice President. I am totally confident that he fully supports the Administration's position. He believes that the bilateral agreement is an excellent one. He believes that it is vital that the Congress approve permanent normal trade relations status as early as possible this year. The Vice President sent a letter outlining his position to Jerry Jasinowski, President of the National Association of Manufacturers, on February 18. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I regret I was unable to vote on the Iran Nonproliferation Act and two judicial nominations, but it was necessary for me to be in Montana today. I traveled back to Montana to join with Montana farmers, Montana business people, and Montana government officials, and Montana economic development experts in Great Falls and Helena to greet a high-level Chinese agriculture purchasing delegation. This group is led by the Chairman of COFCO, the China National Cereals, Oils, and Feedstuffs Import and Export Corporation, and includes senior Chinese government officials. We provided this Chinese delegation with information about the opportunities Montana presents and educated them about the high quality and competitive agricultural products and value-added food products in our state. I have been working for over 20 years to expand trade and open markets overseas for Montana and American agricultural commodities, value-added agricultural products, manufactured goods, and services. Increasing exports brings benefits to our farmers, our workers, and our communities in Montana. China, in particular, represents a market of almost unlimited potential. I have worked hard for the last 10 years to expand trading relations between the United States and China. This year, I am leading the fight to grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. The full implementation of this agricultural agreement is a vital part of this effort to bring China into the WTO. It will ensure that Montana and the rest of America will benefit from the unique opportunities in China. The delegation that I brought to Montana this week is only the first step along the road to increased exports to China. The outcome of today's vote on the Iran Nonproliferation Act would not have changed had I been present. This measure passed, 98-0, and I strongly support it. I do so for three reasons: it requires the President to report to Congress on foreign entities where there is ``credible information'' that they have transferred certain goods, services or technologies to Iran; it authorizes the President to impose measures against these entities; and it prohibits ``extraordinary'' U.S. payments to the Russian Space Agency until certain conditions are met. I voted for a similar bill in 1998, legislation which passed the Senate, 90-4, and was subsequently vetoed by the President. I also support the outcome of the other rollcall votes that occurred in the Senate today, for the confirmation of two Federal judges. Kermit Bye, nominated to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 8th Circuit, and George Daniels, nominated for District Judge of the southern district of New York, are both highly qualified judges. Both were confirmed today, by votes of 98-0. In both cases, my vote would have made the outcome 99-0. Although I regret that I was unable to cast these three votes, I am pleased to have advanced the economic well-being of my state by continuing my fight to open markets for Montana agriculture.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement that was signed by the United States and China in December in Seattle. Although the negotiations for this agreement were held at the same time as the bilateral WTO accession negotiations between our two countries, this agriculture agreement is a stand-alone arrangement. According to its own terms, it formally entered into effect when U.S. Trade Representative Barshefsky and Chinese Trade Minister Shi signed it. This agreement deals with three categories of agriculture products-- Pacific Northwest wheat, meat, and citrus. The agreement requires that sound science be used when evaluating agricultural imports into China. Specifically, the agreement ends the decade-long prohibition that China had against importing Pacific Northwest wheat. It provides for US government certification of meat packing facilities. And it eliminates unreasonable technical barriers to the export of citrus products from the United States to China. On February 11, 52 other Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, joined me in sending a letter to Chinese President Jiang Zemin, insisting that China needs to implement the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement immediately. We explained to President Jiang that now is the time to buy our agricultural products. Words are fine. Agreements are fine. But what matters is the result--concrete commercial purchases. I would like to put a copy of that letter, along with a list of the 53 Senators who signed it, into the Record. I am very pleased to announce that a high level Chinese agriculture delegation, including government officials, along with representatives from COFCO, the China National Cereals, Oils, and Feedstuffs Import and Export Corporation, will visit my state of Montana on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. This is a critical next step in securing the implementation of the agriculture agreement. I will join with Montana agriculture, Montana business, and Montana economic development officials in Great Falls this week to meet this important delegation, to provide them with information about the opportunities Montana presents, and to offer them high quality and competitive agricultural products and value-added food products. I have been working for over twenty years to expand trade and open markets overseas for Montana and American agricultural commodities, value-added agricultural products, manufactured goods, and services. Increasing exports brings benefits to our farmers, our workers, and our communities, including, of course, in the state of Montana. China represents a market of almost unlimited potential. I have worked hard for the last ten years to expand trading relations between the United States and China. This year, I am leading the fight to grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. The full implementation of this agricultural agreement is a vital part of this effort to bring China into the WTO and to ensure that American and Montana will take advantage of the unique opportunities in China. I look forward to the signing of purchase agreements with China in the near future for Pacific Northwest wheat. Montana and China can help each other grow. That is what international trade is all about. February 11, 2000. President Jiang Zemin, People's Republic of China, Beijing, China. