Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I very much appreciate the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from New Jersey for letting me go ahead of them. I agree with the statement of the Senator from New Jersey complimenting the Senator from West Virginia, and, in the same vein, the earlier remarks of the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. The fact is, our farmers are in desperate straits, and this Congress is doing very little about it. It is that simple. No one can dispute that, and many of us are, quite frankly, concerned because the Senate is not doing enough. Because it looks as if the Senate might not do enough, we will be constrained to take extraordinary measures in the Senate to stand up for our constituents, the people who sent us here; namely, the farmers, in this instance, to pass as best we can appropriate and remedial legislation to help our farmers. It is that simple. I compliment the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from New Jersey, and others. In fact, that is very relevant to the statement I am going to make concerning the introduction of a bill. (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 1648 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Fair Trade Act of 1999. I am joined by Senator Gorton of Washington and Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. I begin by saying I believe the next round of the WTO is vital to American farmers. As a Senator who represents Montana, a State whose primary industry is agriculture, this next round will decide the fate of our next generation of producers. It is that simple. It is becoming increasingly clear that while the rest of the Nation continues to experience astounding economic growth and prosperity through open and global trade, America's farmers and ranchers across the Nation are suffering, and they have yet to reap the fruits of free trade's bounty. During the last several months, we have worked to identify goals for agriculture in the next round of the WTO. The consensus is that we must step up our efforts dramatically in order to make genuine progress in leveling the playing field for our agriculture industry. It is our intention that this bill will begin this process. The Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a mechanism through which we can target unfair export subsidies and fight for their total elimination by January 1, 2003. It is our hope that such legislation will provide an incentive for our trading partners to voluntarily reduce their export subsidies during the next round of the WTO. The elimination of these subsidies will benefit farmers on both sides of the Atlantic. I believe this act provides a powerful two-tier trigger approach to the reduction of export subsidies. First, the European Union must reduce its agriculture export subsidies by 50 percent by January 1, 2002. If the EU fails to do so, the U.S. Agriculture Secretary shall take appropriate measures to protect the interests of American agricultural producers and ensure the international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. In particular, the Secretary shall be authorized to target EU's most sensitive export market for grains and spend over $1 billion in Export Enhancement Program funding in that market. Step 2 requires the EU to enter into an agreement with the United States by January 1, 2003. The EU must agree to completely eliminate its export subsidies, and if not, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture shall be authorized to, again, target EU's most sensitive export market for grain, double the Export Enhancement Program to $2 billion, and increase and utilize export funding for market promotion and direct ag export credit sales in the best interest of American ag producers. It is high time the Senate takes action to ensure that the next round of negotiations result in benefits to our agricultural producers. Why target EU export subsidies? I believe the United States has taken the high road in leading by example. That lead hurts U.S. producers. The United States has long taken the position that if we reduce support for agriculture, especially export subsidies, we will get a fair trading system. That is not the case across the Atlantic, where the EU export subsidies are 60 times greater than export subsidies in the United States. In fact, the EU accounts for nearly 85 percent of the world's agricultural export subsidies. I can remember in the 1980s when the U.S. and EU engaged in an ``export subsidy war.'' At the same time, they both battled to undercut each other's prices in the world's wheat export markets. But over the decade, U.S. market share declined while EU market share increased dramatically. Europe, formerly the world's largest net importer, suddenly became the world's largest net exporter of agricultural products. It had nothing to do with luck. It had everything to do with their aggressive use of export subsidies. How did the United States fight back? We didn't. To date, the United States maintains an anemic Export Enhancement Program. Authorized at $500 million a year, EEP operates well below its Uruguay Round reduction commitments. If EEP is to be a credible tool in international trade, it is high time we start flexing its muscle. The United States will remain the most open market in the world. I am committed to that. At the same time, we must do everything possible to open foreign markets. A ``trigger'' is the first step--it has leverage--but one that must be taken as a very large stride in the path toward free trade. Again, I thank Senators Gorton and Bingaman for cosponsoring this legislation. I urge my colleagues vested in the future of American agriculture to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Agriculture Fair Trade Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by the bill's leading cosponsors, Senator Gorton, Senator Bingaman, Senator Craig and Senator Murray. The measure is also supported by the Montana Grain Growers and the Montana Farm Bureau. Let me begin by saying that this next round of WTO is vital. As a senator who represents Montana--a state whose primary industry is agriculture--this next round will decide the fate of our next generation of producers. It is becoming increasingly clear that while the rest of the nation continues to experience astounding economic growth and prosperity through open and global trade, America's farmers and ranchers across the nation suffer. They have yet to reap the fruits of free trade's bounty. During the past several months, we in the Senate, the Administration and farmers and ranchers back home have worked to identify the goals for agriculture in the next round in the WTO. And the consensus is that we must step up our efforts in order to make any genuine progress in leveling the playing field for the agricultural industry. It is our intention that this bill will begin this process. The Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a mechanism through which we can target unfair export subsidies and fight for their total elimination by January 1, 2003. It is our hope that such legislation will provide an incentive for our trading partners to voluntarily reduce their export subsidies during the next round of the WTO. The elimination of these subsidies will benefit farmers on both sides of the Atlantic. I believe that the Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a powerful, two-tiered ``trigger'' approach to the reduction of export subsidies. First, the European Union must reduce its agricultural export subsidies by 50 percent by January 1, 2002. If the EU fails to do so, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture shall take appropriate measures to protect the interests of American agricultural producers and ensure the international competitiveness of United States agriculture. In particular, the Secretary shall be authorized to-- Target the EU's most sensitive export market for grains, and Spend $1 billion in Export Enhancement Program funding in that market. Step two requires the European Union to enter into an agreement with the United States. By January 1, 2003, the EU must agree to completely eliminate its export subsidies. If not, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture shall be authorized to-- Again, target the EU's most sensitive export market for grains, Double the Export Enhancement Program to $2 billion, and Increase and utilize export funding for market promotion and direct ag export credit sales in the best interest of American ag producers. It's high time, we in the U.S. Senate take action to ensure that the next round of negotiations results in benefits to our producers. Why Target EU Export subsidies? I believe that the U.S. has taken the high road in leading by example. That lead hurts U.S. producers. The United States has long taken the position that if we reduce support for agriculture we will get a fair trading system. That is not the case across the Atlantic, where the EU export subsidies are 60 times greater than export subsidies in the United States. In fact, the EU accounts for nearly 85 percent of the world's export subsidies. I can remember the 1980s when the U.S. and EU engaged in an ``export subsidy war.'' At that time, both countries battled to undercut each other's prices in the world's wheat export markets. Over the decade, U.S. market share declined while EU market share increased dramatically. Europe, formerly the world's largest net importer, suddenly became the world's largest net exporter. It had nothing to do with luck. It had everything to do with their aggressive use of export subsidies. And how did the United States fight back? We didn't. To date, the United States maintains the anemic Export Enhancement Program. Authorized at $500 million a year, EEP operates well below its Uruguay Round reduction commitments. If EEP is to be a credible tool in international trade, its high time to start flexing its muscle. The United States will remain the most open market in the world. I am committed to that. At the same time, we must do everything possible to open foreign markets. A ``trigger'' is the first step--but one that must be taken as a very large stride in the path toward fair trade. I again thank Senators Gorton, Bingaman, Craig and Murray for cosponsoring this important legislation. And I urge my colleagues vested in the future of America agriculture to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1984, Congress created the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a charitable, nonprofit corporation with the mission of conserving our nation's fish, wildlife, plant, and other natural resources. The Foundation's creation was championed by congressional members from both sides of the aisle, including my esteemed colleague on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman John Chafee. The bipartisan support the Foundation received in Congress reflected broad agreement that additional efforts were needed to protect and manage our natural resources. Over the past 15 years, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has established a solid track record. The Foundation has achieved on-the- ground results. It has also stretched federal dollars and built public- private partnerships essential to conservation efforts. The Foundation has provided more than 3,500 grants to over 940 private local organizations, state and county governments, tribes, federal and interstate agencies, and colleges and universities in all 50 states. By requiring grantees to match Foundation grants with non-federal funds, the $135 million in federal funds invested by the Foundation have been leveraged to deliver more than $440 million to natural resource conservation efforts. Significantly, these funds are used to help build public-private partnerships among individual landowners, government and tribal agencies, conservation organizations, and business. The result is the development of consensus, locally-driven solutions to the challenges involved in protecting and managing fish, wildlife, plants, and other natural resources. In my home state of Montana, where fishing, hunting, and the enjoyment of our natural resources are deeply ingrained into our way of life, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has made important contributions to conservation efforts. These contributions include supporting environmental education, habitat restoration and protection, resource management, and the development of conservation policy. For example, public-private partnerships have been established to restore and protect native fish species, such as Arctic grayling, bull trout, and cutthroat trout, prized by anglers. Working with landowners, thousands of acres of lands have been purchased and easements acquired to benefit elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, other game animals. Support has been provided to county and tribal efforts to control the spread of noxious weed species that threaten farms, rangelands, wildlife habitat, and recreation areas. In total, the Foundation has funded 187 projects and delivered a total of almost $13 million to conservation projects in Montana. Mr. President, even with the accomplishments of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the need to conserve the nation's natural resources remains. Today, in too many areas of the country, the health and sustainability of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which they depend, are threatened. Bitter disputes continue to arise among interests when solutions to difficult natural resource problems are sought. Tight budgets often severely limit the ability of governments and private entities to adequately address conservation challenges. Because of this, the need for an organization such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which promotes conservation, builds partnerships and consensus, and stretches dollars, is as clear today as it was in 1984 The bill we are introducing today, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments of 1999, will increase the Foundation's ability to continue to carry out is important mission. First and foremost, the legislation authorizes federal appropriations through 2004 to support the Foundation's work. The legislation also strengthens the Foundation by increasing the size of its board of directors and allowing board members to be removed for nonperformance. Finally, the bill broadens the Foundation's authority by allowing it to work with all agencies within the Departments of Interior and Commerce. This legislation is nearly identical to the legislation passed by the Senate last year. Mr. President, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has provided valuable assistance to this nation's natural resource conservation efforts over the past 15 years. If the legislation we are introducing today is passed, I have no doubt that the Foundation will continue it solid record of accomplishment. I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan group of cosponsors and support this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Fair Trade Act of 1999. I am joined by Senator Gorton of Washington and Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. I begin by saying I believe the next round of the WTO is vital to American farmers. As a Senator who represents Montana, a State whose primary industry is agriculture, this next round will decide the fate of our next generation of producers. It is that simple. It is becoming increasingly clear that while the rest of the Nation continues to experience astounding economic growth and prosperity through open and global trade, America's farmers and ranchers across the Nation are suffering, and they have yet to reap the fruits of free trade's bounty. During the last several months, we have worked to identify goals for agriculture in the next round of the WTO. The consensus is that we must step up our efforts dramatically in order to make genuine progress in leveling the playing field for our agriculture industry. It is our intention that this bill will begin this process. The Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a mechanism through which we can target unfair export subsidies and fight for their total elimination by January 1, 2003. It is our hope that such legislation will provide an incentive for our trading partners to voluntarily reduce their export subsidies during the next round of the WTO. The elimination of these subsidies will benefit farmers on both sides of the Atlantic. I believe this act provides a powerful two-tier trigger approach to the reduction of export subsidies. First, the European Union must reduce its agriculture export subsidies by 50 percent by January 1, 2002. If the EU fails to do so, the U.S. Agriculture Secretary shall take appropriate measures to protect the interests of American agricultural producers and ensure the international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. In particular, the Secretary shall be authorized to target EU's most sensitive export market for grains and spend over $1 billion in Export Enhancement Program funding in that market. Step 2 requires the EU to enter into an agreement with the United States by January 1, 2003. The EU must agree to completely eliminate its export subsidies, and if not, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture shall be authorized to, again, target EU's most sensitive export market for grain, double the Export Enhancement Program to $2 billion, and increase and utilize export funding for market promotion and direct ag export credit sales in the best interest of American ag producers. It is high time the Senate takes action to ensure that the next round of negotiations result in benefits to our agricultural producers. Why target EU export subsidies? I believe the United States has taken the high road in leading by example. That lead hurts U.S. producers. The United States has long taken the position that if we reduce support for agriculture, especially export subsidies, we will get a fair trading system. That is not the case across the Atlantic, where the EU export subsidies are 60 times greater than export subsidies in the United States. In fact, the EU accounts for nearly 85 percent of the world's agricultural export subsidies. I can remember in the 1980s when the U.S. and EU engaged in an ``export subsidy war.'' At the same time, they both battled to undercut each other's prices in the world's wheat export markets. But over the decade, U.S. market share declined while EU market share increased dramatically. Europe, formerly the world's largest net importer, suddenly became the world's largest net exporter of agricultural products. It had nothing to do with luck. It had everything to do with their aggressive use of export subsidies. How did the United States fight back? We didn't. To date, the United States maintains an anemic Export Enhancement Program. Authorized at $500 million a year, EEP operates well below its Uruguay Round reduction commitments. If EEP is to be a credible tool in international trade, it is high time we start flexing its muscle. The United States will remain the most open market in the world. I am committed to that. At the same time, we must do everything possible to open foreign markets. A ``trigger'' is the first step--it has leverage--but one that must be taken as a very large stride in the path toward free trade. Again, I thank Senators Gorton and Bingaman for cosponsoring this legislation. I urge my colleagues vested in the future of American agriculture to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Agriculture Fair Trade Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by the bill's leading cosponsors, Senator Gorton, Senator Bingaman, Senator Craig and Senator Murray. The measure is also supported by the Montana Grain Growers and the Montana Farm Bureau. Let me begin by saying that this next round of WTO is vital. As a senator who represents Montana--a state whose primary industry is agriculture--this next round will decide the fate of our next generation of producers. It is becoming increasingly clear that while the rest of the nation continues to experience astounding economic growth and prosperity through open and global trade, America's farmers and ranchers across the nation suffer. They have yet to reap the fruits of free trade's bounty. During the past several months, we in the Senate, the Administration and farmers and ranchers back home have worked to identify the goals for agriculture in the next round in the WTO. And the consensus is that we must step up our efforts in order to make any genuine progress in leveling the playing field for the agricultural industry. It is our intention that this bill will begin this process. The Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a mechanism through which we can target unfair export subsidies and fight for their total elimination by January 1, 2003. It is our hope that such legislation will provide an incentive for our trading partners to voluntarily reduce their export subsidies during the next round of the WTO. The elimination of these subsidies will benefit farmers on both sides of the Atlantic. I believe that the Agriculture Fair Trade Act provides a powerful, two-tiered ``trigger'' approach to the reduction of export subsidies. First, the European Union must reduce its agricultural export subsidies by 50 percent by January 1, 2002. If the EU fails to do so, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture shall take appropriate measures to protect the interests of American agricultural producers and ensure the international competitiveness of United States agriculture. In particular, the Secretary shall be authorized to-- Target the EU's most sensitive export market for grains, and Spend $1 billion in Export Enhancement Program funding in that market. Step two requires the European Union to enter into an agreement with the United States. By January 1, 2003, the EU must agree to completely eliminate its export subsidies. If not, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture shall be authorized to-- Again, target the EU's most sensitive export market for grains, Double the Export Enhancement Program to $2 billion, and Increase and utilize export funding for market promotion and direct ag export credit sales in the best interest of American ag producers. It's high time, we in the U.S. Senate take action to ensure that the next round of negotiations results in benefits to our producers. Why Target EU Export subsidies? I believe that the U.S. has taken the high road in leading by example. That lead hurts U.S. producers. The United States has long taken the position that if we reduce support for agriculture we will get a fair trading system. That is not the case across the Atlantic, where the EU export subsidies are 60 times greater than export subsidies in the United States. In fact, the EU accounts for nearly 85 percent of the world's export subsidies. I can remember the 1980s when the U.S. and EU engaged in an ``export subsidy war.'' At that time, both countries battled to undercut each other's prices in the world's wheat export markets. Over the decade, U.S. market share declined while EU market share increased dramatically. Europe, formerly the world's largest net importer, suddenly became the world's largest net exporter. It had nothing to do with luck. It had everything to do with their aggressive use of export subsidies. And how did the United States fight back? We didn't. To date, the United States maintains the anemic Export Enhancement Program. Authorized at $500 million a year, EEP operates well below its Uruguay Round reduction commitments. If EEP is to be a credible tool in international trade, its high time to start flexing its muscle. The United States will remain the most open market in the world. I am committed to that. At the same time, we must do everything possible to open foreign markets. A ``trigger'' is the first step--but one that must be taken as a very large stride in the path toward fair trade. I again thank Senators Gorton, Bingaman, Craig and Murray for cosponsoring this important legislation. And I urge my colleagues vested in the future of America agriculture to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1984, Congress created the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a charitable, nonprofit corporation with the mission of conserving our nation's