Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to make a few remarks about a serious problem for people in our country who do not live in our Nation's cities; that is, the loss of satellite TV access to network programming. 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. That number increases by over 2 million households every year. Rural areas have come to depend on network coverage that satellites provide. In my State, Montana, where over 35 percent of homes depend solely on satellite broadcasting for their TV reception, obviously this development has been a real boon. While satellite broadcasting has improved the quality of life for folks in rural America, it has not been perfect. Satellite systems have not been able to carry local broadcast stations. So local viewers have not always been able to get local broadcasting. This is not just a problem for satellite subscribers; it is a problem for local television 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 programming. Viewers depend on these local broadcasts to find out what is going on in their community: When the school board, the PTA, and the city council are meeting, or when there is a parade or a fundraiser for their church or a civic group. Local broadcasters are vital to our communities. 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. Local broadcasters also provide network programming: NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX. Nineteen of the 20 TV stations in Montana are affiliated with some of these networks or with PBS. These stations air national news, sports, and entertainment at times of the day when people with jobs and kids can watch them. Without 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 own lives and in their local community. Until now, technology has not provided for rebroadcast of local signals by satellites. Many rural residents have not been able to get decent reception over the air. Of course, we in the Senate cannot change technology or geography, but 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 turnoff of network programing to many rural satellite viewers. It would have done nothing to help the many local broadcasters in smaller cities and towns. It was an oversight. Following the vote, I wrote a letter to the conference asking they pay attention to the needs of the many viewers, communities, and stations that had been ignored. Twenty-three of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, signed the letter. As you know, Madam President, the conference on the satellite bill has paid little attention to our request. The language of the conference report, now titled the ``Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999,'' includes some important new provisions. It does allow satellite viewers in poor reception areas, the so- called ``grade B contour'' viewers, to continue to get network programming from satellites. Without this, many satellite viewers will lose their network TV at the end of next month. It also includes a loan guarantee that will make it possible for all local stations to broadcast on satellite, not just those in the very largest cities and towns. Without this, the other local-into-local provisions of the act are an empty promise to rural and small town America that depends on satellites. Last week, the House passed the conference language by a near unanimous vote. But in the Senate, a few Members--and I might say, on the other side of the aisle--are blocking a vote on this conference report. They say: We promise to have more hearings. We should have another committee look at this. They might as well say: Let them watch the radio. The Senate should act now to ensure that the conference report language becomes law. It is clear the majority of the Senate is ready to vote to approve the measure, just as the House did. Instead, we are offered a weakened version attached to the omnibus appropriations bill, which we will get sometime soon, and a weak promise to do something next year. This is a no-brainer. There are many people in rural America who would like to add satellite TV, network programming from their local stations. It is that simple. We have it within our power today to very simply pass a provision and provide for the financing, a loan guarantee. We all know it is going to pass. We all know we are going to do it. But there is one Senator who wants it in his committee. And I say, that one Senator represents a State where there are a lot of people who I think want local-into-local broadcasting from the satellites. There are millions of Americans who depend on their satellites and want local network coverage--not national network coverage--or at least the option to get both local and national. This is a no-brainer. I get more mail on this subject than any other subject. I daresay, Madam President, you probably get a lot of mail on this subject, too. I know a lot of Senators probably get as much mail on this one subject as any other. And we can simply solve it today very easily. It makes no sense for us not to. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I speak on behalf of 11 million Americans, at least, many of them residents of the State of Alaska. We haven't solved the satellite home viewer matter. I don't see why we can't. It is very simple. All we have to do is put that loan guarantee in, which is very simple. If there are any wrinkles, they can easily be worked out. It makes no sense for us to go home without passing the loan guarantee provision so that the satellite viewers can rest assured and so that those who are going to put up satellites and develop satellites for local-to-local coverage are able to do so. I cannot understand, on behalf of those 11 million Americans who can't understand, why in the world we don't do something that is pretty simple.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska without losing my rights to the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I hear my good friend from Alaska and the majority leader. They have States that have the same concerns as do we. Not for a moment do I doubt the intentions of both of the Senators. They are two of the most honorable men I have had the pleasure to know. They are wonderful people. But I also know how the Senate operates. I also know that the best intentions often don't materialize and something happens. I also know that some of the regulations I suspect the Senator talked about--it is a lot easier for the FCC to write regulations than not knowing in the abstract what the regulations are. I don't know what they can really do that is substantive or effective in the next several months, or whatever it takes. I also know that the only objection to us proceeding really is one Senator who, for some reason, thinks he should have jurisdiction over this. It is an ``inside baseball'' objection. It is not a substantive objection in any great way. I also know there is a lot in this omnibus bill that was written pretty quickly, where many minds got together to get something done. I also know that necessity is the motherhood of invention. If we want to do this, we will find a way to get it in. I am suggesting that a vast majority of Members of this body want to do it. I suggest that 90 percent want to do it. There is an objection not based on substance but based on another reason. I very much appreciate the desire of the Senator from West Virginia to speak. But I might say that my objecting to proceeding here does not deprive the Senator from speaking. He will find ample opportunity, and I support his right to be able to speak. This is so black and white, so much of a no-brainer, and there are millions of Americans in rural America who want this thing, and there is so little reason not to do it. So I will object.