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge full implementation of the bilateral Agricultural Cooperation Agreement that Ambassador Barshefsky and Trade Minister Shi signed in April. Both sides agreed that when they initialed the Chinese version in Seattle last December that implementation would begin immediately. We appreciate that your citrus technical team has completed its visit to the United States. We understand that actions will now be taken to make those changes necessary for American citrus products to be sold to China. We want to stress, however, how important it is that actual sales of wheat, meat, and citrus take place as soon as possible. This would demonstrate to everyone watching our bilateral relationship that this agreement is working. It would also provide a solid contribution to the efforts to ensure the passage of Permanent Normal Trading Relations (``PNTR'') for China. Mr. President, we are entering a new stage in the relationship between our two countries. The sale of product through the Agricultural Agreement will help immeasurably. Yours Truly, Max Baucus, Bob Graham, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, Patty Murray, Slade Gorton, Pat Roberts, Larry E. Craig, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dick Durbin, Michael B. Enzi, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, Spencer Abraham, George V. Voinovich, Sam Brownback, Craig Thomas, Connie Mack. Daniel Inouye, Mike Crapo, Gordon Smith, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Richard Bryan, Rod Grams, Chuck Hagel, Wayne Allard, Tom Harkin, John Edwards, Rick Santorum, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Evan Bayh, Chuck Robb, Jeff Bingaman, John Ashcroft, Bob Kerrey. Conrad Burns, Jim Bunning, Byron L. Dorgan, Kit Bond, Chuck Grassley, Phil Gramm, Lincoln Chafee, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden, Paul D. Coverdell, Herb Kohl, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel K. Akaka, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes addressing a matter that is very important to the people of my home State of Montana but also to about 50 million other Americans. Universal access to technology and services all across our country is a very important principle in American history. From the Postal Service to electricity to phone service, we have all made sure, as a national policy, that all Americans have access to the basic services they need. Now we need to make sure all Americans also receive universal access to another major service; that is, TV service, weather reports, emergency broadcasts, local news. All Americans should be able to get local news on their television set, to get information about their local communities. That is not available today for about 50 million Americans. In my State alone, 120,000 people, about 35 percent of the homes in Montana, receive video programming via satellite because there is simply no way else to get it. That is the highest per capita rate in the Nation. We have more satellite dishes per capita than any other State in the Nation. We jokingly call the satellite dish our new State flower. It used to be the bitterroot; now it is the satellite dish. The problem is, we in Montana have to watch the news from New York City or Denver or Seattle. We can't get local news from our local stations from our satellites. The technology isn't there. The satellite companies don't provide the service. Montana is not alone. In nine other States, at least 20 percent of the households depend on satellite broadcasts for TV reception. They can't get it with an antenna. They can't get it from cable. They have to get it off the satellite. And in places such as Montana, with mountains, buttes, ravines, and gullies, all the different geographic conditions that occur in our State, there are many people who live on the outskirts of major towns who can't get local television signals with antenna, no matter how hard they try. They can't get any television. There are many communities and homes that are much too remote to receive news or TV coverage by cable. They are just too remote. Why is it so many people can't get TV coverage that is important for ties to local communities? The major satellite companies have told us that the free market simply doesn't pay. It doesn't pay for the satellite companies to provide the signal to smaller communities. It does pay for the larger communities but not for the small. The satellite companies have told us they can only afford to market in the high-density urban areas. I understand that. All companies want to make as much money as they can. That is the American way. That is wonderful. But the difficulty is, as a consequence, there are many areas of our country that can't get TV coverage--that is, coverage at all--or cannot get local television, local news. We can't rely solely on the profit motive. That drives America; it is wonderful. That is why American prosperity is doing so well and for so long. But we also have to be sure that it is not the only condition because otherwise we would still be cooking supper by candlelight in rural America. We would have to go down to the local telegraph office to communicate with friends. That is because without rural electric service or rural co-op service, that would be the case. This map is very interesting, the one behind me to my immediate right. Under the most optimistic local-to-local plans--that is, where a satellite signal is sent down to communities so the communities can, from their satellite, get local television--only about 67 out of a total of 210 TV markets in the United States will get access to local channels via the satellite. The more realistic answer is probably about 40 markets will be served by satellite; that is, either by DirecTV or Echostar. Millions of households will get it in communities such as New York City and Los Angeles. The red dots on the map are cities served, as of the end of last year, by satellite; that is, local service, local TV coverage, local news coverage served by satellite. As we can see, there are a lot of places in America without red dots. If you are in a city with a red dot, you can get local news by satellite. But if you live someplace else and not one of these red dots occurs, then you cannot get local news by satellite. The orange-yellow dots are announced probable sites in the future. As I said, the most optimistic estimate is 67 markets served out of the 210; the most probable is about 40 markets served out of 210. Let me tell my colleagues where my State ranks in terms of the probability of getting served with local coverage by satellite. I can assure you, we are not in the top 67. Our largest city in Montana is Billings. Billings ranks about 169 in the Nation out of 210. Butte, MT, is about 192. Glendive is up in the northeastern part of the market. That TV market is number 210; that is, out of 210 TV markets in the country, we are 210. So we have a ways to go if we are going to get satellite local news coverage. This isn't a problem only in Montana. It is a problem in 16 States. Sixteen States have no single city among the top 70 markets, not one. They include half of the Nation's State capitals. A dozen cities with nearly 500,000 people each won't get service. From the Great Plains to Alaska and Maine to Mississippi, much of America is being left behind. Why is this so important? Why is local-to-local broadcasting so important? Essentially because this is the heart of the community. One of the fibers that holds a community together is the ability to communicate within that community. The community is able to tune into a TV to hear about the local high school football team: how did they do? Did they win or lose? And local news, all the things that go on in a local community: what is happening in the neighborhood? Maybe there is a sale going on at a local store. There is a TV advertisement. You know what is going on in the community. There is a charity fundraiser. Then look at some of the more dramatic reasons for local news accessibility: winter storm warnings, hurricanes, school closures, emergencies of one kind or another, floods, tornadoes. There are a lot of reasons why we in all our communities want to know what is happening locally. As I said at the outset, there are about 15 million Americans who are not able to tune into their local TV stations, and we should find some way to solve that. Last month, I heard from a good, solid Montanan, Gary Ardesson of Frenchtown, MT, which is about 20 miles outside of Missoula. Gary can't get any local channels--none whatsoever--either by antenna, or by cable, or by satellite. He wants to pay for it, but it isn't available. He just can't get