fish, wildlife, plant, and other natural resources. The Foundation's creation was championed by congressional members from both sides of the aisle, including my esteemed colleague on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman John Chafee. The bipartisan support the Foundation received in Congress reflected broad agreement that additional efforts were needed to protect and manage our natural resources. Over the past 15 years, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has established a solid track record. The Foundation has achieved on-the- ground results. It has also stretched federal dollars and built public- private partnerships essential to conservation efforts. The Foundation has provided more than 3,500 grants to over 940 private local organizations, state and county governments, tribes, federal and interstate agencies, and colleges and universities in all 50 states. By requiring grantees to match Foundation grants with non-federal funds, the $135 million in federal funds invested by the Foundation have been leveraged to deliver more than $440 million to natural resource conservation efforts. Significantly, these funds are used to help build public-private partnerships among individual landowners, government and tribal agencies, conservation organizations, and business. The result is the development of consensus, locally-driven solutions to the challenges involved in protecting and managing fish, wildlife, plants, and other natural resources. In my home state of Montana, where fishing, hunting, and the enjoyment of our natural resources are deeply ingrained into our way of life, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has made important contributions to conservation efforts. These contributions include supporting environmental education, habitat restoration and protection, resource management, and the development of conservation policy. For example, public-private partnerships have been established to restore and protect native fish species, such as Arctic grayling, bull trout, and cutthroat trout, prized by anglers. Working with landowners, thousands of acres of lands have been purchased and easements acquired to benefit elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, other game animals. Support has been provided to county and tribal efforts to control the spread of noxious weed species that threaten farms, rangelands, wildlife habitat, and recreation areas. In total, the Foundation has funded 187 projects and delivered a total of almost $13 million to conservation projects in Montana. Mr. President, even with the accomplishments of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the need to conserve the nation's natural resources remains. Today, in too many areas of the country, the health and sustainability of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which they depend, are threatened. Bitter disputes continue to arise among interests when solutions to difficult natural resource problems are sought. Tight budgets often severely limit the ability of governments and private entities to adequately address conservation challenges. Because of this, the need for an organization such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which promotes conservation, builds partnerships and consensus, and stretches dollars, is as clear today as it was in 1984 The bill we are introducing today, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act Amendments of 1999, will increase the Foundation's ability to continue to carry out is important mission. First and foremost, the legislation authorizes federal appropriations through 2004 to support the Foundation's work. The legislation also strengthens the Foundation by increasing the size of its board of directors and allowing board members to be removed for nonperformance. Finally, the bill broadens the Foundation's authority by allowing it to work with all agencies within the Departments of Interior and Commerce. This legislation is nearly identical to the legislation passed by the Senate last year. Mr. President, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has provided valuable assistance to this nation's natural resource conservation efforts over the past 15 years. If the legislation we are introducing today is passed, I have no doubt that the Foundation will continue it solid record of accomplishment. I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan group of cosponsors and support this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Rural Provider Act of 1999. Small, rural hospitals have always played a vital role in ensuring access to quality health care. Today, rural hospitals are as important as ever. Half of all American hospitals are in rural areas, and these institutions account for fully one-quarter of the hospital beds in our country. And rural hospitals across America are expanding and improving their services, from disease prevention to rehabilitation to outpatient surgery. But if the outpatient prospective payment system (PPS) goes into effect as currently proposed, rural hospitals in Montana and across the nation will lose millions of dollars in Medicare payments each year. Some of our smallest hospitals--the ones we should be supporting the most--will lose more than half of their current payments. That's just not right, and we should pass legislation to fix it. Why does the outpatient PPS pose such a threat to small, rural hospitals? As you know, Mr. President, instead of reimbursing hospitals for the actual costs that they incur, a PPS would pay hospitals on a fixed, limited rate. That might make sense for a large hospital in Chicago or New York City that sees thousands of patients every day. But it doesn't make sense for a small hospital that doesn't enjoy the same economies of scale. It certainly doesn't make sense for Madison Valley Hospital, in Ennis, Montana, which would face an estimated 62.6 percent cut in outpatient payments under PPS. Mr. President, how can small, rural hospitals, already struggling to improve their services with limited funds, survive and operate with half as much money? How can hospitals that rely on Medicare patients for most of their revenue endure a 50 percent pay-cut? The simple answer is: they cannot. And let's remember, Mr. President, many of these hospitals are home to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health agencies (HHAs). These are the same SNFs and HHAs that have already been harmed by new prospective payment systems of their own. This is a very simple bill. It would allow small, rural hospitals to opt out of the outpatient PPS. Without this bill, hospitals all across rural America will face devastating shortfalls in the coming year--and the quality of our country's health care will suffer. With this bill, the small hospitals that serve rural Americans throughout the nation can continue to improve the quality of their services. Passing this bill is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Rural Provider Act of 1999. Small, rural hospitals have always played a vital role in ensuring access to quality health care. Today, rural hospitals are as important as ever. Half of all American hospitals are in rural areas, and these institutions account for fully one-quarter of the hospital beds in our country. And rural hospitals across America are expanding and improving their services, from disease prevention to rehabilitation to outpatient surgery. But if the outpatient prospective payment system (PPS) goes into effect as currently proposed, rural hospitals in Montana and across the nation will lose millions of dollars in Medicare payments each year. Some of our smallest hospitals--the ones we should be supporting the most--will lose more than half of their current payments. That's just not right, and we should pass legislation to fix it. Why does the outpatient PPS pose such a threat to small, rural hospitals? As you know, Mr. President, instead of reimbursing hospitals for the actual costs that they incur, a PPS would pay hospitals on a fixed, limited rate. That might make sense for a large hospital in Chicago or New York City that sees thousands of patients every day. But it doesn't make sense for a small hospital that doesn't enjoy the same economies of scale. It certainly doesn't make sense for Madison Valley Hospital, in Ennis, Montana, which would face an estimated 62.6 percent cut in outpatient payments under PPS. Mr. President, how can small, rural hospitals, already struggling to improve their services with limited funds, survive and operate with half as much money? How can hospitals that rely on Medicare patients for most of their revenue endure a 50 percent pay-cut? The simple answer is: they cannot. And let's remember, Mr. President, many of these hospitals are home to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health agencies (HHAs). These are the same SNFs and HHAs that have already been harmed by new prospective payment systems of their own. This is a very simple bill. It would allow small, rural hospitals to opt out of the outpatient PPS. Without this bill, hospitals all across rural America will face devastating shortfalls in the coming year--and the quality of our country's health care will suffer. With this bill, the small hospitals that serve rural Americans throughout the nation can continue to improve the quality of their services. Passing this bill is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleague, the esteemed Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, to safeguard the funding allocation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. We call it TEA 21, the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century. What is it? It is a very large, massive transportation bill that this Congress passed a couple of years ago--about $217 billion over 6 years in highway funds and transit funds for the States. It is very important legislation to address this country's infrastructure needs. The Senator from Rhode Island will soon raise a point of order under rule XVI against a provision in that bill; that is, against a provision in this bill before us, the Transportation appropriations bill, the provision which rewrites a section of TEA 21, known as RABA. What in the world is RABA? RABA is the ``revenue aligned budget authority.'' I will explain that in just a second. This section, the RABA section, is totally within the jurisdiction of one committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the authorizing committee, and thus the provision in this appropriations bill constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in clear violation of rule XVI. Let me briefly explain how we got to this point. Last week, many of us--49 of us--stood together against another proposal in this bill to rewrite the TEA 21 formula when this case was for transit. Even though the proposed change would have reduced funds for only California and New York--that is, the transit provision that was earlier proposed by the Appropriations Committee--that provision would have increased funds for the remaining 48 States. I was pleased that my colleagues supported the provision to not include that because it was the right thing to do. The transit formula agreed to in TEA 21, along with other provisions in TEA 21, particularly the highway provision, was part of a grand bargain on which we worked together so hard to write last year. Even though most States would have benefited somewhat from the proposed change in this bill--that is, the transit provision I mentioned--we stuck together to preserve the original intent of TEA 21. We voted to protect the integrity of TEA 21; that is, the highway bill. We voted for the program as it exists and against the Transportation Committee rewrite of the bill. The chairman of the subcommittee then removed that provision from the bill. I commend him for that. It was the right action to take. I compliment him for it. But, unfortunately, he solved only part of the problem; that is, the transit piece. I say ``unfortunately'' because the reported bill before us from the Appropriations Committee also contained a provision that redistributes a portion of the highway funds as well. These funds are known as RABA, as I mentioned earlier--revenue