Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, my understanding is there is no time constraint. We are on the motion to proceed; is that correct?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise with deep and heavy sadness to mourn the passing of a great statesman, my dear friend, John Chafee, from Rhode Island. There will be a lot of eulogies on the floor over the next several days. For the moment, I want to say a few words about a very great man, a very close friend, someone who I think is one of the best Members of the Senate in many, many years. First, a little bit of history about John Chafee. He was born to one of the most prominent New England families. He could have coasted. He could have gone into business. He could have gone into law. No, he did not do that. What did he do? He chose service to his people. It was an extraordinary life of service. John was a marine. John fought in the historic battle at Guadalcanal. A few years later, he reenlisted and led troops in combat in Korea. On a lighter note, as far as I know, Senator Chafee was the only Member of the Senate who was also a member of the American College Wrestling Hall of Fame. Move over, Jesse Ventura. We have a wrestler in the Hall of Fame. John, after serving in the armed services, later turned to public service. He was a Governor of Rhode Island. He was a Secretary of the Navy. Since 1976, he was a Member of the Senate. When I first joined the Senate about 20 years ago, the last thing in the world I believed was over a period of time he and I would become very close friends. We were sitting as junior Members, very far away from each other, on the Finance Committee and also on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am from Montana. John is from Rhode Island. In Montana, we even have ranches the size of the State of Rhode Island. We were from very different States with different constituencies. Nevertheless, it was a circumstance of seniority that brought us together. I was very privileged to work with John. We exchanged chairmanships and ranking memberships on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We developed a very close relationship. He was one of the best persons, in my judgment, in the Senate. On the Finance Committee, he worked to balance the budget. He put fiscal austerity, on behalf of future generations, ahead of ideology. He worked for a system of free trade. Most important, John spoke for those people in the shadows--the poor, the elderly, and children. Especially children with special needs, whether it was Medicaid or welfare reform, John was a very strong advocate. In fact, he was a stronger advocate by far than most Members of the Senate. On the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chaired, he did so in the great tradition of other New England Senators: Ed Muskie, Bob Stafford and George Mitchell. Tremendous tradition on that committee. His accomplishments are legion. We breathe cleaner air because of John Chafee. Because of his diligent work on the Clean Water Act, we drink cleaner water because of John Chafee. We have a rich legacy, and John Chafee left that legacy to our children and grandchildren. In addition, he vigorously pushed through the Oil Pollution Act in the wake of the Valdez tragedy; the Safe Drinking Water Act; Endangered Species Act; the National Wildlife Refuge System is in place because of Muskie, Stafford, and, particularly, John Chafee; the Coastal Barrier Resources System--all bear John's mark. Personally, I will remember John Chafee as a decent, civil, courteous, commonsense gentleman. His issues and the legislation he worked for were very important. But it is the man who means the most to me and is remembered most by me. He reminds me of my father. He never raised his voice, never lost his temper, was always calm, always cool, often with a little twinkle in his eye, a sense of humor. He had respect for life. He knew what was important and not important. He kept his eye on the ball and wouldn't let conversations drift to gossip or extraneous matters that didn't matter; they prevented Members from accomplishing the objective. Uncommon common sense. John Chafee had a sixth sense for common sense. He knew the basic, balanced, right thing to do. Senator Specter mentioned the organizations he put together, the moderates working on health care. That is only one of the many examples of John Chafee trying to get something accomplished for the good of America. Unquestioned integrity. We say around here that a man's word is his bond. It is true. We always strive toward it because we know it is necessary, not only to get legislation passed but it is one of the most important things in life. We knew when John said something it was true. No one ever questioned what John said. My father's name was John. Maybe that is part of it. The two of them remind me so much of each other. Both were veterans and knew the importance of America--maybe because they were veterans. John knew from fighting at Guadalcanal, fighting in Korea, fighting for American virtues, American values and what is right in America. Maybe that is what enabled him to keep his perspective and calm. It has been mentioned he is a family man. I saw it many times. Not too many days ago I was on the floor with John and he said: Gee, I promised Ginny I would be home by 2 o'clock today. His legs were bothering him. Gee, I want to get this bill passed; I will vote on this. He was torn for the right reasons, torn between family and duty. But he gave honor to both because they were so important to John. I, too, was stunned when I learned of John's death last night. We will miss him terribly. He was a most wonderful man. His memory will be embedded strongly in all of us. It is a memory I know I will cherish forever and ever. I will always see John's twinkle, his smile, his earnest sense of trying to do the right thing. On behalf of my wife, Wanda, and my staff, our deepest sympathy and condolences go to Ginny and the family, as well as members of John's staff, some of whom are on the floor. John was very close to his staff. It is a wonderful, tight knit family. Our deepest condolences go out to all of them.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the establishment of the sister-state relationship between my home state of Montana and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China. The establishment of this sisterhood marks a successful conclusion to many years of building mutual cooperation, trust and friendship, as well as a bright beginning of a continued strong relationship between our countries. I would like to commend Governor Marc Racicot of the State of Montana for his continued efforts to bring new opportunities to the state through education, business relations and cultural exchanges. I would also like to thank the People's Republic of China and Governor Li Zhaozhuo for linking Guangxi Province to Montana. The richness of culture, citizens, history, and boundless environmental beauty make our state and your province a perfect match. Montana and Guangxi have worked a long time in building this relationship. In fact, a high level delegation from Guangxi Province joined the first Mansfield Pacific Retreat on ``Trade and Agriculture,'' held in Bigfork, Montana, in May 1996. The idea of establishing friendly exchange relationships between American states and cities and Chinese provinces and cities goes back to the late 1970s when China, as a country, began to ``open up to the outside.'' These sister relationships have proved to be very helpful in establishing cultural and grassroots relations. A good example is the product relationship between the city of Seattle and Chongqing in Sichuan Province. The establishment of Montana's sister ties with Guangxi Province in South China fits within this tradition of promoting people to people communication. Such a relationship is especially relevant to Montana because of the life, work, and legacy of Mike Mansfield. He is Montana's ``favorite son'' who has also made a name known for himself in China. His promotion of sister relationships with Asia began during his tenure as American Ambassador to Japan. He proposed and helped to establish Montana's sister relationship with Kumamoto Prefecture. He also established the University of Montana's sister relations with Toyo University in Tokyo and Kumamoto University in Kumamoto City. Although Senator Mansfield is better known for his promotion of mutual understanding with Japan, his impact on American Chinese relations is also significant. His interest in East Asia began when he served in the U.S. Marines soon after World War I and visited the American Garrison then in the city of Tianjin. Senator Mansfield continued his work in the Far East as a Congressman from Montana. He visited China at the request of President Roosevelt to report back with advice on American policy following the defeat of Japan in the Pacific War. He is also credited with opening relations with China in the early 1970s and he was the first American Senator to visit China, soon after President Nixon's historic visit in 1972. The current ties between Montana and Guangxi are a fitting expression of the value of people to people communication between America and China. They are also a fitting tribute to the legacy of Senator Mansfield. Finally, I was pleased to have the opportunity to visit Guangxi's beautiful city of Guilin last summer during President Clinton's visit to China. I was impressed by the great efforts the Guangxi's citizens have taken to ensure that their children and generations to come will continue to enjoy the natural wonders and beauty of their province. We in Montana also take such pride in our state's natural treasures--our mountains, our lakes and our wildlife. I am very proud of the establishment of Montana and Guangxi's sisterhood. This is just the beginning. As we enter the new Millennium, let us strive to build and strengthen our sisterhood relationship as a model for cooperation and understanding.