it. So Gary asked why in the world should he be in this situation. What would Gary do if he wanted to get the latest storm warning? All he can do is stick his head out the window and put his finger up in the wind to find out what the weather is going to be. There is no other way except by radio. He commented on the legislation we passed in the last session. He said: What is the point of legislation if they only implement it in the areas that can already receive local channels? That is what we did last session, but we didn't provide full coverage. This is a problem not only for viewers; it is a problem for local TV broadcasters. Local broadcasters are vital to local economies. They provide jobs and an avenue for local businesses to grow. How? Through advertising. It is very important that we can keep our local broadcasters thriving. I think there are four main issues we have to address to solve this problem. First, we have to assure that every household in America has access to their local television station. That is a given. Every household in America must have access to their local television station. This can be achieved, I submit, through a loan guarantee program that encourages investment in infrastructure, whether it be satellite, cable, or some other new emergency technology. Loan guarantees are going to be necessary for those less densely populated parts of our country that need assistance, such as REA, the rural electric co-ops of not too many years ago, and such as telephone co-ops. It is a guaranteed service to all Americans. Look at this chart. This shows where the Rural Utilities Service--the organization in the USDA that administers the utility service programs in our country, whether it be electric power, telecommunications, or whatnot--currently provides service. All 50 States currently have service under the Rural Utilities Service. The yellow dots are water and wastewater guarantee programs, loan guarantee programs. The other is electrical distribution. That is the red. The dark blue is electrical generation and transmission. Look at the green; it is telecommunications. That is what we are talking about--administering a loan guarantee telecommunications program. The Rural Utility Service isn't doing that. Those are the green dots. If you stand close, you can see the green dots--mostly in the East, where you would expect, and also you will find a few in other parts of the country. We have to make sure the program is properly administered, once we guarantee access. Certainly, the Rural Utility Service is currently providing service in all 50 States and are more than qualified to provide that service. The RUS currently manages a $42 billion loan portfolio for rural America--$42 billion--including investments in approximately 7,600 small community and rural water and wastewater systems, and about 1,500 electric and telecommunications systems servicing about 84 percent of America's counties. They have been very successful. This map shows the vast area that is covered. RUS's success in developing infrastructure in rural America has led to the infusion of private capital in rural infrastructure. For every $1 of capital that RUS provides to rural America, that leverages to $2 or $3 of outside investment. The Rural Utility Service is the logical team to make sure this program is properly administered. Perhaps the RUS could consult with other agencies--the National Telecommunications and Information Association, perhaps--and that makes sense. But I think the core of the administration should be in the RUS. Some colleagues have suggested maybe new legislation for a new oversight board, a new bureaucracy, similar to what was provided for in the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999. I have some concerns about that. My real question is, how can an agency successfully administer the loans when the guarantee decision is made independent of that agency? A critical step in implementing the loan is a clear understanding of the funded project. That is best achieved during the review of the applications, including the financial and technical feasibility analysis. That brings the third issue. We must construct this program in a fiscally responsible manner, minimizing the cost and risk to the taxpayer. I think this goal can be achieved by utilizing an existing agency--one with a good track record. RUS has done a good job. In 50 years, RUS has experienced not one loan loss in its telecommunications program. That is, to me, a very good record. Finally, I think we need to make sure the guarantee program is utilized to provide local-to-local service to all of America. I have heard from colleagues that Congress should require some level of private capital investment in conjunction with the loan guarantee. Some have even suggested that the loan guarantee should be perhaps as low as 50 percent. That gives me some pause because I don't want to have something set up with too many hurdles and redtape, which has the effect of increasing interest rates necessarily and therefore diminishing the likelihood that all of America will be served. In summary, these are my four main criteria: One, every household must be served; two, the program must be administered by an agency with the necessary expertise, somebody with a track record that knows what is going on; three, the program must be cost effective and low risk to taxpayers; four, the program should not be structured in a manner that is so cost prohibitive to the private sector that it sits on the shelf unused. So I say, let's move ahead and let's also keep this nonpartisan. There are some in the Senate who have suggested that maybe this issue is driven by partisan politics. Mr. President, I totally reject that notion; indeed, I find it offensive. This issue doesn't belong to one Senator or to one party. This issue belongs to the American people--people who need service, people who are demanding that we act to provide them with comprehensive satellite coverage. That is all this is. I call on the Senate to do that. That is what the people want. The loan guarantee program that I am talking about was regrettably stripped from the Satellite Home Viewer Act in the eleventh hour of the last session. I say, let's put it back in in a nonpartisan way. I say that because all Americans who do not get local service would be very grateful. Let's do this not only for Gary Ardesson in Frenchtown, MT. Let's do it for all of the Americans in rural America who deserve the same service that people in the big cities are getting. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to focus on the budget debate in which this Congress is engaged. It is very important at the beginning to set priorities and parameters as we put a budget together that makes sense for our country rather than treating in isolation each individual spending or tax matter that comes before this body. It is very important that we step back and look at the bigger picture. When a family or a corporation puts together a budget, they have to make all of their needs and desires fit into an overall budget plan. In the same way we should start out by making sure that all of our individual proposals fit into an overall budget plan. I say this because some Members of the House are going to be moving specific tax bills in advance, without looking at the overall budget. The problem, obviously, is if we take very tempting separate items, such as a tax bill, say, a marriage penalty, or maybe it is an education tax bill, perhaps a retirement savings tax bill--it is very tempting to pass these in isolation and we are picking and choosing between different tax cuts before we even have agreed on how much money we have available. Let's not put the cart before the horse. It's the same kind of helter-skelter approach that got us deeply into debt in the first place. Let's set our budget priorities first. As we do so, we should keep two points in mind. First, we should be, if I may use the word, conservative. Let's keep the cork in the champagne and not put too much stock in ten-year projections that show a huge surplus. I don't care how good your crystal ball is. Things change, and small changes add up to a lot over 10 years. I would like to make a point about an article in yesterday's Washington Post that underlines this problem. It is a story by Eric Pianin and John Berry. Their basic point is the fragility of the long- term budget projections--whether they are the President's projections, the CBO's, or others. Let me quote, ``Clinton's projections highlight just how tenuous those surpluses could be.'' There is another example of this. This chart shows how difficult it is to predict the future and how quickly and how dramatically budget projections change. On the left, the red bar illustrates that 2 years ago, January 1998, the Congressional Budget Office projected the country would face about a $900 billion deficit over the next 10 years. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO reached a different conclusion. Their conclusion was that we are going to have the benefit of a roughly $2 trillion budget surplus over the next 10 years. That is a swing of practically $3 trillion in just two years! Clearly, 2 years from now this $2 trillion projected surplus is going to look a lot different, as it will 3 years from now and 4 years from now. Therefore, let us not listen to the siren song of these huge projected surpluses based upon current economic estimates. I know the budget estimators do the best they can. But I sure wouldn't want to bet the farm that these new numbers will hold up for a decade. The current economy is doing well. We want it to continue doing well, but there is no guarantee it will. Let's be careful. Let's be cautious. These projections of huge surpluses could fade. It could change very quickly. The point came home to me in a conversation I had with the CEO of a major telecommunications company. I said: Sir, does your company make 5-year plans? He said: Well, yes, we do. I said: How closely do you follow them? How well do you implement them? He said: Well, we really don't. We try, but things change so quickly, we have to change and adjust. Granted, telecommunications is a fast-changing industry. But we are a fast-changing country in many respects. Changes happen very quickly. Changes happen, particularly as our world gets more and more interconnected and more technologically advanced. With more and more technology and more factors involved in determining the course of our economy, it is more and more difficult to predict the future. It is a problem we face. With all the inherent uncertainty about the future, let's be a little cautious when it comes to the Federal budget. And let's also adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, that is, ``first, let's do no harm.'' I believe the prudent course is to adopt what I'd call a ``no regrets'' budget. Policies that we believe make sense and address important needs irrespective of upticks or downticks in the economy. To my mind, this means we should, first and foremost, reduce the debt. That's plain conservative, common sense. During good times, you pay your debts, and you save a little. It also helps to protect Social Security and Medicare. Just paying down the debt will have a tremendous economic benefit to our country. How? First, paying down the debt will free up more private capital so individual Americans can make more decisions along the lines they want, as they have in the last several years, which has helped boost this great economic growth. Paying down the debt means more private capital will be available. But perhaps more importantly, if the Federal government borrows less from the market, the private sector can borrow more. Government reduces its debt service costs and pressure on interest rates is reduced. And lower interest rates are a direct, tangible benefit to every businessman, farmer, home owner, and car purchaser. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said much the same thing yesterday morning. He told the Finance Committee that a major benefit of reducing the debt is to free money so that it is available to be productively invested by the private sector. So, Mr. President, reducing the Federal debt is important to the continued growth of the private sector. The second step is to set the right budget priorities. After debt reduction, we should invest where it will make the most sense for our economy. That means investment in people, investment in education, investment in infrastructure. We can also do some good by creating incentives for private retirement savings. Retirees need more than just Social Security and we should address it this year. And we should deal with other tax issues, too. These include reducing the marriage penalty, providing incentives for long-term health care, and helping communities conserve open space. Those are all areas where I believe we can find strong bipartisan agreement. I hope we could also find agreement not to go overboard with tax cuts. I know election years get the juices flowing. But I would just caution folks to remember our experience in the early 1980's with the exuberance for large tax cuts. Two years after we enacted that tax cut--and I voted for it--Senator Dole had to come back and lead the damage control party. We had to increase taxes that year to repair the deficit problem. But it wasn't enough and we needed to do it again two years after that. I don't know about my colleagues, but I've learned from that mistake. I don't want to lock in a big tax cut now only to find ourselves in two years digging out of a hole if the economy heads south. It's happened before! Mr. President, I know that many observers have written off this year. They say it's an election year. That we won't get anything done. But we shouldn't write off this year quite yet. We have 120 legislative days left. It's not a lot of time. But if we set solid budget priorities and we work together, then we can pass a budget that is responsible and invests in America, then this Congress can write a record of bipartisan accomplishment that will benefit all Americans. I ask my colleagues to join together. If we do what is right--and we know what is right--we are going to be serving our country well. That is my plea. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true Montana hero--Jim Atkinson. His death, after a long battle with leukemia last December, was a great loss to me personally and to the State of Montana. You know, we always talk about how important education is. Especially here in Congress, we talk about how children are the future and that we need to invest in that future, and that's true. But Jim Atkinson did more than just talk about education; he lived it. He was on the front lines every day, as a principal at Charlo Elementary and later as the vice president of the Montana Association of Elementary and Middle School Principals. As an Administrator in the Montana school system, Jim was instrumental in the effort to modernize our State's schools. He realized quickly how important technology would be to students, and set up a computer lab for the Charlo school. Without people like Jim all our talk about education wouldn't amount to anything. His foresight and dedication to education in Montana made him a true hero. But there was more to Jim than just his job. Originally a native of Abington, PA, it was the outdoors and the land that brought Jim to Montana. He was an accomplished mountain climber and fly fisherman. Montana's rugged peaks and blue ribbon trout streams had a hold on Jim's soul. And Jim was a true family man. He is survived by his wife, Luan, and his two sons, Sam and Tyson. Mr. President, Jim was a young man. He was only forty-eight at the time of his death. He spent his life serving his community, educating children, raising his family and enjoying the land of our majestic State. Many men would be lucky to accomplish this much in a hundred years. I expect Jim's legacy will last much longer than that.