aligned budget authority--that result from the greater than expected revenues coming into the highway trust fund because the economy is doing quite well; that is, more people are driving. The economy is doing well. That means more gasoline tax revenues. The RABA provision anticipated that. It explained how those increased funds should be dealt with. This year that increases because the economy is doing well. It amounts to about $1.45 billion again for the year. The highway bill stakes out new ground by putting into law the requirement that all gas tax revenues coming into the highway trust fund--that is, about $28 billion for this year--should be spent on highways. That is, all gasoline tax revenue should be spent on highways and a portion for mass transit but not for other purposes. A number of Members of this body worked very hard to achieve that goal--Senators Byrd, Warner, Gramm, Lott, and many others --to say nothing at all about the House Members in the other body who worked equally hard. It is a landmark achievement. It restored some measure of trust to the highway trust fund. TEA 21 provided that if gas tax receipts are greater than originally estimated--this is the RABA provision--the increased revenue will also go into the trust fund. That is what TEA 21 provides. And it will be distributed in a very specific way. Again, that is what TEA 21 specifically provides. What did it provide? Approximately 90 percent would go to States by formula--that is, the core programs--and about 10 percent to a variety of smaller but equally important programs that were not tied to individual States. The chart I have now before us shows that these include--that is, these other programs, the 10 percent include programs to fund roads on national parks. For example, it includes Federal lands highway programs and Indian reservation roads. Just think about all of us who have Indian reservation roads in our States. The provision of the Transportation Subcommittee would say none of the increase would go to Indian reservation roads. Public lands highways are very important to many Senators, particularly their States. I mention the national parks and refuge roads. What about the border infrastructure program? Many Senators, when writing the highway bill, came to us and said: We need a particular provision in the highway bill--that is, TEA 21--to address border infrastructure needs. We agreed. We put in that provision. But the Appropriations Committee said none of the increased funds will go to that. What about the national scenic byways program? It is very important to many States so that the picturesque highways in our States have funds equally allocated as all other needs and will receive funds in the event of additional dollars. Ferry boats and terminals: Yes, ferry boats and terminals would get none of the increase under the Transportation Committee bill--none. That is wrong because it was contemplated, when we wrote this bill together, they would get that. Then I mention transportation and community preservation. The main point is that these were bargained-for and fought-for provisions in TEA 21, the highway bill, and everyone assumed, because that was the provision in the highway bill, that if there were additional funds, they, too, would get their fair share of the increase. It is very important for Members to realize that these are provisions which have not just increased dollars because of the provisions that are in the Appropriations Committee bill. I don't have to remind you of the difficult debates we had over funding formulas among the Northeast States, the donor States, and the Western States. I have to tell you that it was not easy. There were many meetings. They were tough meetings. But in the end we achieved a bill--the TEA 21 bill--that was supported by 88 Senators. It was bipartisan. It was supported by Senators on both sides of the aisle. It was not just a distribution of money among the States that generated so much support for TEA 21. It also is the host of the smaller programs I just mentioned. They are called the allocated programs or the discretionary programs in which individual Senators had very specific interests. Senators from Alaska, Hawaii, and New Jersey came to support provisions such as ferry boats. Likewise, Senators from the public land States--from Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Nevada--wanted help in meeting unique needs in their States. These are the provisions we have written into the bill, the so-called allocated discretionary provisions that are not included in their fair share of the increase of highway funds in the bill provided for the forests. Senators from border States--Texas, Arizona, New York, and California--needed special attention on the dilapidated border crossings impeding trade and economic development in their States. In the same vein, Members along potential trade corridors through the Midwest had individual interests they wanted to include in the bill, but the provision before the Senate will not allow those provisions to get their fair share. I mentioned Senators seeking help for scenic byways and communities across our country. TEA 21 was not just about funding State highway programs; it was also about a broad range of transportation needs identified not just by States but by individual Senators. Earlier, I mentioned gas tax revenues were flowing to the trust fund faster than expected, to the tune of $1.45 billion in fiscal year 2000. TEA 21 provided for a fair distribution of that revenue growth. Again, unfortunately, the Transportation appropriations bill prevents the allocated programs--the discretionary programs--from sharing in this growth. The bill before the Senate zeros out about $120 million in funding for public lands, the border crossings, ferry boats, Indian reservations, research, and other allocated programs, and instead distributes that increase to the States only through the core highway programs. I am not against the core highway programs. I strongly support them. But that is not the issue. What is at issue is the protection of the integrity of TEA 21 and fair treatment for these allocated programs I have just mentioned. Why did the appropriations bill change this part of TEA 21? Is there a problem with the TEA 21 distribution? Is there anything wrong with these programs? If there is, it is news to me. I have not heard it. Nobody has mentioned it. More importantly, if something is flawed with the distribution of these programs, let's have a hearing, get the facts, and find out what is going on before we run off and start changing things for no good reason. Let's do it in the committee with jurisdiction of the highway bill, the Environment and Public Works Committee. Some might ask, what is all this fuss over such a small amount of money? After all, this bill redistributes only about $120 million, an average increase of just one-third of 1 percent of the State's highway dollars. It is because I see this as a start of a very dangerous process. Highway bills are 6-year authorizations for a very good reason. Highways take time to plan, to design, to build. Our State highway departments need some level of certainty about future funding levels to plan properly. I followed closely what my State of Montana is doing for planning these projects. Stable funding is absolutely vital; stability in highway spending is absolutely vital so States can plan. Without stability, highway and transit projects will proceed more slowly. As highway construction slows down, fewer jobs will be created, economic activity is reduced, working men and women--many with families to be supported--will be hurt. Furthermore, once we send the signal that it is open season for highway funding in appropriations bills, whose ox will be gored next? Today it is the allocated programs, the discretionary programs, scenic roads, ferry boats, border crossings, park roads; today only $120 million. Tomorrow, who knows. I know Senator Chafee and I have a tough sell here. All 50 States will get a little more money under this bill than under TEA 21. Normally, around here that is called a no brainer. If it is more money, Members vote for it. Look where the money comes from, and I ask if you still support this provision. Tell the tribal leader the Indian road program doesn't need anymore money. Tell the economic development leaders in your communities that border crossings, trade corridors, don't deserve anymore funding. Or tell the mayors that scenic byways and ferry boats have to get by with a little less than we promised last year, while others get a little more than we promised. Let's treat all programs fairly, let them all share in the revenue growth, not just a few. This is what our Governors, highway officials, and others say about the TEA 21 promises. This chart includes quotes from letters from key highway user groups. Trust Coalition, the main coalition that worked so hard with us as we put together the highway bill: . . . remind Congress of the importance of keeping its proposition in TEA 21 in the annual budgeting and appropriations process. Another letter from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Expend additional. . . annual [highway trust fund] revenues . . ., and allocate them as provided under TEA 21. From the National Governors' Association, a group this body listens to quite frequently and faithfully: Ensure that all increases in revenue in the Highway Trust Fund are directed to their intended purposes as outlined in

Mr. BAUCUS. I want to point out the provision referred to by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation in his own bill says clearly ``notwithstanding Public Law 105-178.'' Even though the law says differently, this is what the committee is going to find. The committee's own language indicates that it is a change because the committee's language says, as just reported by the chairman of the committee, notwithstanding the ISTEA bill; that is, in spite of the ISTEA bill, this is the change we are going to make.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator says this legislation on his appropriations bill is germane because he says in the House bill there is language which redistributes the funds. Therefore, he says it is germane. I ask the Senator if he could point out to me where that language is in the House bill. And let me say, before the Senator answers the question, that it is highly unlikely, as all Members of this body know, that such language exists, because the chairman of the Transportation Committee in the House, Mr. Shuster, would not stand for it. So I would like, if the Senator could, for him to show me in his bill where----

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say, with all respect to my very good friend and colleague, that language refers to just spending the money that must be spent under ISTEA. There is no language there which addresses a reallocation of additional dollars. I must very respectfully say to my good friend, the language he cited does not in any way purport to do what he likes to say it does. I just follow up by saying that what this comes down to is respect. We in the authorizing committee respect the job of the Appropriations Committee. They have a very difficult job. They do their work very well. I just hope the Appropriations Committee members will respect the work of the authorizing committee. As the Senator from Virginia pointed out, there is a reason that this is a 6-year bill, that every year we do not come back and try to pass a highway bill. It is because of the nature of the beast. Highway legislation requires long-term planning. It does not make sense for this body to start going down the road--no pun intended--of starting to rewrite the highway bill every year in the Transportation Appropriations Committee. That is just bad public policy. It is the wrong thing to do. I think every Member knows it is the wrong thing to do, if he or she just stops to think about it. I thank the Chair and my colleague very much, and particularly I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, the leader of our committee, who is bringing this issue to our attention. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Could the Senator cite the language?