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Caleb Shields, retired Chairman and current Councilman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in Montana. Caleb is retiring from his elected position with the Tribe, after twenty-four years of elected service. For those of you who don't know Caleb, I am sorry that you did not have an opportunity to meet this remarkable man during his many visits to discuss the myriad of issues facing Native American people. He has a strength of character and honor about him that you could not help but recognize and admire instantly when you met him. Caleb's tenure of twenty-four years on the Board is truly a testament to his leadership and his character. As we all know, very few politicians can have a career that spans twenty-four years and even fewer can do it with the grace and dedication that Caleb has. It has been an honor to work with Caleb on the many issues that we have worked on together. His commitment and dedication to improve the lives of not only the Native Americans on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, but the lives of Native Americans throughout the Nation, are an inspiration to me. He has worked tirelessly to improve the level of funding for Indian health care programs and Native American education programs. He has stood in the Halls of Congress, often in the face of severe opposition, defending the governmental and sovereign rights of tribes. He has stood up to the federal government when the federal government has failed in its obligation to the tribes of this country. Significantly, he did all of this without ever making an enemy and without ever treating any person with disrespect. We can all stand to learn something from this man who while he had many battles, he never made any enemies. I will miss my friend's visits to Washington, but I will mostly miss his advice on the Native American issues. Native American Country is losing a great leader, but I am sure that the basketball teams in Poplar are regaining a loyal fan. I understand that Caleb hopes to write a book about the history of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes from treaty time to modern time. I wish him well in his endeavor and look forward to reading his book. At the request of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act, a bill that I have introduced along with my colleagues Senators Bond, Breaux, Lincoln, and McCain. As you know, Mr. President, in 1997 Congress passed the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. CHIP is a joint Federal-State program, designed to ensure that children of low-income working families have access to health insurance. I'm proud to have worked on the Senate Finance Committee to establish CHIP, and I remain committed to its guiding principle: that all children should have access to the medical care they need to stay healthy and strong. In fact, just 13 days ago, the Montana CHIP program went into effect. So as I speak, children in my state are already benefitting from this program. But while CHIP is important, it is not without imperfections. Most notably, States are not allowed to extend CHIP funds to low-income, pregnant adult women. This just doesn't make sense. If pregnant women go uninsured, they are far less likely to receive prenatal care. And if they don't receive prenatal care, their babies face a much higher risk of having health problems, from premature birth to birth defects. We should make sure that these babies are healthy and strong from the very start, by allowing states to offer health insurance to low-income pregnant women under CHIP. A second problem with CHIP is that, just like the Medicaid program, we've had a hard time getting the word out about it. Right now, there are 358,000 pregnant woman and fully 3 million children who are eligible for Medicaid, but are not enrolled in the program. The same holds true with CHIP: across the United States, low-income, uninsured kids cannot benefit from the program, because they aren't enrolled. Mr. President, our bill is aimed at solving these problems, and making CHIP an even stronger, more effective program. First, it would give States the freedom to extend CHIP funds to low-income, pregnant mothers above the age of 19. This is a critical steps toward empowering our States to provide health care to those who need it most, when they need it most. As many as 45,000 pregnant women could benefit from this change every year--and bare in mind, that means that 45,000 babies could benefit as well. And let me add, Mr. President, that this does not create a new Federal mandate. To the contrary, this provision would only increase the freedom of the States to direct these Federal health care resources as they see fit. Second, our bill would assist States in reaching out to their uninsured citizens. When Congress passed the welfare reform bill in 1996, we also created a $500 million fund that States could use to let uninsured folks know if they were eligible for Medicaid. The problem is, most of this money has gone unused. And in just a short while, most states will lose their 3-year window of opportunity to use these funds. Our bill will eliminate this 3-year deadline, to allow continued access to these funds. It will also allow states to use the funds to reach out to both Medicaid and CHIP-eligible women and children. By making this change, we can help ensure that CHIP and Medicaid function as they are supposed to--and that the mothers and children who need health insurance coverage will get it. Mr. President, most of my colleagues, liberal and conservative alike, agree that CHIP is a step in the right direction toward solving the growing problem of the uninsured. Let's act now to make CHIP even stronger.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I compliment and thank my good friend from Nebraska for his statement on this Agriculture conference report. Nebraska is an agricultural State. As my colleague from Montana, the Presiding Officer, knows, Montana is also an agricultural State. I see on the floor the chairman, my good friend from Mississippi. Mississippi is also an agricultural State. Every State is an agricultural State-- some more than others, of course. But I must say about the statement the Senator made--in most respects I agree with him--it was a good one. Essentially it comes down to this. A lot of farmers and ranchers are suffering very dire economic consequences because of low prices in the main but also because of bad weather, because of disaster, droughts, or in many cases floods. The hurricane, for example, that came up the east coast not too long ago has devastated a lot of eastern American farmers. Those States are not part of the farm program but, nevertheless, have heavy agricultural segments in their economy and have been damaged significantly. We have a conference report in front of us which provides about $8.7 billion in emergency aid. Most of that goes to Midwest farmers, western farmers, and not enough goes to the northeastern farmers. That is regrettable. There is not enough in this conference report that takes care of Eastern and Northeastern agriculture. There should be. I hope we can figure out a way to provide for those in agriculture in the Eastern and Northeastern parts of the United States because they are not sufficiently provided for in this bill. Nevertheless, for most of America, this bill does help. It just helps. It does not do much more, but it helps relieve a lot of the pain that farmers--when I say farmers, I mean grain producers and livestock producers--are facing. It is an old story. It has not changed. Agriculture is in a special situation; namely, it suffers the vagaries of weather; it suffers the vagaries of the market price. Most businesses today do not have that to worry about. Most businesses today can control the prices they pay for their products. To some degree, they can control the prices for which they sell their products. There is a lot more stability in most other industries compared to agriculture. Because of the instability in agriculture, again because farmers and ranchers have virtually no control over the price they get for their products and because the costs they pay for all of their supplies and implements keep rising--and they have virtually no say about that-- agriculture is getting squeezed more and more each year. That is the problem, particularly when there is a natural disaster on top of it. This Senate has not done a very good job in addressing this problem. There are a lot of fancy speeches about we have to do this and we have to do that. I have made some of them. All Senators in this Chamber at the present time have made some of them. I am not blaming us all, but I am giving us all a little bit of a reminder that we have not followed up our speeches enough with action. It is hard. It is very hard to know what the solutions should be, but we still have not found the solutions. We are elected to find the solutions. That is why we run for these jobs, and that is theoretically why people elect us. They think we are going to do something about some of the problems our people face. Why haven't we done more? I submit in large part because this place is so partisan. It has become very partisan in the last several years. I am not going to stand here and blame one side or the other. I am going to say it is a fact. Because it is so partisan, there is very little trust, and because there is very little trust not much gets accomplished. There is not much trust between the majority party and the White House. When that happens, not much gets accomplished. Our Founding Fathers set up a form of government of divided powers. We are not a parliamentary form of government. We are a divided government. We have the executive branch and the legislative branch, the two Houses of Congress, and people have to get along if we are to get something accomplished; people have to work together if we are going to get something accomplished. Too often, people in the House and the Senate, and probably the executive branch as well, run to the newspapers, they run to the press back home and they make all these high-sounding statements to make themselves look good and the other side to look bad. They are trying to claim credit for doing the good things and basically saying the other guys are doing the bad things. That is where we are. There is not a person listening to my remarks who does not disagree with that. That is exactly where we are. The question is, How do we get out of this? How do we start to regain some lost trust? How do we begin to regain, in some sense--some are going to dispute a little of this--those times in the older days when there was a little more cooperation? How are we going to do that? Basically, it takes leadership. It takes leadership by Senators; it takes leadership by the leadership. It