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment at the administration's decision to appeal the Federal District Court decision that requires the appointment of environmental representatives to the advisory committees, the ISACs, that advise the Commerce Department and USTR on trade policy with respect to forest products. At the recent WTO meeting in Seattle, President Clinton reminded all of us of the importance of making the trade policy process more open and transparent. I share the view that incorporating environmental and labor concerns into our trade policy is a necessary element in ensuring confidence in the global trading system. The need for openness and transparency is not only for international negotiations and dispute resolution, but also for the establishment of trade policy here at home. Indeed, the Clinton administration has been the principal advocate of this. It is, therefore, surprising and disappointing that the administration seems reluctant to bring more openness and transparency into its own trade policy advisory committees. Specifically, in the case of the administration's proposals to reduce or eliminate tariffs on forest products (a goal that I share), environmental groups have raised legitimate issues about the impact on conservation. This should be part of our domestic debate. I understand that enhancing the role of environmental and other groups in this advisory process raises some concerns at USTR and the Commerce Department. We don't want to make the process inefficient, and we must continue to protect confidential information. But, to my mind, we can increase openness and transparency without compromising efficiency or confidentiality. I call on the administration to reconsider its policy and take the necessary measures to incorporate fully those who are trying to express legitimate environmental concerns. Finally, let me be clear. If the decision by the Western District of Washington is overturned on appeal, I will introduce legislation mandating the appointment of representatives of the environmental community to these two advisory committees. At this critical time when concerns over globalization threaten the consensus for expanding global trade, we must increase public confidence in government. That means more openness and transparency, not less.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I hope not only for the most part but for the whole part, Mr. President. The Senator from Utah is exactly correct. I must confess, I learned a lot about the scourge this past week when Gen. Barry McCaffrey was in Billings for a whole day and half the next day with his people, meeting with treatment people the whole time, various aspects of the people who deal with this. It is one big problem, as the Senator from Utah said. It is really vicious stuff. Once you are on it, it is worse than cocaine or heroin. It is harder to withdraw. The treatment is longer. I mean, this is wicked stuff. I might add, one fact I learned is that in our State--and I hope it is not true in Utah--we have a high percentage of users who shoot it with needles, or IV. Therefore, if we don't stamp it out, we are going to face a high incidence of hepatitis C and HIV. Dr. Green, an expert on the subject in Billings, was shocked last week when he came to understand the high rate of users who inject meth instead of taking it orally or smoking it. All I say is that I hope parents and communities will rally and knock this thing out. It is really bad stuff.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that is tearing rural communities apart--methamphetamine. Last week, our Nation's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, and his deputy, Dr. Don Vereen, came to Montana to focus on methamphetamine. We met with law enforcement officers, health care professionals, and concerned citizens. As many of you know, methamphetamine is a powerful and addictive drug. It is considered by many youths to be a casual, soft-core drug with few lasting effects. But, in fact, meth can actually cause more long-term damage to the body than cocaine or crack. Methamphetamine users are often irritable and aggressive. They have tremors and convulsions, their hearts working overtime to keep up with the frenetic pace set by the drug. Methamphetamine can stop their hearts. It can kill. The psychological effects of meth use are also severe: Paranoia and hallucinations; memory loss and panic; loss of concentration and depression. We have all heard these symptoms manifested around the country, particularly in rural America. Time magazine reported just 2 years ago, in June 1998, on the meth problem faced in Billings, MT. Time found that until 5 years ago, in Billings--Montana's largest city--marijuana and cocaine were the most often used illegal substance of choice. Today, as reported in Time magazine, it is methamphetamine. 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--that is 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. Sounds like awful stuff, doesn't it? But if it is bad, why is methamphetamine the fastest growing drug in Montana, and particularly over rural America in the last 5 years? Why did meth use among high school seniors more than double from 1990 to 1996? The short answer is that methamphetamine provides a temporary high, a short-term euphoria; it feels good; in addition, increases alertness. Although the use of the drug later leads to a dulling of the body and mind, its short-term lure is one of enhanced physical and mental prowess. Workers may use the drug to get through an extra shift, particularly a night shift; it gives them a real high. Young women often use meth to lose weight. It is interesting, but in our State over half of methamphetamine users are women, single moms, stressed out, working. She needs a break. She takes the drug. It helps her get through the day or week. Athletes also use it to improve performance. People think it helps. It helps them get through the day, helps them to do what they are doing. They do not realize how much it hurts. Therein lies the danger of methamphetamine. Folks think they can use it for a short time with no long-term ill effects--sort of like straying from their New Year's diet and eating a couple of pieces of cheesecake--but they can't do it, can't get away with it. Consider this: Dr. Bill Melega is a doctor at UCLA. He researched the effects of methamphetamine on monkeys, giving them meth for 10 days. He found that not only did methamphetamine physically alter the brain, but these monkeys' brains remained altered 3 years after methamphetamine was administered. Again, 3 years after taking the drug, the brain still had not recovered. Brain scans show that, whether it is postron or other forms of technology we have that scan the brain, when an individual is taking methamphetamine, the brain is significantly changed. As I said, in the case of monkeys--we do not have test results yet on human beings--it is permanently changed. So meth is a problem. But is it reasonable to believe we can mobilize a community-wide effort against it? Is it possible to remove meth from Montana and all our communities? I say we can, but it is going to take a lot of work. A few years ago, for example, in Billings, MT, a group of skinheads threatened Billings and its