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Could the Senator point out the language?

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to create a new Congressional Trade Office that will provide the Congress with additional trade expertise--independent, non-partisan, and neutral expertise. Over the past 25 years that I have served in the Congress, I have watched a continuing transfer of authority and responsibility for trade policy from the Congress to the Executive Branch. The trend has been subtle, but it has been clear and constant. We need to reverse this trend. Congress has the Constitutional authority to provide more effective and active oversight of our nation's trade policy, and we should use it. Congress should be more active in setting the direction for the Executive Branch in its formulation of trade policy. I believe strongly that we must re-assert Congress' constitutionally defined responsibility for international commerce. The Congressional Trade Office will provide the entire Congress, through the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, with this additional trade expertise. I am proposing that the Congressional Trade Office have three sets of responsibilities. First, it will monitor compliance with major bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. It will analyze the success of those agreements based on commercial results, and it will do this in close consultation with the affected industries. It will recommend actions necessary to ensure that those countries that have made commitments to the United States fully abide by those commitments. It will also provide annual assessments of the extent to which current agreements comply with labor goals and with environmental goals in those agreements. Second, the Congressional Trade Office will have an analytic function. For example, after the Administration delivers its National Trade Estimates report to the Congress each year, it will analyze the major outstanding trade barriers based on the cost to the U.S. economy. After the Administration delivers its Trade Policy Agenda to the Congress each year, it will provide an analysis of that agenda, including alternative goals, strategies, and tactics. The Congressional Trade Office will analyze proposed trade agreements, including agreements that do not require legislation to enter into effect. It will analyze the impact of Administration trade policy actions, including an assessment of the Administration's argument for not accepting an unfair trade practices case. And it will analyze the trade accounts every quarter, including the global current account, the global trade account, and key bilateral trade accounts. Third, the Congressional Trade Office will be active in dispute settlement deliberations. It will evaluate each WTO decision where the U.S. is a participant. In the case of a U.S. loss, it will explain why it lost. In the case of a U.S. win, it will measure the commercial results from that decision. It will do a similar evaluation for NAFTA disputes. Congressional Trade Office staff will participate as observers on the U.S. delegation at dispute settlement panel meetings at the WTO. The Congressional Trade Office is designed to service the Congress. Its Director will report to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It will also advise other committees on the impact of trade negotiations and the Administration's trade policy on those committees' areas of jurisdiction. The staff will include a group of professionals with a mix of expertise in economics and trade law, plus in various industries and geographic regions. My expectation is that staff members will see this as a career position, thus, providing the Congress with long-term institutional memory. The Congressional Trade Office will work closely with other government entities involved in trade policy assessment, including the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and the International Trade Commission. The Congressional Trade Office will not replace those agencies. Rather, the Congressional Trade Office will supplement their work, and leverage the work of those entities to provide the Congress with timely analysis, information, and advice. The areas of dispute resolution and compliance with trade agreements are central. The credibility of the global trading system, and the integrity of American trade law, depend on the belief, held by trade professionals, political leaders, industry representatives, workers, farmers, and the public at large, that agreements made are agreements followed. They must be fully implemented. There must be effective enforcement. Dispute settlement must be rapid and effective. Often more energy goes into negotiating new agreements than into ensuring that existing agreements work. Of course, it is necessary to continue efforts at trade liberalization globally. But support for those efforts is a direct function of the perception that agreements work. The Administration has increased the resources it devotes to compliance. But an independent and neutral assessment of compliance is necessary. It is unrealistic to expect an agency that negotiated an agreement to provide a totally objective and dispassionate assessment of that agreement's success or failure. The Congressional Trade Office will perform an annual evaluation of the commercial results of selected major bilateral trade agreements. The American Chamber of Commerce in Japan did this type of evaluation several years ago, examining in detail 45 bilateral agreements, and their conclusions were shocking. Fewer than one-third of those agreements were considered fully successful by the industries affected. The Congressional Trade Office should do this evaluation with our major trading partners. They will also recommend actions necessary to ensure that these agreements are fully implemented. Looking at the WTO dispute settlement process, I don't think we even know whether it has been successful or not from the perspective of U.S. commercial interests. A count of wins versus losses tells us nothing. The Congressional Trade Office will give us the facts we need to evaluate this process properly. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says: ``The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' It is our responsibility to provide oversight and direction on US trade policy. The Congressional Trade Office, as I have outlined it today, will provide us in the Congress with the means to do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment proposed by Senator Crapo, along with myself, Senator Burns, and Senator Craig, to provide funding for the development of a habitat conservation plan for the recovery of the bull trout and other cold water fish in Montana and Idaho. By way of background, the bull trout favors cold, high-mountain streams with lots of cover. Some are resident, remaining in the same tributary all year round. Most, however, are migratory, heading upstream spawn in the spring, when the water starts to get warm. Historically, bull trout were found throughout the Northwest, from California to the Yukon Territory. Today, they are found primarily in Idaho and Montana. The Montana population is located in the Clark Fork River and in Lake Kookanusa, above the Libby Dam. There are many reasons for the decline in the bull trout population, including timber harvesting, road building, farming and grazing, and dam construction. Ironically, efforts to help recover various salmon species in the lower part of the Columbia River system may actually have harmed the bull trout in the upper part of the system, by reducing water levels in the upper reservoirs. In any event, in 1998, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the bull trout as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. For years, the State of Montana has been working hard to recover the bull trout. This work has intensified since the listing. For example, last year, Montana spent $568,000 on recovery efforts: things like improving stream channels, stabilizing stream banks, fencing, monitoring, educating anglers, and preventing poaching. But, to get the job done, we need to do more. And we need more help from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The amendment that we are offering today takes an important additional step. It sets aside $500,000, from the Fish and Wildlife Service budget, to help the states of Montana and Idaho develop a voluntary habitat conservation plan for the bull trout and other cold water fish, including the westslope cutthroat trout, for which a listing petition has been filed. The idea of the HCP is to provide guidance, to small landowners, particularly owners of woodlots, farms, and ranches. For example, the HCP might set standards re-channelizing streams. Or for timber harvesting and road building to prevent sedimentation. Compliance will be completely voluntary, but landowners who follow the guidance will know that they are in full compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This can encourage the kind of voluntary, cooperative efforts that can go a long way towards recovering the bull trout. Let me give you an example. A few years ago, I spent the day at the Foote Ranch, along the Blackfoot River, in Ovando, in Northwest Montana. Geoff Foote and others were restoring Bull Trout habitat. Years ago, a stream had been straightened. This had the indirect effect of reducing the amount of mud that gathered along the sides of the stream, where bull trout spawn. So Geoff and others were re-channelizing the stream. We cut logs, hauled them by horse, and placed the logs and large rocks so that the stream would meander and, by doing so, provide better bull spawning habitat. It was a cooperative effort, involving folks from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, local farmers and ranchers, and members of local environmental organizations. Our amendment will encourage further efforts, along these same lines. The amendment does not modify the substantive provisions of the Endangered Species Act in any way. Nor does it implicate any of the controversies surrounding the standards for HCPs. But it does provide funding to help Montana and Idaho continue their work to recover the bull trout. That's important, in it's own right. Moreover, it will help our State highway programs. The listing of the bull trout has caused concern about the potential effect on highway construction. By providing clear guidance, the HCP should go a long way to ensuring that the bull trout and our highway programs both can thrive. I commend the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Crapo, the Chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his leadership on this issue. I also commend the other members of the delegation, Senators Burns and Craig. I look forward to working further with them, Governors Racicot and Kempthorne, and Fish and Wildlife Service Director Clark to help recover the bull trout in Montana and Idaho in a reasonable, responsible way. amendment no. 1640 (Purpose: To increase funding for Post Secondary Schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and for other purposes) On page 27, line 22, strike ``$1,631,996,000'' and insert ``$1,632,596,000''. On page 29, line 10, after ``2002'' insert ``: Provided further, That from amounts appropriated under this heading $5,422,000 shall be made available to the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute and that from amounts appropriated under this heading $8,611,000 shall be made available to Haskell Indian Nations University''. On page 62, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address recent developments in the world trading system that occurred over the past several days at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings. Since its birth in 1989, APEC has been a useful forum to advance U.S. goals for world trade. In 1993, President Clinton hosted the first summit meeting of APEC leaders. That meeting helped to nudge the Uruguay Round of global trade talks to a successful conclusion. The following year, APEC leaders made a political commitment to free trade in the Pacific Basin by a date certain. Two years later, APEC leaders prodded WTO members to sign Information Technology Agreement. That agreement eliminates tariffs on products where U.S. companies have a clear advantage. APEC has also launched some worthwhile projects aimed at making it easier to do business in the Pacific Rim. The 21 members of APEC are responsible for almost half of the world's trade. They include country's at various stages of economic development. Members are as diverse as Papua New Guinea, Russia, Peru, and Australia. APEC is the only organization where China, Taiwan and Hong Kong sit together as equals to discuss economic issues. In 1998, U.S. trade with APEC members was just over one trillion dollars, about 70% of our trade. Our three biggest trading partners--Canada, Mexico and Japan--are in APEC Last week in Auckland, New Zealand, APEC's trade and foreign ministers held their annual meeting. This was followed by the annual summit meeting of APEC leaders, including President Clinton. These meetings provided an opportunity for using APEC to further American trade interests in two ways. One was bilateral. It dealt with U.S.