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a sense-of- the-Senate Resolution regarding the urgent need for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to resolve its civil rights discrimination cases. On behalf of Senator Burns, the bill's cosponsor, and myself, I urge the Senate to recognize the urgency of this situation. Mr. President, there exists a strong public policy against discrimination against minority groups, whether the discrimination is committed by private individuals or by the Government in the operation of its programs, and it is our firmly held belief that whenever discrimination occurs in the conduct of Government programs, the responsible Government agencies should take quick and aggressive action to remedy such discrimination. I am most concerned that over the past year, such action has not been taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Civil Rights. In fact, many Montana civil rights cases that my office and that of Senator's Burns have been working with are seriously backlogged in the system and have consequently remained unsatisfactorily addressed. We have worked hard with the Montana Department of Agriculture's Farm Agency to resolve these cases. The Director of the FSA and the State FSA Committee has worked hard to resolve any outstanding problems concerning its programs and have made certain that these kinds of problems to not occur in Montana. I commend their outreach efforts in ensuring the equitable delivery of the Agency's programs to all eligible Montana recipients. We need a better working relationship with the USDA's Office of Civil Rights to bring the outstanding cases to resolution in a timely manner. Repeated phone calls and requests have yielded few answers. For that reason, I am offering this resolution which binds the agency to its mission of facilitating the fair and equitable treatment of USDA customers and employees while ensuring the delivery and enforcement of civil rights programs and activities. Further we hope to commit the USDA to treating its customers with dignity and respect as well as to providing quality and timely products and services. Finally, the resolution resolves that not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary should resolve all the outstanding cases of alleged civil rights discrimination by the Department of Agriculture. It is high time to bring this issue to resolution, and I appreciate the Senate's consideration of this important matter.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I congratulate Ambassador Barshefsky and the administration on reaching an agreement this week with China on WTO accession. This demonstrates that a policy of ``engagement with a purpose'' works. I believe the Chinese leadership, in particular Premier Zhu Rongji and President Jiang Zemin, have shown foresight, courage, and vision in making the commitments necessary to conclude this bilateral agreement. I am also glad President Clinton worked so diligently over the last several months to finalize the arrangement. I believed in April that the April 8 arrangement with China was a good one. My preliminary evaluation of this week's agreement is that it goes beyond the April 8 agreement and provides further benefits to American economic interests. There are still several steps before China can accede to the WTO. China must complete other bilateral agreements, in particular with the European Union. Next, the protocol of accession must be completed. Then, the focus of attention will turn to us in the Congress. In order to receive the benefits we negotiated with China, the United States has to grant China permanent normal trade relations status. To do this, Congress has to amend the Jackson-Vanik amendment. I am confident that a majority in both Houses will vote to amend Jackson-Vanik. But it will take a lot of work. The administration, the agriculture, manufacturing, and service industries, and those of us in the Congress who have followed these negotiations and the U.S.-China relationship closely over the years, must educate and explain to our colleagues about the benefits of the agreement reached this week and the advantages to the United States of having China in the WTO. As we in the Congress begin to think about this issue and deliberate on it next year, I see four principal benefits to the United States. First, this week's agreement opens up new markets in China, with its population of 1.3 billion, for American farmers, manufacturers, and service industries. This will help sustain American economic growth. Second, the agreement gets China into the global trading system, which forces them to play by the rules of international trade. For perhaps the first time in history, China will be accountable for its behavior to the outside world. The dispute settlement system at the WTO is far from perfect, but it forces a country to explain actions that other members believe violate the global rules. And, when a violation is found, it puts pressure on that country to comply with the rules. In addition, there is a little known feature of the WTO called the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the TPRM. Every few years, a country's entire trade system is reviewed by all other members. Again, this type of scrutiny of China is virtually unprecedented. Third, the agreement will help strengthen the economic reformers in China, especially Premier Zhu Rongji who has clearly been in a weakened position this year. Economic reform, moving to a market economy, transparency--that is, opening up, less secrecy--direct foreign investment, listing of companies on overseas markets--progress in all these areas is of vital importance to the United States as they relate to stability in China, as they relate to accountability, and as they relate to a growing middle class. Fourth, Taiwan, the 12th-largest economy in the world, has almost completed its WTO accession process. Yet it is a political reality internationally that Taiwan cannot join the WTO before China. So, with China's admission to the WTO, Taiwan will follow very quickly. All of us should welcome that. The Congress has been concerned about many aspects of the U.S.-China relationship: espionage allegations, nuclear proliferation, human rights, and Taiwan. These are all serious issues, and we must confront each one head on. But, I, and I believe most Members of Congress, are able to look at each issue on its own merits. When Congress examines closely the arrangement for Chinese accession to the WTO, I am confident that Members will conclude that extending permanent normal trade relations status to China is now in the best interest of the United States. I don't want to sound pollyannaish about this. Once China is a member of the WTO and the United States has granted permanent NTR status, the real work of implementation begins. We have learned over the years that implementation of trade agreements takes as much effort, or even more effort, than the negotiations themselves. The administration will have to provide us with a plan about implementation. We in the Congress will have to devote additional resources and energy to ensuring full Chinese implementation. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill to establish a Congressional Trade Office to provide the Congress with additional resources to do exactly that. I hope my colleagues will look at that proposal and give it their support. In addition, I will be introducing some measures to help ensure that the administration--this one as well as future administrations--never deviates from the task of full implementation of agreements with China. In conclusion, this is a good agreement. It serves American interests. We have a lot of work ahead of us to help implement it and to follow up next year to make sure it is implemented. It deserves our support. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy in introducing the Downtown Equity Act of 1999. This bill will make the federal government a better partner with local officials when it comes to locating federal offices in a community. It will establish in statute a clear preference for federal offices to be located in the central business areas of a community. Why is this important? We all know the many problems facing community leaders as they chart the future course of their cities and towns. They must balance development patterns, employment, historic preservation, city services, transportation, and many other factors to arrive at a plan that makes the most sense for them. In many cases, the Federal government is a major source of employment and economic activity in these communities. That is particularly true in smaller cities and towns, where federal employees can make up a larger percentage of the employment base than in our large metropolitan areas. But too often, local officials find themselves battling with federal agencies over where to locate, or relocate, Federal facilities. The desires of agencies to locate on the outskirts of a small town can conflict with the needs of the community to preserve a vital business center downtown. I have seen firsthand some of these location battles in Montana. Communities such as Helena, Billings and Glasgow, have seen agencies threaten to move out of the downtown area, removing a linchpin of economic development that supports other local businesses. In another case, this time in Butte, an agency looked to abandon an historic building downtown in favor of a new site closer to the Interstate. The impact on these communities from such actions can be devastating. In Helena, for example, the relocation of the federal building would have removed over 400 Federal workers from the area and dealt a major blow to plans to revive the downtown core, known as Last Chance Gulch. And in Glasgow, a small town even by Montana standards, the relocation from the central business area to a new site on the outskirts of town threatened the survival of other businesses downtown and contributed to sprawl. Yes, even in the Big Sky state, sprawl is a threat to the vitality of our communities and the beauty of our environment. Many of these conflicts between communities and Federal agencies stems from the confusing, and sometimes conflicting, jumble of laws, executive orders, and regulations. It almost seems as if there is a provision to justify almost anything an agency wants to do. One law tells agencies to locate in rural areas. An executive order tells agencies to give priority to central business areas. No wonder agencies are confused and community leaders are angry. Mr. President, that's not right. We should have a clear, simple to understand policy when it comes to location of Federal facilities. Furthermore, that policy should make it easier for the Federal government to help community leaders who seek to maintain the vitality of their downtown areas. And that is what our bill does. First, as a matter of policy, it states that locating federal facilities in central business areas is good for the economy and the livability of communities. But more importantly, the bill implements that policy by requiring that the head of each Federal agency give first priority to central business areas when locating, or relocating, Federal facilities. This requirement could be waived if it would materially compromise the mission of the agency or if it would not be economically prudent. But those would be exceptions to the general rule that downtown areas should be the preferred area for Federal offices. And the downtown areas will be determined by local officials, not Federal agencies. This bill will be good for our communities. And it will be good for the Federal government. In closing let me express my appreciation to my colleague from Vermont for all the work that he has put into this issue. His leadership has been instrumental in crafting this bill. I look forward to working with him to bring this bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee and before the Senate early next year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy in introducing the Downtown Equity Act of 1999. This bill will make the federal government a better partner with local officials when it comes to locating federal offices in a community. It will establish in statute a clear preference for federal offices to be located in the central business areas of a community. Why is this important? We all know the many problems facing community leaders as they chart the future course of their cities and towns. They must balance development patterns, employment, historic preservation, city services, transportation, and many other factors to arrive at a plan that makes the most sense for them. In many cases, the Federal government is a major source of employment and economic activity in these communities. That is particularly true in smaller cities and towns, where federal employees can make up a larger percentage of the employment base than in our large metropolitan areas. But too often, local officials find themselves battling with federal agencies over where to locate, or relocate, Federal facilities. The desires of agencies to locate on the outskirts of a small town can conflict with the needs of the community to preserve a vital business center downtown. I have seen firsthand some of these location battles in Montana. Communities such as Helena, Billings and Glasgow, have seen agencies threaten to move out of the downtown area, removing a linchpin of economic development that supports other local businesses. In another case, this time in Butte, an agency looked to abandon an historic building downtown in favor of a new site closer to the Interstate. The impact on these communities from such actions can be devastating. In Helena, for example, the relocation of the federal building would have removed over 400 Federal workers from the area and dealt a major blow to plans to revive the downtown core, known as Last Chance Gulch. And in Glasgow, a small town even by Montana standards, the relocation from the central business area to a new site on the outskirts of town threatened the survival of other businesses downtown and contributed to sprawl. Yes, even in the Big Sky state, sprawl is a threat to the vitality of our communities and the beauty of our environment. Many of these conflicts between communities and Federal agencies stems from the confusing, and sometimes conflicting, jumble of laws, executive orders, and regulations. It almost seems as if there is a provision to justify almost anything an agency wants to do. One law tells agencies to locate in rural areas. An executive order tells agencies to give priority to central business areas. No wonder agencies are confused and community leaders are angry. Mr. President, that's not right. We should have a clear, simple to understand policy when it comes to location of Federal facilities. Furthermore, that policy should make it easier for the Federal government to help community leaders who seek to maintain the vitality of their downtown areas. And that is what our bill does. First, as a matter of policy, it states that locating federal facilities in central business areas is good for the economy and the livability of communities. But more importantly, the bill implements that policy by requiring that the head of each Federal agency give first priority to central business areas when locating, or