Jewish community with bodily harm. They threw bricks through windows of Jewish homes. They threatened violence on others and caused a huge problem in my State, particularly in Billings. But what happened? The people of Billings mobilized. They mobilized to defend against that mindless hatred. They banded together, and they organized the largest Martin Luther King Day march ever in my State. Billings people, in addition to the police, law enforcement officers, and others--basically, the people--the community rose to the challenge and ousted the skinheads from Billings, MT. Just a few days after yet another Martin Luther King celebration, we are given the chance all across our country to try again, with community efforts, to solve community problems, whether it is racial hatred, whatever it is--in this case, among others, this methamphetamine. We all have a part to play. Kids, you should know that meth will hurt you. It might even kill you. Our communities need you to serve as examples of how to live a positive, drug-free life. You are doing it already through organizations such as SADD--the Students Against Destructive Decisions--Big Brothers and Sisters, Smart Moves, Smart Leaders. There are lots of organizations. One encouraging sign in the fight against meth is the incredible people who have been working on this problem. In my State of Montana, for example, there is a lady named Virginia Gross who for over a decade has been in the ``treatment trenches'' serving the most serious cases of meth addiction in Billings, MT. A Billings native herself, she got her start in the treatment area, working generally with emotionally disturbed kids. She saw that almost invariably these emotionally disturbed kids had a drug abuse problem tied with them. In doing intakes at a treatment center called the Rimrock Foundation, she treated her first meth addict 13 years ago. There is virtually no literature on the subject, particularly on meth treatment, so she, on her own--working with this and that--developed her own treatment techniques--testing this, trying that--and she gradually learned what it takes to treat a meth patient effectively. In the hundreds of patients she has treated since 1987, she points to one as her greatest success. This fellow, strung out since age 14 on drugs for more of his life than not, came to Virginia with a determination to try anything. He told her he would do whatever it took to beat his addiction. He knew he wanted to be clean, and clean he became. Three years after starting treatment, this former high school dropout got his GED, started college. He has gotten straight A's and aspires to be a forest ranger. He is a symbol of Virginia's and his own success and particularly a symbol of what young people can do who are on drugs and who want to get off. Success can be achieved. Meth can be defeated. We all have a part to play. Parents, teachers, you must know the symptoms of meth use; recognize them. More importantly, you need to talk to your children. It is true that teens whose parents talk to them about drugs are half as likely to use drugs as those whose parents don't. If you talk to your kids, the chances your kids will take drugs is 50 percent less than if you don't talk to them about drugs. It is a proven fact. It is a statistic that is very amply demonstrated. Finally, law enforcement, you have a critical part to play, too. Last week, again, the news in Billings reported that the crime rate has fallen significantly in the last 2 years, 10 percent this year alone. That is good news. But the bad news is, it is also true that Billings' violent crime rate has increased over that same time. I believe much of that is attributable to drug use. Until we get a handle on the drug problem, controlling crime is going to be a very steep uphill battle. To that end, Montana must be a member of the Rocky Mountain High- Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA. It is a collaboration between State, Federal, and local law enforcement agencies. Then there is S. 486, the Meth Act, which passed the Senate last session and waits for action in the House. It provides longer prison terms for drug criminals, more money for law enforcement, education, prevention, and a wider ban on meth paraphernalia. All told, the bill increases Federal funding for law enforcement and education by over $50 million. We are proud in our State to call Montana the last best place. We love our way of life. But in the past several years, we have found that even the last best place is not immune to the scourge of methamphetamine and all the trouble that comes with it. We have gangs. We have thugs. We have crime. We have drugs. We have a problem. Today a report was released underscoring the fact that rural teenagers are much more likely to smoke, to drink, and to use illegal drugs than their urban counterparts. The report was commissioned by the Drug Enforcement Administration and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, focusing 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. That is double the rate of urban eighth graders. We also have confidence in our State, as I know people do in other communities, that we can solve this, particularly in the face of such adversity. And this battle must be won. Meth use in Montana and in other communities is much too important a battle to lose. So, kids, please understand what meth does to you. Serve as examples to your peers and what it means to lead a drug-free life. We need you. Parents, teachers, recognize the symptoms; talk to your kids. Law enforcement, your efforts are bearing fruit. You need more support and all of us, of course, will continue to help you, particularly here in the Congress, to get it. You need the help of the communities because community problems require community solutions. One final note. Let me emphasize that last one: Community effort. This is only going to be solved in all communities across our country if it is a total community effort. Doctors have to get more involved. They have to not only get involved with the glamorous cases of heart transplants and hip replacements but also meth use, addiction. Doctors have to get much more involved. Pediatricians have to talk much more to parents of the kids when the kids come into the office. Our faith community can do still more, much more throughout our country in cracking down on meth, working hard to work together with other communities, parents, obviously teachers and schools, treatment centers. In addition, treatment is so important. So many people are arrested for meth use or for peddling meth. They are addicted. They are put in prison. What happens? After they are out of prison, they are back on meth. There is virtually no treatment or there is very little treatment of incarcerated persons in prison because of meth. There has to be treatment. Treatment is tough. Treatment takes a long time. It takes more than 30 days. It takes more than 60 days. It takes more than 90 days. Treatment usually takes up to 1 to 2 years. Halfway houses, you have to stick with it. You have to stick with it if we are going to solve it. Look at it this way: If we leave meth users alone in the community, it is going to cost the community, estimates are, $38,000, $39,000, $40,000 a year. That is the cost of that meth-addicted user to communities, whether it is in crimes, stealing to support the habit, all the ways that addicted meth users are destructive to a community. To put that same person in prison, it is going to be very costly; that is, prison without treatment. It is going to cost maybe up to $30,000. Incarceration today costs about $30,000 a person a year. Treatment alone is about $6,000 to $8,000. Treatment in prison is going to be less than letting the person free out on the