means standing above matters a little bit, standing back and getting a perspective, remembering why we are here, remembering what really counts. And what really counts is serving our people without a lot of fanfare rather than trying to make a lot of big fancy statements. I am reminded of a former Senator from Montana, Mike Mansfield. Mike Mansfield, who was majority leader for 17 years --he was leader longer than any other Senator has ever been leader in this body--was the kind of person--and that is probably why he was leader for so long--who basically worked to get things done but did not crow about it and did not try to take a lot of credit for it. He was a guy who wanted to get things done to serve the people and to serve the right way, not play politics, not play partisan politics. In fact, there is a new book coming out about Mike Mansfield. If you page through it, you can get a sense of what he was about, and we can take a lesson from it. I am going to list a couple of things I know we have to do in the hope that--knowing that most agree we have to do these things--we somehow get together and start doing something about them. One is to get this conference report adopted. It is going to help. It is not going to solve all the problems, but it is going to help. As I mentioned, it does not do enough for the Northeastern United States or Eastern United States. I very much hope we can find the time and way to do that. In addition, we do need to address the longer term; that is, some kind of a safety net. There has been a lot of debate--most of it has been ideological--over Freedom to Farm. It is basically an ideological debate. Most farmers and ranchers do not give two hoots about ideology. Most farmers and ranchers just want some basic program, structure, or something that addresses the bottom so there is some kind of a safety net. We are not talking about a handout. Nobody is talking about a handout. We are not talking about some solution where farmers are given an absolute guarantee they are going to make money or absolute guarantee they are going to make a profit. But we know because of weather conditions--sometimes it rains too much, sometimes not enough, sometimes there are floods, sometimes droughts, sometimes the market falls to the bottom--we need a floor to basically prevent people from going out of business--not to make a profit but prevent them from going out of business because we know how important agriculture is to our country. Let's get over the ideology of Freedom to Farm, the ``freedom to fail.'' Those are nice sounding words. All of us have heard them hundreds of times. I say let's forget the words and figure out a way to design a safety net. It is not going to happen this year because there is not enough time. I ask us all, when we are home during the recess, to be thinking about this and thinking about a way to get a square peg in a square hole or a round peg in a round hole and find a solution. I guarantee, the best politics is really the best policy; that is, if we enact something that makes sense, then all the Republicans and all the Democrats can say: Yes, we did something good. And the people at home are going to be very happy for that. They care much more about that than who is blaming whom for not getting the job done. I do not know why I have to say that. It is so obvious. I guess I say it because it is still not done. We, obviously, have to address crop insurance. We want a Crop Insurance Program essentially so farmers and ranchers can make their own decisions and know how much they should be insured. We want a program that works and covers a lot more than the current program does. As you well know, Mr. President, because you and I have spent a lot of time on these issues, we have to have a much better international trade regime. American farmers and ranchers are being taken to the cleaners. They are being taken to the cleaners compared with farmers and ranchers worldwide. One example is this beef hormone matter. The Europeans for 12 years have said they are not going to take a single ounce of American beef. Why? Because they say our feed lots with growth hormones cause disease and people who eat American beef--Americans eat it all the time and other people do, too--has an adverse health effect on European consumers. It is a totally bogus issue, totally. Europeans know it; we know it. But for 12 years, they still have not taken any beef. What do we do? We bring an action before the World Trade Organization. What happens? The World Trade Organization agrees. They sent it to an international scientific panel which concluded the Americans are right and the Europeans are wrong. They sent it to a second scientific panel. It came to the same conclusion. All the scientific panels came to the same conclusion. Europe still says no. The WTO says that we have a right, as Americans, to impose tariffs on European products, on the value of the beef that is not going into Europe, so we do. Europeans say: Fine, we will just pay; we still won't import any beef. That is one of many examples where we are getting stiffed because there is not a way, there is not leverage, there is not a regime for us to stand up for what is right for American farmers. And take the state trading enterprises, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Australian Wheat Board. We still have not solved that problem. We will face a huge problem, too, in the coming years with respect to Europe. Europeans are getting on their high horse about genetically modified organisms. It is going to be a huge problem with Europe. To make matters even worse, Europe is starting to feel its oats. I think it is kind of upset with the United States because they see the United States as this big country. I think the war in Yugoslavia has exacerbated things a little bit because the European defense establishment did not provide the sophisticated materiel that was needed there. So now they want to build up their defense establishment. It is wrapped up in an awful lot of issues. And it is OK for Americans to criticize the Europeans for their failure to be straight and have a level agricultural playing field. I might add, for example, their export subsidies are out of this world. European export subsidies are about 60 times American export subsidies for agriculture--60 times. Our EEP is about $300 million, $200 million--I do not think it is ever used--whereas their export subsidies are gargantuan. Do you think Europeans, out of the goodness of their heart, are going to lower their export subsidies? No way. No way. We know that no country altruistically, out of the goodness of its heart, is going to lower their trade barriers. The only way to lower trade barriers is when there is a little leverage. So we have to find leverage in the usual way. What I am saying is we have a huge challenge ahead of us; that is, to try to figure out--hopefully, in a noncombative way --how to deal with Europe. There are many issues with Europe, and they are just getting more and more complicated--whether it is Airbus or whether it is air pollution rules. They will not take our planes now because they say our airplanes pollute Europe. They are just huge issues. Basically, they are economic issues. And the economic issues are also very heavily agricultural. We have to figure out a way. It takes leadership from the President. It takes some cool-mindedness in the House and the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, to try to figure out some way to crack this nut. It is going to be a very difficult nut to crack, but it has to be if it is going to help our farmers because right now our farmers are being taken advantage of by the Europeans--pure and simple. Nobody disputes that. It is up to us to try to figure out a way to solve that one. I know that the more we criticize Europe, the more it makes us feel good, but it probably causes Europeans to dig their heels in a little more, and I do not know how much it will get the problem solved. We have to find leverage and some commonsense way to go about it and deal with this issue. The leverage I suggest is the WTO ``trigger,'' as I call it, the export subsidy trigger. This legislation I have introduced essentially provides that if the Europeans do not reduce their agricultural subsidies by 50 percent in a couple years, then the United States is directed to spend EEP dollars in a like amount. If they do not eliminate them in another year, then the United States is directed to spend several billion dollars in EEP directed and targeted exactly at European producers, the European countries. So that is one bit of leverage. I am also going to introduce legislation soon. It is agricultural surge legislation, to prevent farmers from suffering so much from import surges from other countries to the United States. We need action such as that and then to sit down calmly and coolly to talk with the Europeans, talk with the Chinese and the Japanese and the Canadians, to find a solution. There are a lot of other things we need to do to help our farmers. Many have talked about the concentration of the beef packing industry, and they are right; there is way too much concentration of the beef packing industry, which is hurting our producers. There is labeling in this bill that helps. There is one big omission. Seventy Senators voted to end the unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. The conferees disregarded the views of 70 Senators. They took that out. I do not know why. It does not make any sense why the conferees took that out of this conference report, particularly when 70 Senators, on a bipartisan basis, said, hey, we should not have unilateral sanctions on medicine and food; it should not be there. I wish they had not done that. Clearly, we have to find a way to get that passed. I will stop here, Mr. President, because I see a lot of other Senators on the floor who wish to speak. But I strongly urge a heavy vote for this conference report and in a deeper sense--because obviously it is going to pass--calling upon us to back off from the partisanship. Let's start to think as men and women, as people. We are supposed to be educated. We are supposed to be smart. We are supposed to be leaders in a certain sense. Let's do it. Let's act as grownups, adults, problem solvers. That is all I am asking. It is not a lot. Over the recess, I hope we think a little bit about that, so when we come back next year, we can start to solve some problems.