relocating, Federal facilities. This requirement could be waived if it would materially compromise the mission of the agency or if it would not be economically prudent. But those would be exceptions to the general rule that downtown areas should be the preferred area for Federal offices. And the downtown areas will be determined by local officials, not Federal agencies. This bill will be good for our communities. And it will be good for the Federal government. In closing let me express my appreciation to my colleague from Vermont for all the work that he has put into this issue. His leadership has been instrumental in crafting this bill. I look forward to working with him to bring this bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee and before the Senate early next year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a chart. I noticed the Senator from New Mexico was looking at it with a quizzical expression on his face. The source is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Everybody has a chart these days. Essentially, this chart shows the assumptions. This line shows the on-budget deficit. The chart assumes we will continue 1999 discretionary spending levels inflated for present CPI and historical levels of emergency spending, which is an average of the last 8 years. It only addresses spending. What this chart does not show is how much the deficit is going to increase if we pass the tax cut bill from the other side, about $75 billion. This chart shows that, even without the tax cut the other side wants to enact, we are not going to reach a surplus until the year 2005 under current scorekeeping. If you add to that the $75 billion tax cut, it is clearly going to be a lot later before we even get a surplus. Do not forget, you have to add in the last interest and expenses that otherwise would be available. This is a no-brainer. Let's increase minimum wage fairly. Then let's enact tax provisions, tax cuts targeted to small business. Let's pay for it in a responsible way. Otherwise, we have the other side which is not paid for, a huge tax break which the President is going to veto anyway. So let's pass something the President will sign.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will somebody yield time to me?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I was very impressed with the statement of the Senator from Massachusetts earlier when he showed us the charts of how minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. As I recall the chart of the Senator, it was very dramatic, showing with the minimum wage increase of $1 over 2 years, still we would not keep up with inflation in real terms. He had a second chart. If you chart the poverty line, you will see the minimum wage has constantly been below the poverty line. So for all those who are worried about statistics and figures, rest assured this increase in the minimum wage proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts is not above inflation. It may be true in 1 year's time it is above what inflation might be in that single year, but on the question whether minimum wage has kept up with inflation or not, historically it has not kept up with inflation. Second, I want to relate a personal story which made a huge difference to me.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is an excellent point. I regret telling the Senator from Massachusetts I was not able to see that chart, but I am glad the Senator has explained this point. It is absolutely true. If you increase productivity, and everybody knows productivity means the amount of output per worker hour--if productivity has increased dramatically, that is all the more reason why it is unfair the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. The amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts will help accommodate that. The point I was going to make is when I last ran for reelection, I walked across our State. I will never forget talking to a woman, a single mom, who told me how hard she worked to try to stay off welfare. She had a minimum-wage job in my home State. She tried for a couple of years to stay off welfare. She was determined to stay off welfare. It was a matter of principle, a matter of pride. She slept on the sofa in her parents' home, she did all the things she could do to cut corners so she could raise her young child and stay off welfare. But she finally realized with her minimum-wage job and the day-care costs--I have forgotten the exact percent, but it was 30 or 40 percent of her take-home pay went to childcare--she could not do it. She had to finally give up and go onto welfare because her minimum-wage job did not earn her enough money for her and her child to survive. We can help get people off the welfare rolls by increasing minimum wage. It is not the total solution. There are lots of parts to that problem, lots of parts to the solution. But certainly, raising the minimum wage makes a huge difference. I might also add, in my home State of Montana there is a very unfortunate economic trend. In 1946, Montana ranked 10th in per capita income. In roughly 1992 or 1993, Montana ranked not 10th anymore but about 35th or 36th. Where does Montana rank today in per capita income? It depends on how you calculate it, but 48th, 49th, or 50th. The State used to be a natural resources, commodity-based State with mining business and timber industries that had good-paying jobs; in agriculture income was up too. Today, those mining jobs, those timber industry jobs, those commodity-based resource jobs are disappearing because of the greater importance of value added. We are now becoming a tourism State, a recreation State, a service industry State. And service industries pay very low wages compared with commodity-based industries. I am sure this is true in lots of other States in the Nation. An increase in the minimum wage is going to help increase the pay for service jobs, which is going to help a lot. I might also add keeping workers' pay up only makes sense; it is only fair because of all the profits so many companies have received, particularly over the past couple or 3 years, the best evidence of which is the skyrocketing increases of the stock indexes on the various stock exchanges. It was said earlier this is just a minimum wage for younger people. Mr. President, I am sure you have experienced this. When you stop in McDonald's, you go to a store, say a Penny's or some store downtown, you are going to find a lot of medium-age people and older people working there. I am astounded at the number of older women who work at McDonald's. I am astounded. This is not only a younger person's issue. In fact, if statistics were shown, my guess is it would be more of a women's issue and a medium-age issue--people having a hard time making ends meet, not school kids working for pocket change. Not only should there be an increase in the minimum wage--and I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts is more than fair--the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts is paid for. I ask consent to speak for 5 more minutes