- China relations. The other was multilateral. It dealt with the World Trade Organization (WTO). On the bilateral front, the annual APEC summit meeting provided President Clinton an opportunity to meet with China's President Jiang Zemin and get our relations with China on track. In particular, it was a chance to restart the talks on China's accession to the WTO. To join the WTO, China must make one-way concessions in order to gain permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. Before the China trade talks broke down for political reasons unrelated to trade, China made some important commitments to us in its accession protocol. For example, in addition to tariff cuts and agriculture concessions, China promised to eliminate technology transfer requirements for investment licenses. It will end investment performance requirements designed to take jobs from other countries. China's WTO accession requires no American trade concessions. And China has agreed to a ``product-specific safeguard'' which will strengthen our ability to fight sudden import surges. A good accession protocol will be good for America. The Clinton-Jiang meeting in Auckland infused our bilateral trade talks with new life. The U.S. negotiators thus far have done an excellent job. They have already offered American farmers a ray of hope during a very difficult year. And we are close to an accession that will make trade with China fundamentally more fair for our country. It will then be up to this Senate, and to our colleagues, to take the final step by making the normal trade relations we now offer to China permanent. On the multilateral end, the Auckland meetings were an opportunity for APEC members to show a united front for progress to the other members of the WTO. There was some forward movement on this in Auckland, but not as much as we needed. The key issue is how much we should achieve in the next WTO trade round. The next round will be launched two months from now, when the United States hosts the Seattle WTO Ministerial. In this regard, last week I introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 55. It contained the elements of what I believe we should achieve in the next round. At their Auckland meeting, APEC trade ministers endorsed a number of these elements. Procedurally, they said that the talks should be completed in three years, rather than the seven years it took for the Uruguay Round. They said that WTO members should treat the talks as one single package, not a collection of separate topics where members can opt out of the tough issues. They mentioned the need to address tariffs on manufactured products. All that was useful. But the APEC minsters did not go far enough. President Clinton and the leaders of the other APEC members set out ambitious goals for them five years ago. To achieve those goals, the trade ministers must set specific targets. In agriculture, for example, the Auckland meeting supported abolishing all export subsidies. That is a specific, ambitious target. We need the same specificity on other agricultural trade issues which, such as tariffs, trade-distorting domestic subsidies, and government trading companies. It would have been very helpful to have APEC trade ministers support progress in these areas The trade ministers should have made a much stronger statement on trade in services. This is not only an important component of developed economies. Services of all sectors--financial, communications, legal, engineering--are vital to developing nations as well. I wish the APEC trade ministers had been more concrete and specific in their treatment of the WTO talks. I hope this does not foreshadow three years of negotiations which yield weak results. Finally, I would like to endorse a point that the heads of the APEC governments made in their summit communique. They noted that great disparities in wealth threaten social stability. That is true both within a country and between nations. We must ensure that the benefits of globalization are widely shared. We must show that the global trading system improves the quality of life for WTO members. We need to emphasize the human dimension of globalization. That human includes issues such a labor and the environment, which APEC ministers and leaders largely ignored at Auckland. I hope that future meetings of APEC summits focus on these issues, and that APEC becomes a positive force for their full consideration in the WTO.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair and my colleagues for a very brief statement. Those of us who were here and those of us who were not here but certainly have an idea about it remember the effort that was put into passing TEA 21, the highway bill, a couple of years ago. Many Senators worked very long and hard. I see the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg; the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Shelby; Senator Byrd mightily helped put together a massive highway bill, otherwise known as TEA 21; Senator Warner of Virginia; and, of course, the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee. I assisted; Senator Moynihan helped a lot; the majority leader, Senator Lott. We had many meetings in Senator Lott's office trying to put together all the provisions of the highway bill. As one might guess, it is extremely complex. There were the Northeast States that had a certain point of view as to how the dollars should be allocated; the Western States thought they did not get a fair deal in the previous 6-year highway bill known as ISTEA; the Southern States. Then there were donee and donor States. There were groups that wanted more so-called CMAQ money. That is money that goes to areas to help them mitigate against pollution in their cities caused by automobiles and trucks. There were enhancement funds. Enhancement funds are for bikeways and other associated highway programs. There was research and development. There were intelligent highway systems. There were public lands. There were discretionary funds. There was park money. You name it. There were lots of competing interests that were put together a couple of years ago. We finally put together a highway bill, and it passed on a bipartisan basis, a large vote: 89 Senators voted for it after much gnashing of teeth about what we were going to do with the 4.3 cents that was otherwise set aside for debt reduction in a previous Congress. We finally decided that was going to go to the highway program. Our basic principle we agreed to was that all Federal gasoline taxes paid would go to the highway fund, and from the highway fund that money all goes back out to the States in the form of related highway programs, all funded with the gasoline tax. That was a major statement that TEA 21 made, the highway bill we passed a couple years ago. It has worked quite well. On average, States got about a 40-percent increase each year compared with the previous 6 years; some States a little more, some less; but in the whole scheme of things it worked out quite well: On average, a 40-percent increase each year compared to the prior year. This year we are considering the Transportation appropriations bill, the appropriations bill which basically says: OK, this money that is in the highway program, although there is contract authority that says the money has to be spent on highways, still, the Transportation Appropriations Committee basically just spends it. That is what it does. There is a provision in the highway bill, TEA 21, which says this: Any additional money that comes into the highway trust fund-- unanticipated additional money, presumably on account of a growing economy; and our economy has grown--will then be allocated, to the degree it is allocated, back to the States in the same way the highway bill itself was put together; that is, a certain percent under CMAQ, a certain percent under service transportation, a certain percent under minimum guarantees, a certain percent to public lands, et cetera; and in the same way. It turns out that because of the additional gasoline taxes in the last year as a consequence of a prosperous economy, there is an additional $1.5 billion that is to be allocated under the highway bill according to the way the highway bill was put together. So there are no changes. It turns out, with all due respect to the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, they have decided to change the highway bill, to rewrite it, and, rather than to have the money spent as provided for in the highway bill, to instead take all of that money-- instead of, say, 10 percent as provided for under the highway bill under certain discretionary programs and 90 percent under the core highway programs--they take it all and put it under the core highway programs. I think that is very dangerous. It is a very dangerous precedent. First of all, it is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is rewriting, adding legislation on an appropriations bill. Second, it is a precedent of the Appropriations Committee of, in effect, rewriting the program. I grant you, this is a small matter. As a consequence of the Appropriations Committee's action, instead of $1.4 billion going to the core programs, $1.5 billion is going to the core programs. The additional that is going to the core programs does not go to the various programs I mentioned. You might ask: Gee, what is the big deal? That is only about $120 million. The big deal is this. First of all, it is not much money, $1.5 billion versus $1.4 billion. Second, it is a big principle, because once we start down this slippery slope of the Transportation Appropriations Committee rewriting the highway bill and how dollars are allocated among States, then we are going to be tempted in following Congresses to take a bigger bite of the apple to redistribute even more. Why is that a problem? That is a problem because highway programs take time. State highway departments must plan ahead. It takes 2 or 3 years, from conception to design, to bid letting, to construction, to build highways or to resurface. It is not a spigot you just turn on and off yearly. It takes time. Second, here is another real concern I have. If the