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on one other matter, although I told the Senator from Mississippi I would not address this subject, I am going to do so very briefly. That is the other matter before the Senate today, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. This is a no-brainer. It is an absolute no-brainer. It makes no sense, no sense whatsoever, for the Senate to disregard the views of the President of the United States to bring up the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty knowing it is going to fail. It makes no sense. It is irresponsible. It is tragic. I cannot believe the Senate will let that happen. I cannot believe it because of the obvious signal it is going to send around the world. What is that signal? The signal is: The United States is abrogating its leadership. The United States is sticking its tail between its legs and running away. It is leaving the scene. It is not being a leader. I cannot believe the Senate will allow that treaty to come up knowing it is going to be a negative vote. I do not know what planet I am on--Mars, Pluto, Jupiter--to think of what the Senate could possibly do today. It is outrageous. While I am on that point, let me speak toward bipartisanship just briefly. It used to be when the President of the United States had a major foreign policy request of the Congress, politics would stop at the water's edge. Politics would stop because it would be such an important national issue, and the Congress--Republicans and Democrats-- would work together on major foreign policy issues. There is plenty of opportunity for politics in the United States. There is plenty of opportunity--too much. It is highly irresponsible for the Senate to stick its thumb in the eye of the President of the United States when the President of the United States requests that there not be a vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, whatever his reasons might be, and say: We don't care what you think, Mr. President; we're going to vote anyway because we want to knock this thing down. I just cannot believe it. It is just beyond belief. I very much hope that later on today and in future days, Senators will think more calmly about this, exercise a little prudence, and do what Senators are elected to do; that is, be responsible and do what is right, not what is political. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act of 1999. This year's harvest is nearly over in Montana and the rest of the country. But instead of breathing a sigh of relief after a summer of hard work, many of our farmers are holding their breath, wondering whether they will even be able to farm next year. With prices at a 50- year low, global oversupply and unpredictable surges in imports, our rural communities continue to face crisis. We in the Senate have been working hard to address this triad of problems. Today, I would like to offer a partial solution to the trade angle--the Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act. This Act addresses surges in agricultural imports. For a variety of reasons, including overcapacity overseas, misaligned exchanges rates, and low international commodity prices, we may find a sudden, sharp, and unpredictable increase in import levels of particular agricultural product. This type of sudden rise in import levels damage the heart of our economy and our farm communities. We must do a better job of monitoring these surges so that we see them as soon as they start. And we must do a better and faster job of responding to these surges to provide relief to our producers before they go out of business. The Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act targets these goals by making several critical improvements in Section 201 of U.S. trade law. Section 201 is the so-called ``safeguard'' provision that is designed to prevent serious disruption of our domestic industry because of imports. It is also the very provision that was used by U.S. lamb producers earlier this year to find relief from a surge in lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand. I am pleased that U.S. lamb producers prevailed; but it cost them dearly--in both time and money. Unlike other industries, agriculture is extraordinarily time sensitive. A year-long case can find many producers driven out of business before it ends. It is also important to note that Section 201 is not a protectionist measure. It is a short-term mechanism used to get an ``injured'' American industry back on its feet and competing again. I consider Section 201 as a ``breathing room'' provision. That is, it gives temporary relief to a domestic industry by providing for a short-term restraint on imports that have surged into the United States. My bill proposes four changes to the way we anticipate and respond to surges in agriculture. First, the Act amends Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to be more responsive to import surges--for any industry. Like the Import Surge Relief Act I introduced last May, co-sponsored by Senator Levin, this bill eases Section 201's overly strict injury standard. No longer will American industry have to comply with a standard higher than that of our international trading partners. They will simply have to prove an increase in imports over a short period of time which cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic market. The Act also speeds up the process for addressing import surges. Recently, I hosted a town hall meeting in Kalispell, Montana. Many agriculture leaders expressed their concern that the process of responding to surges is just too long. The same message came through loud and clear last week when a record number of us in the Congress testified before the International Trade Commission regarding imported Canadian cattle. Relief that is too late can mean the devastation of an industry--and the devastation of Rural America. My bill would cut the time in half for this process and give the ITC Commissioners the ability to make decisions on an expedited basis. It will also bring credibility to the final decision-making process. As we learned in the lamb case, the President has the ultimate decision-making authority. This means he can accept, change or reject recommendations from the International Trade Commission based on information above and beyond the evidence presented during the laborious hearings. My bill requires that the President, in deciding whether to take action, focus more than he has in the past on the beneficial impact of a remedy, rather than on the negative impact on other industries. And in do so, he must make provisional relief available on an urgent basis. Second, the Act establishes an Agricultural Products Import Monitoring and Enforcement Program. The program shall: Promote and defend US policy with respect to import safeguards and countervailing or antidumping duty actions if challenged in the World Trade Organization, identify foreign trade-distorting measures, and develop policies and responsive actions to address such measures. Finally, the bill provides an early warning system. We simply cannot wait until we see that an American industry is devastated. We must be able to project ahead, understand the threats facing an industry, and then consider quickly what type of action to take, if any. My bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to monitor imports and report its findings on a quarterly basis until 2005. This is absolutely critical to take rapid action. Finally, with the next round of the World Trade Organization talks approaching, the expiration of the Farm Bill, and uncertainties in global financial markets, anything can happen. U.S. industry, and our farm communities, however, should not bear the brunt. The Agricultural Import Surge Relief Act will begin to bring stability and predictability back to the system. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act of 1999. This year's harvest is nearly over in Montana and the rest of the country. But instead of breathing a sigh of relief after a summer of hard work, many of our farmers are holding their breath, wondering whether they will even be able to farm next year. With prices at a 50- year low, global oversupply and unpredictable surges in imports, our rural communities continue to face crisis. We in the Senate have been working hard to address this triad of problems. Today, I would like to offer a partial solution to the trade angle--the Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act. This Act addresses surges in agricultural imports. For a variety of reasons, including overcapacity overseas, misaligned exchanges rates, and low international commodity prices, we may find a sudden, sharp, and unpredictable increase in import levels of particular agricultural product. This type of sudden rise in import levels damage the heart of our economy and our farm communities. We must do a better job of monitoring these surges so that we see them as soon as they start. And we must do a better and faster job of responding to these surges to provide relief to our producers before they go out of business. The Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act targets these goals by making several critical improvements in Section 201 of U.S. trade law. Section 201 is the so-called ``safeguard'' provision that is designed to prevent serious disruption of our domestic industry because of imports. It is also the very provision that was used by U.S. lamb producers earlier this year to find relief from a surge in lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand. I am pleased that U.S. lamb producers prevailed; but it cost them dearly--in both time and money. Unlike other industries, agriculture is extraordinarily time sensitive. A year-long case can find many producers driven out of business before it ends. It is also important to note that Section 201 is not a protectionist measure. It is a short-term mechanism used to get an ``injured'' American industry back on its feet and competing again. I consider Section 201 as a ``breathing room'' provision. That is, it gives temporary relief to a domestic industry by providing for a short-term restraint on imports that have surged into the United States. My bill proposes four changes to the way we anticipate and respond to surges in agriculture. First, the Act amends Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to be more responsive to