Mr. BAUCUS. The amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts is paid for. What do I mean by that? By that I mean that the cost to the private sector of this increase, by CBO estimates, might be roughly $30 billion over 10 years. The amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts has several key tax cut provisions that would help offset whatever cost businesses might experience in paying the increased minimum wage. I would like to highlight just a couple. One of the main provisions is a small business pension startup tax credit. We want to help small business. We want to help small business provide pensions for their employees. We all know one of the big problems today is that while big businesses usually provide good pensions for their employees, small businesses do not, because of their narrower profit margins. It is very difficult to begin a small business. Startup costs in particular make the early years very difficult, because you have to pay that payroll tax on the first day of business whether or not you make a profit, and when you start out in small business you are not going to make a profit that first day. You don't have to pay income taxes, but you have to pay that payroll tax. Small businesses therefore have a very hard time doing what a lot of those small businesses want to do: Set up a pension fund for their employees. If we are going to solve the retirement problem of this country, we certainly have to reform Social Security, and we certainly have to increase private savings. But we all know that a third leg of the retirement stool is pension benefits. We clearly need more incentives so small business can provide pension benefits to their employees. They will be better employees. They will be more likely to stay there. They are going to be more committed to the business. And they are going to be more committed to helping that company make a buck. Our package has a tax credit for small businesses, about $4 billion, to help make that happen. What else do we do? We accelerate the 100-percent deduction of health insurance for the self-employed. The Republican bill does that, and so do we. It is very important that self-employed people get the health insurance deduction quickly. Other major highlights: Our bill has a tax credit for information technology training expenses. We have heard it many times that a lot of small firms cannot find enough good employees. There are not enough around. We provide a tax credit to those companies for technology training expenses. It makes a lot of sense. We also provide $2 billion over 10 years for a low-income housing tax credit, to help reduce housing costs of the buildings so many workers earning minimum wages live in. We provide estate tax relief. Strangely, that is not in the bill offered by the other side. We offer estate tax relief targeted to family-owned businesses. We increase the unified credit by $450,000 phased in to the year 2003. In addition, we increase the small business meals deduction up to 60 percent in the year 2002. These are all provisions targeted to small business. Rather than risking dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund, however, we pay for our provisions. Why do I say all that? Because the alternative offered on the other side is much more expensive. It will lose about $75 billion in revenue and there are no offsets for the lost revenue. Our proposal provides offsets for the $28 billion tax cut. The major offsets are extending the current Superfund tax and, second, closing corporate tax shelters. We close down a lot of loopholes in current law of which many companies are taking advantage. Let me say a couple of words about the ``pay for.'' Right now, the balance in the Superfund trust fund is declining dramatically. In 1996, the balance in the Superfund trust fund was about $4 billion. The estimate for this next year is about $1 billion. Why is that important? That is important to continue cleanups under the Superfund Program. If the trust fund is declining rapidly and gets close to zero, we are not going to have the cleanups this country wants. That is, ground water is going to be polluted, drinking water polluted, hazardous waste in the soil. It is very important we extend the Superfund provisions so the trust fund has the requisite dollars to continue cleanups, irrespective of whether we modify the Superfund law. I hope we do. But the trust fund is going to decline to zero pretty quickly whether or not Congress reauthorizes the trust fund. Second, if we continue this Superfund tax, the Appropriations Committee is more likely to fund Superfund. Technically, it does not have to though it usually appropriates dollars anyway. If the amount of money in the trust fund continues to be level and does not taper off-- and I note that it has been tapering off without the continuation of the tax--it is more likely the Appropriations Committee is going to find the dollars for Superfund cleanups. If we do not reinstate the trust fund, what is going to happen? Instead of the polluter paying for the cleanup, it will be the general revenue taxpayer who will pay to clean up. The polluters will not be paying for it; the general revenue taxpayer will pay for the pollution caused by major companies. It is imperative we extend the Superfund tax. The second major ``pay for'' provision we have in our bill is targeted toward tax shelters. Every time Congress shuts down some abusive tax shelters, tax attorneys are so smart, they figure out another loophole and a way to beat the system. What we are saying is for $10 billion over 10 years, let's enact a provision which makes transactions such as this much more difficult. Many organizations testified there is a problem that needs to be addressed in this area. The American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the American Association of CPAs, and many others have testified there has to be a solution to this problem. Even Congressman Archer has admitted we have been very successful in shutting down about $50 billion of specific shelters over the last 5 years, and those are just the tip of the iceberg, according to a lot of practitioners. So to summarize reasons to support our amendment: No. 1, we increase minimum wage because it makes sense, and lets people keep up with inflation. No. 2, we give tax breaks to small businesses that need it. They are very directed and targeted to the tune of about $28 billion. No. 3, we pay for our tax breaks in a very fair way. Contrast that with the other side, which stretches out the minimum wage increase, which hurts people and, in addition, has a tax bill which is not targeted. I ask for a few more minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, a long list of issues must be addressed in the next round of the multilateral trade negotiations that kick off in Seattle in 4 weeks. Agricultural trade is at the very top. Other issues include further reducing tariffs, repairing the WTO dispute settlement process, removing restrictions on trade and services, increasing opportunities to sell to governments, avoiding measures that restrict the growth of electronic commerce and figuring out how to put a human face on trade law consideration of the relationship between trade and labor and between trade and the environment. There is another issue that has received virtually no attention at all. Yet it is of critical importance to the United States, to most other nations, and to the world trading system itself. I refer to the problem of Japan, the second largest economy in the world. A country where the markets for our goods and services remain far more closed than they should be. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution I am introducing today, along with Senator Grassley, urges the administration to pay much more attention to Japan in the next trade round than was the case in the past. I want the administration to work overtime to ensure that Japan makes commitments that will genuinely open its markets. And the administration must then ensure that Japan meets those commitments. Paper agreements will not suffice. Agreeing to broad principles is unacceptable. Negotiations in the next trade round must lead to clear results in Japan. There must be meaningful, measurable change in the way Japan's markets operate. Historically, the relationship between multilateral and bilateral trade commitments made by Japan, and then whether there is actual change in Japan's markets, has been tenuous, at best. The American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, in its report ``Making Trade Talks Work'', documented this problem of implementation and results. In the Uruguay round, Japan did not have to make the kind of significant changes that were required of many other major trading countries. Including the United States. Even where Japan agreed to open its market, such as the rice market, the out-of-quota tariff rate is still in the range of 500 percent. That is not a misquote. It is Five Zero Zero, 500 percent tariff on rice coming into Japan from the United States. I am worried that in the next round, the Japanese Government will be able to minimize the commitments they make. And then, in a uniquely Japanese way, they will be able to minimize the implementation of those commitments and obligations. In earlier trade rounds, Japan agreed to the GATT Government Procurement Code. But the United States found that we had to negotiate special bilateral agreements with Japan in order to get genuine access to their government market. We negotiated multiple arrangements on computers, supercomputers, telecommunications equipment, medical equipment, and satellites. Even with these arrangements, access to Japan's market has still been a major problem in many of these areas. The GATT system has not worked well here. In the Uruguay round, we were so focused on other problems, especially in Europe, that we missed a lot of opportunities with Japan. I am concerned that the same thing may happen again. I certainly do not want to take away from the focus on agriculture and other priorities we have for the next round. But I want to be sure that we do not let Japan off again. Japan seems now to be working overtime to protect its trade- distorting policies in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The Advanced Tariff Liberalization efforts would have been further along but for Japanese opposition at APEC. Now, Japan is trying to hide its protectionist policies behind the banner of the ``multifunctionality'' of agriculture. That is, they claim that farming plays an important role in a country's social and cultural fabric, trade liberalization cannot interfere. Of course, farming is integral to the social fabric of many nations, including our own. But that is not an excuse for trade protection and making other countries pay those domestic social costs. At the same time, Japan is playing a leading role in criticizing United States trade laws and in working with other countries to challenge our anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws in the next round. Some speculate that this is just another attempt to undercut American initiatives in the new round. Japan could, and more important Japan should, take a leadership role in a number of areas. After all, few countries in the world have benefited more than Japan over the past half century from an open world trading system. Japan could take significant steps to make its regulatory system more transparent and less burdensome. They could table a broad based services liberalization proposal that would encourage others to follow. Japan could lead the effort to put more transparency into the government procurement agreement. It could lead on electronic commerce. And, of course, it could deal with those agriculture policies that are at the top of the agenda. This resolution calls on the administration to focus on Japan in the next round, to set out specific expectations for the changes desired in Japan, to ensure that Japanese commitments made in the round will truly lead to change in the Japanese market, to work with other major nations to ensure that these changes occur, and to consult closely with Congress and the private sector, including manufacturers, agriculture, service providers, and NGOs, throughout the negotiations. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping ensure full participation by Japan in the round and in ensuring that we will benefit from Japan's commitments. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I will need 10 to 12 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise to send three separate bills to the desk. I am introducing these three pieces of legislation because I am very concerned about the direction of U.S. trade policy. Since the end of World War II, America has maintained a strong domestic consensus on the importance of open markets, allowing us to lead the world into an era of unprecedented growth. That consensus is fraying at the edges. Divisions over the role of labor and the environment have helped to undermine it. These divisions have prevented us from re-instituting fast track negotiating authority, which lapsed nearly five years ago. While we hesitate, the rest of the world continues to move forward on economic integration. Regional trade arrangements in Europe, Latin America, and Asia put U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage. We lose overseas markets to foreign competitors who enjoy trade preferences for which our farmers, manufacturers and service providers are ineligible. In my home state of Montana, wheat exporters have lost their share of the Chilean market to Canadian farmers, who are not subject to the 11% Chilean import duty that Montana farmers face. If we cannot agree on a global fast-track bill, then we should institute fast-track authority for specific countries where we have strategic commercial and political interests. In doing so, we should choose countries which not only share our commitment to open markets, but also share our values for environmental quality and labor rights. I recently outlined some broad principles on trade and the environment in a statement here on the Senate floor. FTA's should be consistent with those principles. In addition to addressing the environment, they should also firmly support core labor standards. As to the countries, the bills I am introducing provide authority to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements with three important trading partners: Singapore, the Republic of Korea and Chile. Taken together, these three countries buy about $40 billion worth of U.S. goods annually. For a number of years, the United States has considered, informally or formally, negotiating FTA's with all three of them. Soon after signing NAFTA, we talked to Chile about acceding to it as the fourth NAFTA partner. Chile waited patiently for Congress to give the President negotiating authority. That authority never arrived. Since then, Chile has gone ahead and signed bilateral trade agreements with both Mexico and Canada. Similarly, we broached the notion of either an FTA or accession to NAFTA with Singapore several years ago. Of all the countries of East Asia, none is more committed to open markets than Singapore. Negotiating an FTA not only makes commercial sense, it also reinforces our engagement in the Pacific Basin. Finally, the Republic of Korea is a country which has made enormous economic and political progress in the past two decades. It is now in the midst of a very painful restructuring forced upon it by the Asian financial crisis. An FTA with Korea would lock in the gains--both economic and political--of the past, much as NAFTA did for Mexico. Recently, the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative said that an FTA with Korea was an interesting idea, but that the only way to get there was to resolve our bilateral trade disputes. I think that's backwards. FTA negotiations are a way to resolve these issues. The bills also establish