street in the community. It pays. Taxpayers, rise up. Recognize your tax dollars are spent much more efficiently with treatment, treatment of addicted meth users in prison, than without the treatment, working with law enforcement officials, coordinating all your efforts. Again, I emphasize that final point. Methamphetamine is a national problem. It is a State problem, but it is more a community solution, all the peoples of the communities working together, certainly with States and certainly with Uncle Sam, but you have to do it together as a well-knit effort. That is how we will solve this scourge in this country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with Senators Harkin, Daschle, Kerrey, Durbin, Johnson, Wellstone, Conrad, Rockefeller, Bryan, Reid, Leahy, Wyden, and Murray, I am pleased to introduce a bill today on behalf of our country's rural satellite consumers. This is a bill to amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, appropriately entitled, ``the 21st Century Rural Utility Service Rural Development Enhancement Through Local Information Act.'' We all know that modern technology has made it possible to broadcast TV programming directly from satellites. Nationwide, over 11 million households subscribe to satellite TV, and that number increases by over 2 million households a year. Rural areas have come to depend on the network coverage that satellites provide. In Montana, where over 35 percent of homes depend on satellite broadcasting for their TV reception, this development has been a real boon. While satellite broadcasting has improved the quality of life for folks in rural America, it hasn't been perfect. Satellite systems haven't been able to carry local broadcast stations. So local viewers haven't always been able to get local broadcasting. And this is not just a problem for satellite subscribers. It's a problem for the local TV broadcasters and for the fabric of local communities. Local broadcasters play a key role in our communities. They provide local news, local weather, and public service programs. Viewers depend on these broadcasts to find out about what's going on in their community. When the school board, PTA, and city council are meeting. Or when there's a parade or a fund-raiser for their church or civic groups. Local broadcasters are vital to our local economies. They provide jobs, and they allow local businesses to grow through advertising. In short, the importance of local broadcasting is evident in all parts of community life. And they also provide network programming: NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX. Nineteen of the twenty TV stations in Montana are affiliated with one of these networks, or with the Public Broadcasting System. These stations air national news, sports and entertainment at times of the day when people with jobs and kids can watch. Without these local broadcasts, you might miss the evening network news because it comes on before you get home from work, or because it airs late at night. People want local network coverage because it works in their lives. Until now, technology has not provided for rebroadcast of local signals by satellites. Many rural residents haven't been able to get decent reception over the air. Of course, we in the Senate cannot change technology or geography. What we can do is change the law. We can make local into local broadcasting a reality, and we should. Last spring, we passed H.R. 1554. At the time, we neglected an important responsibility. The language we passed would have required the turn-off of network programming to many rural satellite viewers. It would have done nothing to help the many local broadcasts in smaller cities and towns. A big oversight. Following the vote, I wrote a letter to the conference asking that it pay attention to the needs of the many viewers, communities, businesses and stations that had been ignored. Twenty-three of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, signed the letter. As you know, Mr. President, yesterday the House passed the omnibus appropriations bill, and the Senate is slated to take the same vote this evening. Mr. President, I was very disheartened when I learned that the ever important loan guarantee provision was pulled out of the Conference Report on the Satellite bill at the last minute. That is why I'm introducing this bill today, because this loan guarantee will help America's 11 million rural satellite consumers. It's time for us as lawmakers to say ``we care about those folks up in 2 Dot that simply want to watch local news.'' This is our chance to expand rural access so that no matter how large or small your town is, you're going to be able to enjoy the benefits of Satellite TV. This bill includes a loan guarantee that will make it possible for all local stations to be broadcast on satellite. Not just those in the very largest cities and towns. Without this, the other ``local into local'' provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act are an empty promise to the rural and small town Americans who depend on satellites. Mr. President, I look forward to holding hearings on this bill during our adjournment and coming back to see a swift resolution to this issue in January. It is time, no, it's overtime, for us to act on this important issue.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is very unfortunate that the Senate finds itself in virtually the same position as we did last year with appropriations matters. As my colleagues will recall, we voted on a giant omnibus appropriations bill which contained eight appropriations bills, plus numerous other authorizing legislation. It ran on for nearly 4,000 pages and weighed in at some 40 pounds. It was called a ``gargantuan monstrosity'' by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. But it was a monstrosity not just because of its length. It was also in the size of its insult to the democratic process, to individual Senators, and to the people they represent. It was bad enough that no Senator was able to read the bill before they were required to vote on it. Worse still was the fact the bill was presented to the Senate in a ``take it or leave it'' form. No amendments were permitted. Every Senator was effectively muzzled. I voted against that bill. Not because it didn't contain good provisions, good for the country, and good for my State of Montana. It did. I opposed that bill because writing such an important piece of legislation should not be done behind closed doors among a small group of people with no recourse for the others. I said at the time that the process dangerously disenfranchised most Senators, House Members, and the American people. Many of my colleagues agreed with my sentiments then. And there were statements that this would not happen again. But it has. True, this bill is somewhat shorter. It covers only five appropriations bills, not eight. It has fewer authorizing bills attached to it. However, it still was written largely by a relatively few people, members of the majority, representatives from the Administration, a few members of the minority. And all behind closed doors, again. But the bigger danger this year is that we are passing major bills by reference. The text of four appropriations bills and four authorizing bills appears nowhere in this bill. Instead, this bill provides for their enactment by referring to them by number and date of introduction, which just so happens to be less than 48 hours ago. Members of the Senate do not have this language before them. Even if we could offer amendments, how would we do it? How can you amend a bill that is included only by reference? Even more fundamentally, will bills that are enacted into law ``by reference'' withstand a Constitutional challenge that they violate