import surges--for any industry. Like the Import Surge Relief Act I introduced last May, co-sponsored by Senator Levin, this bill eases Section 201's overly strict injury standard. No longer will American industry have to comply with a standard higher than that of our international trading partners. They will simply have to prove an increase in imports over a short period of time which cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic market. The Act also speeds up the process for addressing import surges. Recently, I hosted a town hall meeting in Kalispell, Montana. Many agriculture leaders expressed their concern that the process of responding to surges is just too long. The same message came through loud and clear last week when a record number of us in the Congress testified before the International Trade Commission regarding imported Canadian cattle. Relief that is too late can mean the devastation of an industry--and the devastation of Rural America. My bill would cut the time in half for this process and give the ITC Commissioners the ability to make decisions on an expedited basis. It will also bring credibility to the final decision-making process. As we learned in the lamb case, the President has the ultimate decision-making authority. This means he can accept, change or reject recommendations from the International Trade Commission based on information above and beyond the evidence presented during the laborious hearings. My bill requires that the President, in deciding whether to take action, focus more than he has in the past on the beneficial impact of a remedy, rather than on the negative impact on other industries. And in do so, he must make provisional relief available on an urgent basis. Second, the Act establishes an Agricultural Products Import Monitoring and Enforcement Program. The program shall: Promote and defend US policy with respect to import safeguards and countervailing or antidumping duty actions if challenged in the World Trade Organization, identify foreign trade-distorting measures, and develop policies and responsive actions to address such measures. Finally, the bill provides an early warning system. We simply cannot wait until we see that an American industry is devastated. We must be able to project ahead, understand the threats facing an industry, and then consider quickly what type of action to take, if any. My bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to monitor imports and report its findings on a quarterly basis until 2005. This is absolutely critical to take rapid action. Finally, with the next round of the World Trade Organization talks approaching, the expiration of the Farm Bill, and uncertainties in global financial markets, anything can happen. U.S. industry, and our farm communities, however, should not bear the brunt. The Agricultural Import Surge Relief Act will begin to bring stability and predictability back to the system. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The third adverse consequence is American efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation would become much more difficult because other nations would believe America's moral authority and its leadership were destroyed by our rejection of the CTBT. The United States has been the world's leader in promoting arms control. If we do not lead, no one else will. It is that simple. Our ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention led to its approval by Russia, by China, and others. Our ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will lead other countries to agree to a complete ban on nuclear explosions. As a footnote, let me add the American people, by an overwhelming margin, understand the need to control nuclear testing. In a recent poll, 82 percent of Americans responded that they would like to see the treaty approved. That is not a sufficient reason to vote for ratification, but we should take note the public well understands the dangers of nuclear testing. President Eisenhower began the first comprehensive test ban negotiations in 1958 with the goal of constraining the nuclear arms race and halting the spread of nuclear weapons. Mr. President, 31 years later we have an opportunity to make this goal a reality. That is the legacy I want to leave my son and all the children of Montana, of the United States, and of the world. In sum, I think each of us has a moral obligation to leave this world in as good shape or better shape than we found it, and certainly ratification of the test ban treaty fulfills that moral obligation.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Why? Various reasons. First, we have an opportunity to vote this week. I will cast my vote in favor of ratification because I believe to do otherwise would be a tragic mistake with extremely dire consequences for our Nation and equally dire consequences for the world. However, given the likelihood the Senate will fall short of the two-thirds majority required under the Constitution for ratification, I will support efforts to postpone this vote. We cannot tell the world the United States of America, the leader of the free world, opposes this treaty. It would be a travesty. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty gives America a unique opportunity to leave a safer world for our children and for our grandchildren. We cannot prevent earthquakes; we can't prevent hurricanes or tornadoes, not yet. I hope over time our ability to predict them--minimizing the destruction of human life and property--will improve. But we can prevent nuclear war. We can halt the spread of nuclear weapons. We can prevent nuclear fallout and environmental destruction caused by nuclear testing. And we can reduce the fear of a nuclear holocaust that all Americans have lived with since the start of the cold war 50 years ago. We can do all this, and we should. Let me review some of the benefits we get from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and let me explain why this treaty will make the world safer for our children and grandchildren. First, under the CTBT, there is an absolute prohibition against conducting nuclear weapon test explosions by the signators. This would include all countries that possess nuclear weapons, as well as those countries that have nuclear power or research reactors. It would also include countries that do not yet have nuclear facilities. This absolute prohibition of testing makes it much harder for countries that already have advanced nuclear weapons to produce new and more sophisticated nuclear weapons. Russia and China are prime examples. The CTBT prevents the kind of arms competition we had during the cold war. For example, without nuclear tests the Chinese will be unable to MIRV ICBMs with any degree of reliability. The Chinese have no assurance of the effectiveness of putting multiple warheads on missiles because they would not be able to test. Many believe China has made enormous strides in their nuclear weapons capability because of decades of espionage, but the CTBT provides one way to limit further sophisticated development. The absolute prohibition on nuclear testing also helps prevent countries with smaller and less advanced nuclear weapons from developing more advanced nuclear warheads. This applies especially to India and to Pakistan. The strategy of using advanced nuclear weapons depends on confidence. It depends on reliability. India and Pakistan would not be able to build reliable and sophisticated nuclear weapons under the treaty. The treaty's terms also help prevent nations that are seeking nuclear arms from ever developing them into advanced sophisticated weapons. I refer to countries such as Iran and Iraq. The second major reason for adopting this treaty is that ratification is critical to our ability to enforce and maintain the Non- Proliferation Treaty, another treaty. The NPT is the bedrock of our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear arms to non-nuclear weapon states. Many of the nations that signed the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and agreed to its indefinite extension did so on the understanding that there would be a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The third reason for support is the CTBT will improve the ability of the United States to detect nuclear explosions. Let me repeat that. It will improve our ability to detect current explosions, the status quo compared with today. The international monitoring system will have 321 monitoring stations, including 31 in Russia, 11 in China, and 17 in the Middle East. These stations will be able to detect explosions down to about 1 kiloton, the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT--much lower than the kinds of explosions we are talking about in this Chamber. In the case of a suspicious event--that is, a report of an explosion that could be nuclear, a mine site, or even an earthquake--any party can request an onsite inspection. With or without a treaty, we must continue all efforts at monitoring nuclear developments worldwide, but the treaty provides a system that far exceeds current capabilities of inspection. Now, turning to two of the major objections to those who oppose the treaty: First, they claim actual nuclear tests--that is, explosions-- are necessary to ensure that our stockpile of weapons works. We have put in place a science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program. Its purpose is to provide a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of America's inventory of nuclear weapons. Under this program, our National Weapons Laboratories spend $4.5 billion each year to check and to maintain these weapons. We can still test; we do test. We just cannot explode. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy, with the help of the Directors of the National Laboratories, the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, and the Nuclear Weapons Council, must certify every year to the President that the necessary high level of confidence exists. Do not forget, $4.5 billion a year is spent on this. If they cannot give that certification to the President, the President can then use the so-called Safeguard F. What is that? That is the United States will be able to withdraw from the treaty and test the weapon that is in doubt; that is, if the President is not confident, the President can withdraw. The Directors of our weapons labs, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with four of his predecessors, and an impressive array of Nobel Prize winners believe the Stewardship Program will provide appropriate protection for our national security. The second objection against the treaty is that it is impossible to verify that all nations are complying with the treaty. That is true. It is true we cannot detect every conceivable explosion at low yields. But our defense agencies have concluded--the Department of Defense--that we will be able to detect tests that will have an impact on our national security, and that is the threshold of concern to us. Let me go through a few likely scenarios that would occur if we reject the treaty. First and most immediate would be on the Indian subcontinent. India and Pakistan matched each other with nuclear tests. Kashmir remains one of the world's most dangerous trigger points. U.S. rejection of the test ban treaty would destroy our ability to pressure those two countries to halt further nuclear tests. Those countries would likely begin to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons, heightening the probability of their actual use in the region. The second adverse consequence of rejection is this: China would certainly prepare for more tests to increase the sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. At present, Chinese nuclear weapons do not pose a strategic threat to the United States. Our rejection of the CTBT would allow them to begin a long-term development program with testing that would make them such a threat.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 more minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am offering today an amendment to address what I believe is a complicated and growing problem for all Americans--flight delays and flight cancellations. The problem is not that delays and cancellations occur. Of course they do. That is only natural. But with different weather conditions, and with the country as large and complicated as it is, and airlines trying to maintain a tight schedule, it is only obvious that schedule can sometimes be deeply affected--by weather or equipment problems--so we must expect occasional delays and occasional cancellations. Right now, it is always a mystery why these delays and cancellations happen. We can guess. We can conjecture. Perhaps it is because of weather. Perhaps it is because of mechanical problems. Perhaps it is the fault of air traffic controllers. There are lots of reasons. But nobody knows--at least the public does not know--precisely the reasons for these delays and for these cancellations. Why is that? It is very simple. The airlines do not have to tell you. There is no requirement. So when you are stuck in an airport in the middle of the night, the airlines might let you know what is going on or they might not tell you. And after you finally reach your destination there's a pretty good chance that you are never going to know why it was you were stranded thousands of miles away from home, or why you missed that important business meeting. The airlines are not required to tell you the reasons for the delays and cancellations. You are probably wondering: Why does this matter? If you are stuck, you are stuck. So what is the big deal? What is the difference? The big deal is that it does matter. It does make a difference, a great deal of difference. Speed and efficiency are not only in the interest of the airline, they are also in the interest of all Americans in this modern society. Time really is money. Flights are often canceled or delayed for economic reasons, and not for mechanical or weather-related reasons. And when these economic delays or cancellations occur, it's usually rural America that gets the short end of the stick. This is no secret. Domestic airlines sometimes have delays not only for mechanical reasons, not only for reasons caused by air traffic controllers, not only for weather reasons, but for purely economic reasons. They do not want that plane to go because it is not filled up enough; it is not economical enough. The airlines do not have to tell you that. I have the headline of an article written by Christene Meyers from the front page of the Billings Gazette last week. The headline reads: ``Enduring Plane Misery, Montana Air Passengers Often Grounded by Economics.'' Let me read you a hypothetical situation from the article, a situation that is not so hypothetical and is happening with increasing frequency: You fly out of Los Angeles at 6:10 p.m., arriving at Salt Lake City at 9 p.m., a minute earlier than estimated. You are delighted and hurry to your gate, to catch the last flight to Billings. It happens all the time. You watch, astonished, as the Billings plane is moved from the gate. You're told that your flight is canceled. You're told that your plane has a mechanical problem. How often have we heard ``mechanical problems'' given to us by the airlines as the problem? Further investigation discloses that the ``mechanical problem'' business was untrue. Truth is your perfectly functional plane was appropriated for a larger market. There were fewer people going to Billings than going to San Diego. You overnight from Salt Lake City and arrive the next day in Billings--12\1/2\ hours late. That is if you are lucky because very often the next plane is booked; the next flight after that is booked; the next flight after that is booked; the next flight after that is booked. I am not giving you isolated instances; this happens often in Montana. Montana depends primarily on two major carriers. When a flight is canceled or excessively delayed, there are big consequences. That flight may have been your only chance to get in or out of Montana that day. Again, the plane is not there. It is canceled. You say: OK. Book me on the next flight the next day. Sorry. It is all booked up. It is overbooked. Book me on the next flight. Sorry. Can't. I have talked to people in my State who had to wait 4 days--4 days-- at Salt Lake City waiting for the next available flight. The same occurs in Minneapolis. People tell me they are there with several other people trying to get on a plane from Salt Lake City, and they say: Well, gee, why can't we just rent a car? Can Delta Airlines pay for the car rental? We'll drive from Salt Lake City to our home in Bozeman. No. Sorry. It is against airline policy to do that. So people frequently have to take another flight to another city in Montana and then drive or make some other connection. That is not uncommon. Further into this article, a Delta agent from Salt Lake states: If we have 40 people waiting for a flight for Billings and 120 waiting to go to San Francisco, it's a no-brainer. . . . It costs less for us to put 30 people up and send them on to Billings than it does to send 100 California-bound people to a hotel. It is economics. That is wrong. That is not fair. That is not right. If flights are canceled for economic reasons, passengers deserve to know the truth. Let's not fool ourselves. This is not just an inconvenience for rural America; it is much more than an inconvenience. There is also a very direct, strong economic impact. As my home State of Montana, my neighbors in North and South Dakota and Wyoming and Idaho can attest, what business is going to relocate to an area where flight service is not reliable? It is a very basic question. There is a pretty obvious answer. Businesses around the country are going to think twice if reliable flight service cannot be guaranteed. There are delays and cancellations in other parts of the country, but here is the difference. In other parts of the country, in urban parts of the country, there are other flights, there are other airlines; not so for Montana, for the Dakotas, and for Wyoming. There are not that many daily flights, and because the flights have less economic benefit, airlines often cancel flights for economic reasons; and it is not right. Montana ranks near the bottom of per capita individual income right now. I am not saying it is because of airlines, but I am saying it is a factor which tends to discourage businesses from locating or expanding in Montana. How can we improve if we cannot guarantee a minimum standard of quality air service? This is not just a matter of inconvenience; it is a matter of jobs. It is a matter of income. My amendment simply requires that airlines provide all flight information that they currently report and specify the reason why these flights were delayed or canceled. Today, airlines must provide to the Department of Transportation on a monthly basis if an airline flight is delayed, either on arrival or departure. They do not have to give the reasons. They have to disclose that fact. So I am suggesting--not that they have to write a whole big book on the reasons for the cancellations or the reasons for the delays--that they just say why. What caused the cancellation? What caused the delay? So in addition to the information shown on the left-hand side of this chart: the name of the airline; the flight number; the aircraft tail number; the origin and destination airport codes; and the date and day of week of flight--but that in addition--it can also indicate whether the cancellation or delay was caused by air traffic control, caused by mechanical failure or difficulty, caused by an act of God, caused by weather, or caused by economics. It is a very simple amendment. It does not regulate airlines. It is not imposing new regulations; it is just simply a matter of disclosure--simply giving the reasons why an airline flight is delayed over 15 minutes or just outright canceled. I realize that simply reporting the reasons for cancellations and delays is not going to stop the practice of delaying and canceling flights for economic reasons because airlines are businesses. They may still want to go ahead and cancel or delay a flight for economic reasons. But I do think the public has the right to know the reason for the cancellation or the delay. If airlines have to start reporting the reasons for missed connections and disrupted lives, consumers will soon see that rural America is grounded so that the rest of the country can go about its business. It may turn out that as a consequence there will be fewer cancellations for economic reasons. That is very much my hope, because for many parts of the country, particularly rural America, the airlines' actions are having a disproportionately adverse effect in parts of the country that don't have as much airline service as other parts of the country. That is my amendment. I see one Senator on the floor. I do not know if he will speak to it or not, but I don't see him jumping up in his chair. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am speaking in support of the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Health Care Act of 1999. Congress faces historic choices in the next few weeks: managed care reform, campaign finance legislation, whether to increase the minimum wage, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But the problem is, Congress is long on disagreement and short on time. In all my years of Congress, I have scarcely seen a more partisan and divisive atmosphere than that which prevails today. One area where Congress appeared ready to act this year is in addressing changes to the Balanced Budget Act, otherwise known as BBA, of 1997. I am disappointed that we have not yet done so. Rural States such as Montana have long battled to preserve access to quality health care. I daresay that the State so ably served by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is in somewhat the same condition. By and large, and against the odds, it is a battle we have generally won. Through initiatives such as the Medical Assistance Facility and the Rural Hospital Flexibility Grant Program, Montana and other relatively thinly populated States have providers who have worked diligently to give Medicare beneficiaries quality health care, but now these providers face a new challenge--the impact of BBA Medicare cuts. From home health to nursing homes, hospital care to hospice, Montana facilities stand to take great losses as a result of the BBA. Many already have. One hospital writes: Dear Senator Baucus: The BBA of 1997 is wreaking havoc on the operations of hospitals in Montana. Our numbers are testimony to this. The reduction in reimbursements of $500,000 to $650,000 per year is something our facility cannot absorb. Another tells me: Senator Baucus: An early analysis of the negative impact to [my] hospital projects a decrease in reimbursements amounting to an estimated $171,200. My hospital is already losing money from operations and these anticipated decreases in reimbursements will cause a further immediate operating loss. If enacted and implemented, I predict that we will have no choice but to reduce or phase out completely certain services and programs. . . . Home health agencies report to me that in a recent survey, 80 percent of Montana home health care agencies showed a decline in visits averaging 40 percent. Let me state that again. Of the home health care agencies in my State, 80 percent report a decline in visits averaging 40 percent. These are some of the most efficient home health care agencies in the Nation. It simply is not fair that they are punished for being good at managing costs. As for skilled nursing care in Montana, I saw the effects firsthand in a visit to Sidney Health Center in the northeast corner of my State. A couple of months ago, I had a workday at Sidney. About every month, every 6 weeks, I show up at someplace in my home State with my sack lunch. I am there to work all day long. I wait tables. I work in sawmills. I work in mines--some different job. This time it was working at a hospital. Half of it is a skilled nursing home; the other half an acute care center. At the skilled nursing center, I changed sheets. I took vitals. I worked charts. They even had me take out a few stitches. After a while, I felt as if I was a real-life doctor doing my rounds with my stethoscope casually draped around my neck. One patient actually thought I was in medical training; that is, until I treated that patient. They also had me read to about 20 old folks for about a half hour. I must confess that all but five immediately fell asleep. At the end of the day, I had to turn my stethoscope in for a session with the administrators. The financial folks showed me trends in Medicare reimbursement over the last couple of years. They believe as I do, that the BBA cuts have gone too far. So what do we do about it? Over the next few weeks, the Senate Finance Committee is likely to consider legislation to restore some of the funding cuts for BBA. Anticipating this debate, I introduced comprehensive rural health legislation earlier this year. The bill now has over 30 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. Last week, I joined Senator Daschle and the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, as well as Senator Rockefeller, in support of a comprehensive Balanced Budget Act fix, a remedy to try to undo some of the problems we caused. The Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Health Care Act addresses problems the BBA has caused in nursing home care, in home health care, among hospitals and also physical therapy, as well as some other areas. In particular, I draw my colleagues' attention to section 101 of the bill. Medicare currently pays hospital outpatient departments for their reasonable costs. To encourage efficiency, however, the BBA called for a system of fixed, limited payments for outpatient departments. This is called the outpatient prospective payment system, known as PPS. Thus far, it appears this PPS will have a very negative impact on small rural hospitals. HCFA estimates--the Health Care Financing Administration--that under this law, Medicare outpatient payments would be cut by over 10 percent for small rural hospitals. I don't have the chart here, but hopefully it is coming later. If you look at the chart, you will see some of the projected impacts on hospitals in my State. Prospective payment is the system of the future, and Congress is right to use it where it works. But in some cases, prospective payment just doesn't work. Consider what happened with inpatient prospective payment about 15 years ago. In 1983, Congress felt, much as it does now, that Medicare reimbursements needed to be held in check. It implemented prospective payment for inpatient services. Enacting that law, it also recognized that for some small, rural facilities, there should be exceptions to prospective payment. The basic reason is simple, because prospective payment is based upon the assumption that the efficient hospitals will do well and survive, and the nearby inefficient hospitals not doing well will fail, but that is OK because people can always go to the surviving efficient hospital. And the assumption, obviously, is invalid for sparsely populated parts of America because if there is a hospital in a sparsely populated part of America that fails under undue pressure because of reimbursement, there is no other hospital or health care facility for somebody in rural America. That is the essential failing in the assumption behind PPS. Congress called these facilities ``sole community hospitals,'' and 42 of the 55 hospitals in my State enjoy that status--that is, the security of being named a sole community provider or medical assistance facility. Section 101 of the bill we introduced last week would provide similar security for outpatient services, and it should be enacted right now. Just last week, the health care research firm, HCIA, and the consulting firm, Ernst and Young, released a study showing that hospital profit margins could fall from their current levels of about 4 percent to below zero by the year 2002. We must act now to ensure that this does not happen. I might say, however, time is running out. We are already in the midst of a 3-week stopgap measure to keep the Government running. If we don't sit down and iron out our differences soon, we risk going home not having acted on the BBA and not correcting this problem, which I think is irresponsible. Despite the partisan atmosphere that has prevailed here over the last several months, Congress does have a record of success in dealing with important health care issues in a bipartisan way. A few years ago, we passed the Health Insurance Portability Act to prevent people from losing health insurance when they change jobs. In 1997, we worked together--Members of all stripes--in passing the Children's Health Insurance Plan, legislation to provide children of working families with health insurance. Just last week, children in my State started enrollment in that program. With some common sense on both sides of the aisle and with fast action on the issue, Congress can come together to solve some of the problems caused by the so-called BBA of 1997. We ought to do so, and we ought to do it right now. Mr. President, you might be interested in what some of the conditions of the BBA 1997 are in the State of the Presiding Officer. In Maine, the hospital in Bangor would lose 24 percent of payments it would otherwise receive. Booth Bay Harbor would find about a 38-percent reduction. That is somewhat typical of hospitals of that size and in that situation around the country. So I hope that at the appropriate time we can work with dispatch and expeditiously solve this problem before we adjourn.