a general policy framework for negotiating free trade agreements. They require that FTA's address the full range of issues, from guaranteeing national treatment and market access, to protecting intellectual property. They require that FTA's address electronic commerce, an area where the United States has a strong commercial interest. And hey require that FTA's address the labor and environmental issues. I entered the Senate not too many years after Congress passed the original fast-track legislation. At that time, the notion of ``intellectual property'' was something novel. The idea that ``intellectual property'' should be considered in trade negotiations was ridiculed. Many said that patents, copyrights and trademarks were domestic issues, and thus not appropriate subject for trade agreements. But the United States insisted that the world trading system address these issues. We put a lot of political capital behind it. Today, nobody questions the appropriateness of WTO rules for trade-related intellectual property rules. I firmly believe that in the near future, we will see the same result with trade-related labor and environmental issues. We cannot--and should not--avoid these issues. So the bills I am introducing require that FTA's address trade aspects of labor and the environment. We must identify potential environmental consequences--both positive and negative--of trade agreements, and put in place mechanisms to deal with any adverse impacts. Similarly, we must reaffirm our commitment to core labor standards through a mechanism dealing with any adverse impacts that trade agreements have on labor markets. Mr. President, we need to send a strong signal to the rest of the world that the United States intends to continue its leadership of the global trading system. The Africa Trade Bill that we passed here this week was an excellent step in the right direction. We must continue to make progress on opening markets for American farmers, manufacturers and service providers. Negotiating bilateral free trade agreements with like-minded countries will support our multilateral negotiations in the WTO. Just as we negotiated NAFTA and the Uruguay round at the same time, we should pursue bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Korea, and Singapore while we are negotiating the next round in the WTO.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise to send three separate bills to the desk. I am introducing these three pieces of legislation because I am very concerned about the direction of U.S. trade policy. Since the end of World War II, America has maintained a strong domestic consensus on the importance of open markets, allowing us to lead the world into an era of unprecedented growth. That consensus is fraying at the edges. Divisions over the role of labor and the environment have helped to undermine it. These divisions have prevented us from re-instituting fast track negotiating authority, which lapsed nearly five years ago. While we hesitate, the rest of the world continues to move forward on economic integration. Regional trade arrangements in Europe, Latin America, and Asia put U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage. We lose overseas markets to foreign competitors who enjoy trade preferences for which our farmers, manufacturers and service providers are ineligible. In my home state of Montana, wheat exporters have lost their share of the Chilean market to Canadian farmers, who are not subject to the 11% Chilean import duty that Montana farmers face. If we cannot agree on a global fast-track bill, then we should institute fast-track authority for specific countries where we have strategic commercial and political interests. In doing so, we should choose countries which not only share our commitment to open markets, but also share our values for environmental quality and labor rights. I recently outlined some broad principles on trade and the environment in a statement here on the Senate floor. FTA's should be consistent with those principles. In addition to addressing the environment, they should also firmly support core labor standards. As to the countries, the bills I am introducing provide authority to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements with three important trading partners: Singapore, the Republic of Korea and Chile. Taken together, these three countries buy about $40 billion worth of U.S. goods annually. For a number of years, the United States has considered, informally or formally, negotiating FTA's with all three of them. Soon after signing NAFTA, we talked to Chile about acceding to it as the fourth NAFTA partner. Chile waited patiently for Congress to give the President negotiating authority. That authority never arrived. Since then, Chile has gone ahead and signed bilateral trade agreements with both Mexico and Canada. Similarly, we broached the notion of either an FTA or accession to NAFTA with Singapore several years ago. Of all the countries of East Asia, none is more committed to open markets than Singapore. Negotiating an FTA not only makes commercial sense, it also reinforces our engagement in the Pacific Basin. Finally, the Republic of Korea is a country which has made enormous economic and political progress in the past two decades. It is now in the midst of a very painful restructuring forced upon it by the Asian financial crisis. An FTA with Korea would lock in the gains--both economic and political--of the past, much as NAFTA did for Mexico. Recently, the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative said that an FTA with Korea was an interesting idea, but that the only way to get there was to resolve our bilateral trade disputes. I think that's backwards. FTA negotiations are a way to resolve these issues. The bills also establish a general policy framework for negotiating free trade agreements. They require that FTA's address the full range of issues, from guaranteeing national treatment and market access, to protecting intellectual property. They require that FTA's address electronic commerce, an area where the United States has a strong commercial interest. And hey require that FTA's address the labor and environmental issues. I entered the Senate not too many years after Congress passed the original fast-track legislation. At that time, the notion of ``intellectual property'' was something novel. The idea that ``intellectual property'' should be considered in trade negotiations was ridiculed. Many said that patents, copyrights and trademarks were domestic issues, and thus not appropriate subject for trade agreements. But the United States insisted that the world trading system address these issues. We put a lot of political capital behind it. Today, nobody questions the appropriateness of WTO rules for trade-related intellectual property rules. I firmly believe that in the near future, we will see the same result with trade-related labor and environmental issues. We cannot--and should not--avoid these issues. So the bills I am introducing require that FTA's address trade aspects of labor and the environment. We must identify potential environmental consequences--both positive and negative--of trade agreements, and put in place mechanisms to deal with any adverse impacts. Similarly, we must reaffirm our commitment to core labor standards through a mechanism dealing with any adverse impacts that trade agreements have on labor markets. Mr. President, we need to send a strong signal to the rest of the world that the United States intends to continue its leadership of the global trading system. The Africa Trade Bill that we passed here this week was an excellent step in the right direction. We must continue to make progress on opening markets for American farmers, manufacturers and service providers. Negotiating bilateral free trade agreements with like-minded countries will support our multilateral negotiations in the WTO. Just as we negotiated NAFTA and the Uruguay round at the same time, we should pursue bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Korea, and Singapore while we are negotiating the next round in the WTO.