the presentment clause? The courts will have to decide the Constitutional issues. But it is one more reason why I believe this is a very dangerous process. It further erodes the rights of the minority, indeed the rights of all Senators. Coming, as I do, from a state with a small population, we depend greatly on the Senate to protect our states' interest, something that cannot always be done in the House of Representatives, where population determines voting power. Mr. President, we already face a population that is increasingly cynical of government and those who serve it. People believe more and more that government does not look after their interests, but only after special interests. And the more we operate behind closed doors, without an open, public process, the more we feed that cynicism. And the more we encourage mistrust. That is not healthy for our democracy or our people. One of the best things Montanans did when we rewrote our State constitution in 1972 was to require open government, at all levels. It has helped keep government officials honest and helped the people have faith in that government. I wish this process were as open. Someday, I hope that the Congress will return to the open process on appropriations bills and authorizing bills we had not so long ago. We could debate issues, offer amendments, make compromises, win, lose. But all in front of the people. But this bill goes too far in the other direction and therefore, I cannot support it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with Senators Harkin, Daschle, Kerrey, Durbin, Johnson, Wellstone, Conrad, Rockefeller, Bryan, Reid, Leahy, Wyden, and Murray, I am pleased to introduce a bill today on behalf of our country's rural satellite consumers. This is a bill to amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, appropriately entitled, ``the 21st Century Rural Utility Service Rural Development Enhancement Through Local Information Act.'' We all know that modern technology has made it possible to broadcast TV programming directly from satellites. Nationwide, over 11 million households subscribe to satellite TV, and that number increases by over 2 million households a year. Rural areas have come to depend on the network coverage that satellites provide. In Montana, where over 35 percent of homes depend on satellite broadcasting for their TV reception, this development has been a real boon. While satellite broadcasting has improved the quality of life for folks in rural America, it hasn't been perfect. Satellite systems haven't been able to carry local broadcast stations. So local viewers haven't always been able to get local broadcasting. And this is not just a problem for satellite subscribers. It's a problem for the local TV broadcasters and for the fabric of local communities. Local broadcasters play a key role in our communities. They provide local news, local weather, and public service programs. Viewers depend on these broadcasts to find out about what's going on in their community. When the school board, PTA, and city council are meeting. Or when there's a parade or a fund-raiser for their church or civic groups. Local broadcasters are vital to our local economies. They provide jobs, and they allow local businesses to grow through advertising. In short, the importance of local broadcasting is evident in all parts of community life. And they also provide network programming: NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX. Nineteen of the twenty TV stations in Montana are affiliated with one of these networks, or with the Public Broadcasting System. These stations air national news, sports and entertainment at times of the day when people with jobs and kids can watch. Without these local broadcasts, you might miss the evening network news because it comes on before you get home from work, or because it airs late at night. People want local network coverage because it works in their lives. Until now, technology has not provided for rebroadcast of local signals by satellites. Many rural residents haven't been able to get decent reception over the air. Of course, we in the Senate cannot change technology or geography. What we can do is change the law. We can make local into local broadcasting a reality, and we should. Last spring, we passed H.R. 1554. At the time, we neglected an important responsibility. The language we passed would have required the turn-off of network programming to many rural satellite viewers. It would have done nothing to help the many local broadcasts in smaller cities and towns. A big oversight. Following the vote, I wrote a letter to the conference asking that it pay attention to the needs of the many viewers, communities, businesses and stations that had been ignored. Twenty-three of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, signed the letter. As you know, Mr. President, yesterday the House passed the omnibus appropriations bill, and the Senate is slated to take the same vote this evening. Mr. President, I was very disheartened when I learned that the ever important loan guarantee provision was pulled out of the Conference Report on the Satellite bill at the last minute. That is why I'm introducing this bill today, because this loan guarantee will help America's 11 million rural satellite consumers. It's time for us as lawmakers to say ``we care about those folks up in 2 Dot that simply want to watch local news.'' This is our chance to expand rural access so that no matter how large or small your town is, you're going to be able to enjoy the benefits of Satellite TV. This bill includes a loan guarantee that will make it possible for all local stations to be broadcast on satellite. Not just those in the very largest cities and towns. Without this, the other ``local into local'' provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act are an empty promise to the rural and small town Americans who depend on satellites. Mr. President, I look forward to holding hearings on this bill during our adjournment and coming back to see a swift resolution to this issue in January. It is time, no, it's overtime, for us to act on this important issue.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I earlier objected to bringing up the continuing resolution because I felt it made much more sense to include the loan guarantee along with the other provisions in the omnibus bill that will be taken up later providing for local-to-local satellite network service. I thank the Senator from Mississippi, as well as my colleague from Montana. I have been working with my colleague today to figure out some way to lock in even more having loan guarantees passed by this body and by the other body. The other body has made a similar commitment in a colloquy about 2 hours ago to make sure this is passed so rural viewers of America have the opportunity to have local satellite service. I compliment my friend from Montana for working so hard on this. He has worked very hard, as well as others. I am not going to hold up the continuing resolution to shut down the Government. In the whole scheme of things, we have our own priorities and know what the priorities should be. But it is important to get this provision in here because it does make it even more certain we are going to get this loan guarantee provision passed in the next year. I thank the majority leader. He has been very gracious in working this out, as well as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who I know wants to work this out as well, and my good friend from Montana. I also thank the Banking Committee chairman. He has been very helpful.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I would be very happy to tell the Senator. Less than 10 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.