Appropriations Committee is rewriting the highway bill, then it is going to become political; the majority party is going to be determining the provisions in the highway bill. There will not be a bipartisan allocation of highway dollars; it will be a majority party allocation of highway dollars. With all due respect, this is not an abstraction; this has happened in the concrete. In fact, the bill that was about to come to the floor did just what I feared would happen; namely--not the highway part but the mass transit part--the committee rewrote the bill, which took many dollars away from two States, California and New York. It does not take much imagination to figure out whether the Senators from those two States are in the majority party or the minority party. I am just very concerned we are going to set the precedent of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, A, rewriting the highway bill, which is bad because it takes a long time to plan these projects, and upsetting the apple cart which took a lot of effort to put together--I mentioned Senators Byrd, Warner, Chafee, Lott, and all of us--to try to work to put all the pieces together, but also because the majority party is going to be sorely tempted to be political; that is, to give dollars to the States of the majority party but not dollars to the States of the minority party. That might change. It might be the Democrats who are in the majority. Then that precedent will be set. That is not a good precedent. We should instead just do what is right. I will sum up by saying it is true that every State will get a few more dollars under the rewrite by the Appropriations Committee. It averages about .35 percent. Gee, every State is getting a few more dollars--not many--so why not support it? My point is, it is only a few dollars. It is not going to really affect the States much at all. But it is the principle of going down the slippery slope of rewriting the highway bill without hearings, without any field hearings and hearings here in the Senate. The EPW Committee has not had hearings on this subject. The Appropriations Committee has not had hearings on this subject. Just basically, it is political. I will not object at this point, but at the appropriate time various Senators will be making this point. I very much hope that when the point is made at the proper time, the Senators will very deeply consider this in a thoughtful way, because sometimes what you do in the short term, for short-term gratification, comes back and is harmful in the long run. I do think in this case it is better to think a little bit more about the purpose of the bill. I thank the Senators for indulging me.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of Senators the retirement of Lieutenant General Patrick M. Hughes of the United States Army. A native of Great Falls Montana, I am proud that one of our native sons has made such a vital contribution to the defense of this great country, through a military career spanning nearly 40 years. The recipient of many military awards and honors, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Silver Star, the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star, General Hughes has been a valuable friend to me and the people he has served in his distinguished career. Although we have come to expect people of high caliber and dedication in our armed forces, General Hughes's service has been exceptional. Most recently assigned as the Director for Intelligence, J2, the Joint Staff, General Hughes began his military career in 1962. Following completion of his enlistment in 1965, he attended Montana State University, where he graduated in 1968. He was then commissioned in the U.S. Army infantry, and served two tours in Vietnam. He commanded several military intelligence (MI) detachments, an MI battalion, an MI brigade and the Army Intelligence Agency. He also served in senior staff positions, including a tour as the J2 of the U.S. Central Command. Throughout his distinguished career, General Hughes's tireless and sincere dedication to the men and women in uniform has vastly improved their quality of life and mission readiness. As he retires from the United States Army, he will leave behind a tremendous legacy. Mr. President, General Hughes is a great credit to the Army and the Nation. I salute him for his many years of selfless service to our country, and offer my gratitude to him, his wife Karlene and their sons, Barry and Chad, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Army. I know I speak for the people of my state when I say that I am proud of General Hughes; I know that I speak for all Americans when I say that he will be missed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send a concurrent resolution establishing U.S. goals for the next round of global negotiations in the World Trade Organization to the desk. In 1994, seven hard years of talks culminated the Uruguay Round Agreement creating the WTO. The United States can point with pride to the results of American leadership on trade. Among the agreement's notable results were beginning new countries into the rule-based trade regime; establishing an institution for ongoing trade talks and dispute resolution; and addressing some key issues for the first time. The 1994 WTO agreement left unfinished business in two of these key issues: agriculture and services. WTO members committed to return to the table in January 2000 to address barriers in these sectors, the so- called ``built-in agenda.'' It will be a major challenge. Trade- distorting domestic agricultural programs are politically sensitive, especially in the European Union, the world's biggest offender in this area. In services, efforts to open up trade run into difficult questions of domestic regulation and investment. Over the past several months, Mr. President, WTO members have submitted proposals for dealing with agriculture, services, and many other issues in a new global round of negotiations, to be launched in Seattle this November when the United States hosts the third WTO Ministerial Meeting. I have read some of these proposals, including the proposals submitted by the Administration, and I have compared them two what I hear from various groups around the country. I have concluded that the U.S. proposals are timid and lack specificity. I am very concerned about this. We can't build a strong global economy without a strong set of trade rules. We can't address emerging issues such as biotechnology and electronic commerce, areas where the United States has a commanding lead, unless we supply a concrete vision of the future. We won't reach our goals unless we can state our goals clearly. We need a clear set of goals for this round of trade talks. The American people expect us to show leadership in this area. Our trading partners expect America to show leadership, too. We in the Congress have a constitutional responsibility in this regard. The resolution I am submitting today fulfills our obligation by giving the Executive Branch specific goals for the upcoming round of negotiations. Mr. President, I would like to summarize briefly the main points of this resolution. It deals not only with agriculture and services, but also with manufactured products, institutional concerns, and a variety of other trade-related issues. agriculture America's farmers compete very effectively when world markets are not distorted by government intervention. Eliminating these distortions is not only good for the farm community, it will benefit U.S. consumers and our trading partners. It will stimulate demand for agricultural output, demand which American farmers are prepared to satisfy. My resolution instructs the Administration to seek elimination of export subsidies and trade-distorting domestic subsidies, to seek substantial tariff reductions, and for the first time to impose discipline on State Trading Enterprises. Services Services comprise almost three quarters of American output. We are a net exporter of services, so increased trade in services will have a positive effect on our current account balance. My resolution instructs the Administration to reach a global agreement that trade in services is free and open unless otherwise specified. The current system is that trade in services is closed unless otherwise specified. Starting from this principal of openness, the Administration should seek board participation in an agreement on services trade., Industrial Goods To establish a negotiating dynamic broad enough to allow for trade- offs, it is vital that the WTO talks include manufactured products. In this regard, there has been some confusion as to the U.S. strategy. The work begun in APEC to cut tarffs in nine sectors has moved into the WTO. The agriculture community feared that an early agreement to cut tariffs on manufactured products would rob the overall negotiation of the required breadth of issues. My resolution makes clear that this negotiation should be viewed as a single undertaking to be completed in three years. This does not mean that we can have no results on tariffs at the Senate WTO Ministerial. But completing accelerated tariff elimination should be contingent on successfully concluding the entire package, including agriculture and services. Institutional Issues We now have almost five years of experience with the operation of the Uruguay Round agreement and the WTO. That experience has uncovered some areas for improvement. Chief among these is the need for greater transparency in WTO operations. In the state of Montana, we have a strong tradition of open government which serves us well. The WTO is a governmental body. The citizens of the nations which compose the WTO have a right to know what it is doing. We also need to speed up the WTO system for resolving trade disputes. Issues Not for Negotiating There are several issues which the Administration should not include in the overall negotiation. In some cases, including them would most likely weaken the results we obtained in the Uruguay Round. In other case, I do not believe that a global negotiation would benefit the United States. Issues such as textiles and apparel, antidumping rules, competition policy, and investment should not be part of the next round of negotiations. Other Trade Issues: Environment and Labor Finally, Mr. President, my resolution lists a number of specific trade issues which the Administration should address in the next round of trade negotiations. These include questions such as government procurement and electronic commerce. Let me mention two particular matters which are especially important: the environment and labor. My resolution instructs the Administration to make specific progress in both of these areas. On the environment, it requires an environmental assessment of any new global trade agreement, and a WTO consensus on determining when multilateral environmental agreements are consistent with international trade rules. It also requires tariff reductions on environmental products in order to increase the flow of environmental technology. As to labor, my resolution requires the Administration to correct a deficiency which has existed in trade law since the United States signed the GATT in 1947: it does not allow countries to treat products made with forced labor or child labor differently. We should all have the right to prohibit such goods from entering our countries. It also calls for joint research between the WTO and the International Labor Organization, and for a regular examination of how WTO members are living up to their 1996 commitment on core labor standards. Rhetoric is not a substitute for action. Goal: Improve Quality of Life Let me close, Mr. President, with a word about why this is important