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, since the end of the Second World War, the United States has led the world in establishing an open, rule- based trade system. I believe it is very important that we continue to provide this leadership. We can only do this if we maintain a domestic consensus on trade policy. The United States has also provided strong international leadership on environmental protection. I have long been a strong proponent of both open trade and environmental protection. I have a foot in both camps. So today I am proud to introduce a bill which addresses both trade and the environment. I am joined in this effort by Senators Grams, Murray, and Wyden. I know people in the trade community who assume that anything good for the environment must be bad for business. They believe that protecting the environment means more government restrictions, higher costs, and lower profits. This logic is flawed. I also know people in the environmental community who assume that anything good for trade must be bad for the environment. They believe that more trade means more growth, and that more growth means more damage to the environment. This logic is flawed, too. We can take measures which benefit both trade and the environment. I am proposing one such measure today: eliminating import duties on environmental products as part of a multilateral agreement. This enjoys wide support from American environmental technology companies, as well as from members of the environmental community. Mr. President, let me recall a bit of recent trade history. During the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, the United States participated in a number of sectoral tariff initiatives. They were known as ``zero- for-zero.'' Countries agreed to reciprocal tariff elimination, saying ``I'll put my tariff at zero, if you'll do the same.'' The Uruguay Round Act gave the President the authority to eliminate U.S. tariffs in these ``zero-for-zero'' sectors. But in several sectors, the negotiators did not reach agreement. The President retains tariff authority in these sectors. Examples are products like furniture and paper. Some of these sectors are once again under discussion in the WTO. In addition to these unfinished Uruguay Round sectors, the United States launched other zero-for-zero initiatives. This work began in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and then moved to the WTO. One of the sectors under discussion is environmental goods. Environmental goods cover a wide range of products made in America to control air, water and noise pollution, as well as solid and hazardous waste. These products include equipment for recycling and for renewable energy. They include technology for remediation and cleanup. Environmental goods also include scientific equipment for monitoring and analysis. All told, U.S. firms sell somewhere between $20 and $40 billion abroad annually. They could sell more if other countries would eliminate trade barriers, including tariffs. In my home state of Montana, businesses which export environmental equipment could expand their operations if they faced fewer foreign barriers. I have heard from one company, SRS Crisafulli, which is working in Latin America markets. Tariffs on their dredging equipment raise their sales price substantially. The inexorable law of the market is that higher sales prices mean lower sales. As my colleagues know, the United States maintains the world's most open market. Our tariffs are generally low. They are especially low on environmental goods, where U.S. import duties average less than 2%. This bill I am introducing today would eliminate these small tariffs-- nuisance tariffs, really. In return, other countries would abolish their import duties on American-made products. Their tariffs can be three or four times higher than ours. That's a good deal for us, and a good deal for world trade. It's also a good deal for the environment. The biggest importers of these products are the emerging markets of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Expanding the use of environmental technology will help limit or remedy environmental damage. It will have a positive impact on public health and the quality of life. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing preserves Congress' constitutional role in foreign trade. It requires the President to consult with us before implementing any environmental tariff cuts. And I would like to put our trade negotiators on notice that we expect them to bring to us a proposal with broad coverage, rapid staging and limited exceptions. I am particularly concerned about the scope of the agreement now being negotiated. I understand that some of our trading partners in APEC were unwilling to classify certain products as ``environmental goods'' because they are ``dual use.'' A hydraulic pump, for instance, can be used for either a sewage treatment plant or a microchip plant. We should press other countries to adopt a broad definition of ``environmental goods'' to encourage dissemination of technology. Mr. President, ever since environmental tariff elimination surfaced, the U.S. told our trading partners not to worry that the President lacks tariff-cutting authority in the sector. When the time comes, we said, Congress will grant the necessary authority. I believe this effort merits the same kind of support from the Senate that it has gained support among the trade and environmental communities. It is particularly important that we show this support now, as the United States prepares to host the WTO Trade Ministers Meeting in Seattle. I encourage all of my colleagues to provide this support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, since the end of the Second World War, the United States has led the world in establishing an open, rule- based trade system. I believe it is very important that we continue to provide this leadership. We can only do this if we maintain a domestic consensus on trade policy. The United States has also provided strong international leadership on environmental protection. I have long been a strong proponent of both open trade and environmental protection. I have a foot in both camps. So today I am proud to introduce a bill which addresses both trade and the environment. I am joined in this effort by Senators Grams, Murray, and Wyden. I know people in the trade community who assume that anything good for the environment must be bad for business. They believe that protecting the environment means more government restrictions, higher costs, and lower profits. This logic is flawed. I also know people in the environmental community who assume that anything good for trade must be bad for the environment. They believe that more trade means more growth, and that more growth means more damage to the environment. This logic is flawed, too. We can take measures which benefit both trade and the environment. I am proposing one such measure today: eliminating import duties on environmental products as part of a multilateral agreement. This enjoys wide support from American environmental technology companies, as well as from members of the environmental community. Mr. President, let me recall a bit of recent trade history. During the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, the United States participated in a number of sectoral tariff initiatives. They were known as ``zero- for-zero.'' Countries agreed to reciprocal tariff elimination, saying ``I'll put my tariff at zero, if you'll do the same.'' The Uruguay Round Act gave the President the authority to eliminate U.S. tariffs in these ``zero-for-zero'' sectors. But in several sectors, the negotiators did not reach agreement. The President retains tariff authority in these sectors. Examples are products like furniture and paper. Some of these sectors are once again under discussion in the WTO. In addition to these unfinished Uruguay Round sectors, the United States launched other zero-for-zero initiatives. This work began in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and then moved to the WTO. One of the sectors under discussion is environmental goods. Environmental goods cover a wide range of products made in America to control air, water and noise pollution, as well as solid and hazardous waste. These products include equipment for recycling and for renewable energy. They include technology for remediation and cleanup. Environmental goods also include scientific equipment for monitoring and analysis. All told, U.S. firms sell somewhere between $20 and $40 billion abroad annually. They could sell more if other countries would eliminate trade barriers, including tariffs. In my home state of Montana, businesses which export environmental equipment could expand their operations if they faced fewer foreign barriers. I have heard from one company, SRS Crisafulli, which is working in Latin America markets. Tariffs on their dredging equipment raise their sales price substantially. The inexorable law of the market is that higher sales prices mean lower sales. As my colleagues know, the United States maintains the world's most open market. Our tariffs are generally low. They are especially low on environmental goods, where U.S. import duties average less than 2%. This bill I am introducing today would eliminate these small tariffs-- nuisance tariffs, really. In return, other countries would abolish their import duties on American-made products. Their tariffs can be three or four times higher than ours. That's a good deal for us, and a good deal for world trade. It's also a good deal for the environment. The biggest importers of these products are the emerging markets of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Expanding the use of environmental technology will help limit or remedy environmental damage. It will have a positive impact on public health and the quality of life. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing preserves Congress' constitutional role in foreign trade. It requires the President to consult with us before implementing any environmental tariff cuts. And I would like to put our trade negotiators on notice that we expect them to bring to us a proposal with broad coverage, rapid staging and limited exceptions. I am particularly concerned about the scope of the agreement now being negotiated. I understand that some of our trading partners in APEC were unwilling to classify certain products as ``environmental goods'' because they are ``dual use.'' A hydraulic pump, for instance, can be used for either a sewage treatment plant or a microchip plant. We should press other countries to adopt a broad definition of ``environmental goods'' to encourage dissemination of technology. Mr. President, ever since environmental tariff elimination surfaced, the U.S. told our trading partners not to worry that the President lacks tariff-cutting authority in the sector. When the time comes, we said, Congress will grant the necessary authority. I believe this effort merits the same kind of support from the Senate that it has gained support among the trade and environmental communities. It is particularly important that we show this support now, as the United States prepares to host the WTO Trade Ministers Meeting in Seattle. I encourage all of my colleagues to provide this support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much thank my colleagues and good friends, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from New Jersey, for their courtesy.

Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if the Senators will yield to me. I will be brief. I have 5 or 6 minutes. I know the Senators from Iowa and New Jersey are together on the same subject, and this Senator has been standing here for some time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?

Mr. BAUCUS. I think the Senator from Iowa still has the floor.