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this bill is a fitting tribute to our beloved former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the late Senator John Chafee. I commend our new Chairman, Senator Smith, for conceiving of this tribute, and am pleased to join him and others in introducing the bill. Over the past week or so, many of us have spoken of the sadness we feel at Senator Chafee's passing. We have spoken of his contributions to legislative debates, and in particular the work he did to improve our major environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. The bill we are introducing today shows another side of Senator Chafee's work. He wasn't just interested in issues that bring headlines and accolades. When he came to work each morning, he tried to make things better, however he could, in ways both large and small. The Coastal Barriers Resources System was one of those relatively small, but significant, accomplishments. Very few people have heard about it. But it's made a difference. Senator Chafee proposed the Coastal Barriers Resources Act in 1981. It was enacted into law in 1982 and reauthorized in 1990. The act establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources System, which comprises about 3 million acres of fragile coastal habitat covering 2,500 shoreline miles. Within the system, certain types of federal assistance, such as flood insurance and funding to replenish beaches, is prohibited. If someone wants to build in one of these areas, such as along a beach that is highly edible and in the frequent path of hurricanes, fine. But taxpayers will not help foot the bill. In this way, the act promotes two simple, common-sense ideas: conservation and thrift. It promotes conservation because coastal barriers are very important and fragile ecosystems. Senator Chafee put it this way, at the first hearing on his bill, in Providence in 1982. He said: These beaches and islands are places of incredible beauty that deserve to be protected so that they can be open for enjoyment by everybody, all the citizens of our country. He continued: The grassy dunes, salt marshes, and tidal estuaries of the barrier islands [also] provide essential areas where healthy wildlife populations can find shelter, food and a tranquil place to raise their young. By discouraging development in these areas, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act promotes conservation. The act also promotes thrift. Simply put, it's a waste of taxpayers' money to subsidize development that not only harms the environment, but that also is likely, at some point, to be swept out to sea. When he signed the act into law, President Reagan said that it ``will save American taxpayers millions of dollars.'' and that's turned out to be the case. Conservation and thrift. Good Yankee virtues, characteristic of John Chafee. One more thing. In his eulogy last Saturday, former Senator Danforth talked about how John Chafee tried to bring people together. This is yet another example. When all the painstaking work was done, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act reflected a bipartisan consensus. It was supported by virtually everyone--from the National Taxpayers Union, to the Red Cross, to the major environmental groups. It was enacted with only four dissenting votes in the entire Congress. It brought people together. Mr. President, two weeks ago, Senator John Chafee introduced a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. It turned out to be the very last bill that he introduced. The bill that we are introducing today takes a further step. It names the system that he created, and nurtured, the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. It is a modest, but fitting, tribute.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am so pleased that the Senate will pass the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Reserved Water Rights Settlement. The legislation ratifies the Compact approved by the State and the Tribe in 1997. I was proud to sponsor this legislation in the 105th with Senator Burns as a co-sponsor, and had the 2nd Session of that Congress lasted a few more weeks, I believe the bill would have been approved by the Senate. Once again this year, Senator Burns and I jointly introduced this legislation. The passage of this bill is the culmination of 16 years of extensive technical studies and six years of rather intensive negotiations in our state involving the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the Montana State government, off-Reservation county and municipal governments in north-central Montana, local ranchers, and the United States Departments of Justice and Interior. The 122,000-acre Rocky Boy's Reservation sits west of Havre, Montana on several tributaries of the Milk River on what was formerly the Fort Assiniboine Military Reserve. Unfortunately, the portion of the land reserved for the Chippewa Cree is rough and arid. Without irrigation, much of the land is not suitable for farming. Recent studies have demonstrated that the Reservation could not sustain the membership of the Chippewa Cree Tribe as a permanent homeland without an infusion of additional water. The development of a viable reservation economy calls for more water for drinking purposes, as well as for agriculture and other municipal uses. In 1982, acting in its fiduciary capacity as trustee for the Tribe, the United States filed a claim for the water rights of the Chippewa Cree in the State of Montana general stream adjudication. Were it not for the negotiated settlement represented by this legislation, divisive and costly litigation would be pending between the State, the Tribe, the United States and non-Indian ranchers for many years to come. Fortunately, in 1979, the Montana legislature articulated a policy in favor of negotiation and established the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission to negotiate compacts for the equitable division and apportionment of waters between the state and its people and several Indian tribes claiming reserved water rights within the state. From the initial meeting in 1992, to the conclusion of an agreed on water rights Compact in 1997, the State, the Federal Government and the Tribe acted in good faith and worked together to explore options. This culminated in passage of a resolution by the Chippewa Cree Tribal Council to ratify the Compact on January 9, 1997. Following overwhelming approval by the Montana Legislature and appropriation of funds for implementation, Governor Marc Racicot signed the Compact into state law on April 14, 1997. Subsequent negotiation, in which staff from my office assisted the State and Tribe, resulted in approval by the United States Departments of the Interior and Justice and drafting of this bill by the three parties. The litigation filed in State water court in 1982 is stayed pending the outcome of this bill. Once passed, the United States, the Tribe and the State of Montana will petition the Montana Water Court to enter a decree reflecting the water rights of the Tribe. I thank my colleagues for supporting this very positive legislation. After years of hard work and negotiations, we have a victory to be thankful for at last. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.