to all of us. Since the end of World War Two, we have come a long way in shaping the world economy. When the GATT was signed in 1947, the world was engaged in a bitter debate over fundamental values. The central question was whether national economies should be organized by market forces and open societies or by central government planners. Which is better: democracy or communism? The world now knows the answer to this question with absolutely no ambiguity. Today, anyone who thinks that central planning wins over market forces need only compare Seoul to Pyongyang. In the past decade, the former Soviet bloc national have struggled to turn from central planning to market forces and citizen participation. Developing countries abandoned bankrupt nations like ``import substitution'' in favor of market-based solutions. OECD countries deregulated and dismantled trade barriers. New technology, especially information technology, provided the means to take advantage of newly opened markets. Goods and capital move with amazing speed. Open markets make the global economy more efficient. But there's a distinction between efficiency and equity. Open markets do not make prosperity more fair. Many citizens believe it is not fair enough. They see widening income gaps, job insecurity, environmental damage, a less certain future. The next round of global trade talks can't make opening markets an end in itself. We no longer have to convince the world that our economic system is more efficient. The task now is to show that our system also improves the quality of their lives. We need to show that our system delivers benefits to them. It has to make them better off. If we fail to do that, we will face a world polarized by poverty as it was once polarized by cold war ideology.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I very much thank my good friend from New York. In a couple of years when the Senator is no longer here, we will miss him very much. I know of no Senator more provocative, in the best sense of the term, in forcing Members to think. That is something which too often is in short commodity on the floor of the Senate. I very much thank my friend. This is a strange debate. I heard earlier my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, say he is bewildered. I myself have referred to this debate as surreal. My friend from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, asked: What are we talking about? Why are we here? Those are apt comments in many ways. One, because we know this bill will be vetoed. We know this tax cut that has been proposed is not going to happen. Yet both those who favor the tax cut and those who favor a veto are trying to score political points with the American people. There are a lot of games being played around here. I don't think that is any news to the American people. They know what is going on. They are pretty smart. It is similar to President Lincoln saying you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time. The American people are smarter than the Congress thinks they are. Let me go through some of the reasons. First, the assumptions behind this big tax cut are unrealistic and we all know they are unrealistic. I daresay that many on the other side of the aisle would agree privately with our public statements on this side of the aisle that the assumptions are unrealistic. There is no way in the world the Congress will jeopardize national defense by cutting national defense a couple hundred billion over the next decade. There is no way in the world the Congress is going to hurt veterans by dramatically cutting veterans' benefits. There is no way in the world the Congress is going to cut education and do all that is assumed behind this tax cut. Yet virtually the entire projected surplus we are spending in this bill is based upon exactly these things happening. That is one reason this is a surreal, unrealistic, illusionary, and strange debate. It is not based upon facts. As others have pointed out, much more persuasively than I, the numbers of this tax cut as proposed do not add up. There is no way in the world we will be able to cut taxes $800 billion, pay the additional interest on the debt, and provide for a modicum of services that people need. Some have suggested--and nobody has disputed this number--that this tax cut will require about a $600 billion cut in spending over the next 10 years. It is unrealistic. It is not right. It is wrong to attempt to fool the American people that these levels of cuts are good for the country. Beyond that, this bill is based upon such ephemeral, illusionary projections, it baffles me that anybody could stand on the floor and say it is necessarily going to happen--that we will have a $1 trillion budget surplus from tax revenues over the next 10 years. Past projections have been so far off the mark that it is foolish to assume this projection will be accurate. On average, our projections are about 13 percent off the mark over 5 years. This is a 10-year projection. I point out that CBO, the agency on which we base our projections, stated in January of this year they were off $200 billion when they came up with their midcourse review in July of this year. The projections were $200 billion off over a period of just 6 months. Who knows how far off a 10 year projection could be? If we are honest with ourselves, we know most people are concerned that the economy is now overheated, rather than underheated, and therefore the projections will probably fall off and we will have much less of a budget surplus than we assume. I point this out because it defies common sense that we lock in law tax cuts far out in the future based on these very flimsy assumptions. Why are we doing that? Most people wouldn't do that. Most people, putting their family budgets together, wouldn't do that. Certainly no business would do that. No business would assume that its revenues 10 years out were going to be absolutely a certain amount and therefore they are going to spend all this money today. You just cannot make that assumption. You have to be prudent. I talked to the CEO of a major company just last week. I asked him how their company makes projections. He said: We cannot. We try to make a 5-year projection, but we are always way off. The best we can do is we put together a 5-year plan and try to anticipate what the future is going to be like, but we are constantly modifying it because times are changing so quickly. I think that probably makes sense. That is what we should be doing. We should not lock in tax cuts so far out. Rather, if we think tax cuts make some sense, they should be modest, to leave room for corrections if we have made a mistake. Times do change very much. So, again, I say this bill is reckless. It is based on an illusion. It is just not prudent. I say to the American people, I hope you understand how imprudent all this is. I must also make another point, and this point saddens me. We are in this strange, surreal situation, in part because there is so much partisanship in this body as well as in the other body. When I first came to the Senate about 20 years ago, I must say there was much less partisanship then than there is now. It is just too partisan now. By that I mean the other side of the aisle is totally controlling and secretive in what they are doing. They have put together their tax bill on their own; behind closed doors. No Democratic Senators were allowed. The same with the conference report; behind closed doors, on their own, with no Democratic Senator allowed. Not too many years ago when the Democrats were in the majority, both sides were included in drafting bills, both Republicans and Democrats. I think that is what the American people want. They want us to work together. They really do not care whether we are Republicans or Democrats; they really care that all 100 of us sit down, do the best we can, and recognize this is a democracy with different States, and different people who have different points of view, but achieve some rough justice and rough common sense. I think there is a reason for the secrecy. There is a reason for the closed doors; that is, they can do things they know are not right, things that could not stand the light of day. If the doors were open and if both sides of the aisle were included, we would not have such phony budget projections. By ``phony'' I mean in the last couple of weeks, the other side directed CBO to come up with some new numbers based upon their own new assumptions to fit the conclusions they wanted. What was the conclusion they wanted? The conclusion they wanted was to show we could cut taxes by $800 billion and still come up with $400 billion or $500 billion in spending revenue. CBO said, ``No, you cannot do that,'' before. So the other side said, ``Just change some assumptions around so you can reach that conclusion.'' That is what they did. They did it privately. In fact, they distributed that chart on their side. They didn't even distribute it on this side because they knew, if we looked at it, we could probably find out how erroneous it was, how fallacious it was. We finally did. I very much lament the secrecy and partisanship which is producing this product. I guess what bothers me most is, when I ran for the Senate and I think when most of us sought this office and were privileged enough to get elected, we came here because we wanted to address the major, big problems facing this country. We are not doing that. We are poised to move into the next century, the next millennium. Who are we as Americans? What do we want? What is our role in the world?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my friend. Who are we? How much do we want to spend on defense? What is our role in the Far East? Who are we as a country? What about countries like Bosnia and Yugoslavia? How much should we spend there? What is our role there? What is the proper role of Government? Not the false debate that is set up here--turn the money back or don't turn the money back. That is a vacuous, vacant, insipid argument. It is so simple-minded. That argument avoids asking the real questions. Questions like what is the proper level of government, what taxes should be collected from where, how and when should we stimulate the private sector? Let's have a real honest debate on policy, not a phony debate on politics. This has been a phony debate on politics, this last week, on this tax bill. It has not been an honest debate on public policy, on what is right, on what the right levels of spending should be. It is not based upon the same set of numbers, the same facts. Everybody comes up with his own charts, his own different facts. You know the old saying: Liars figure and figures lie. We cannot even agree on the same baseline. We can't agree on the same facts. By definition, we are just talking past each other. I guess that is what bothers me most and that is why I think this whole debate is most unreal and why it is sad. It is, in a large sense, not only a waste of time because we are not addressing the points that should be addressed, but it is a disservice to the American people. I very much hope in the next month, in September and next year, the leadership on both sides of the aisle will work harder to put politics aside and the Senators themselves will work hard to put politics aside. I know that might sound like a political statement, but it is what I believe. In every ounce of my body, I believe it because that is why we are here and that is what we should be doing. I very much hope after the President vetoes this bill, either there is no bill so we can start all over again, or we can come together in some appropriate way so we can get down to the real issues that face this country.