Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge, and I very much appreciate, the action taken last week by the President in response to the recommendations of the International Trade Commission--otherwise known as the ITC--on relief for the American lamb industry. As you know, the industry has gone through very difficult times these last few years. Imports have surged dramatically and lamb prices have dropped precipitously. The package of trade relief and adjustment assistance announced by the President will help the industry adjust. It will allow our producers and feeders to keep their businesses and prosper in the future. I am very grateful to the President and the staff of many agencies for their work on behalf of the American lamb industry and the American workers in that industry. This was an important decision. Why? For several reasons. First, of course, it provides significant relief to the lamb industry, which is very important in my home State, as well as elsewhere in the Nation. Second, however, it demonstrates that section 201 of U.S. trade law can work. This is the so-called ``safeguard provision.'' It is designed to prevent serious disruption to the domestic industry whenever there is an import surge. Third, the decision was important because I hope it shows a renewed commitment by the Clinton administration to assist American industries. This includes the agriculture sector that faces unprecedented challenges in the U.S. market for reasons not of their own making. Section 201 has been little used in recent years. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have been reluctant to agressively apply its provisions. For example, in the mid-1980s President Reagan would not follow an ITC recommendation for trade relief for the American footwear industry. That failure was a major contributor to the introduction of many legislative proposals that could have significantly closed the American market to foreign products. American industries and workers--whether in manufacturing, agriculture, or services--must think the Federal Government will use all available tools to help them when they are challenged suddenly by surges in imports. This is especially important today, when global financial disruption can change competitive positions of countries overnight. In the case of lamb, we see an industry that has been severely damaged by imports. Without relief, the injury to the industry would have continued to worsen. The number of sheep being raised is at an all-time low. Prices have dropped precipitously. Lending institutions are increasingly unwilling to extend credit. The industry did what it was supposed to do. It used the domestic legal process authorized by the WTO. That process is enforced through section 201 of the U.S. trade law. This is how the process should work and, in this case, is working. I believe the reluctance of the executive branch over the past 15 years to take action under section 201 has been a serious mistake. The most recent example of this is the late action that was taken by the administration to deal with the surge of steel imports. The volume of steel imports now seems to be under control. But we are still faced with a dilemma. How can we ensure that the next time the steel sector, or any other sector, is threatened by a precipitous spike in imports, strong and rapid measures will be taken to provide relief to those industries? Earlier this session, I introduced the Import Surge Relief Act. It would improve and expedite the way our Government deals with import surges. It would ease the standard that must be met to demonstrate that there is a causal link between imports and injury to an American industry. It would speed up the process for addressing import surges. It would provide for an early warning about import surges so action can be taken before the American industry is irreversibly damaged. All this is perfectly legal under the WTO. Let me address a few remarks to the principal exporters of lamb to the United States--Australia and New Zealand. There has been a lot of misinformation coming from the industry and governments in those two countries. This is not an attack on the lamb industry in Australia or New Zealand. Rather, it is a measure taken under U.S. trade law to provide temporary--and I underline the word ``temporary''--relief to a devastated American industry. The actions announced by the President are compatible with the WTO. Australia and New Zealand will continue to ship large quantities of lamb to the United States. Their exports would be able to grow each year. The only difference is that the American lamb industry will stay in business and American workers will keep their jobs. Australia and New Zealand have the right to appeal to WTO. I am sure they will do that, and I am confident that the appeal will not be successful. Everyone should understand that this action was necessary to provide temporary relief to an industry that was hurting. Let me conclude by again thanking the President and the administration officials who made possible this important action to provide remedies to the devastated lamb industry in the United States. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to follow up on the dialogue we had between Senator Graham from Florida and Senator Frist from Tennessee. I think we are finally getting to the heart of the matter as to on why the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida really does make sense and why it saves money and at the same time helps the patients. I point out that this amendment contains identical language that this Senate has already passed 2 years ago with respect to Medicare and Medicaid--the same language. I frankly think it would not be wise--in fact, I think it would be a mistake--if the Senate were now to turn around and adopt a lower standard of care for Americans with private health insurance plans. It just does not make any sense. I must also say that both bills appear to provide coverage for emergency services using the prudent layperson standard. At least that is how it appears on the surface. The prudent layperson standard is the standard that guarantees emergency care without prior authorization in any case that a prudent layperson would regard as an emergency. Both bills appear to have that same standard. The question here is something that is a little bit different. The difference comes down to poststabilization services. The amendment before us today does offer coverage for poststabilization services. The Republican bill does not. What are poststabilization services? They are those services needed when a patient has been stabilized after a medical emergency. That is afterwards. Really, the debate about poststabilization comes down to two basic questions: First, is poststabilization care going to be coordinated with the patient's health plan or is it going to be uncoordinated and therefore inefficient? The second question is: Are decisions about poststabilization care going to be made in a timely fashion; that is, when they are needed, or are we going to allow delays in the decisionmaking process that will compromise patient care and also lead to overcrowding in our Nation's emergency rooms? Those are the two basic questions. Again, are the poststabilization services going to be coordinated with the health care plan or not; and, second, are these decisions going to be made in a timely fashion? We have heard a lot of rhetoric about how poststabilization services amount to nothing more than a ``blank check'' for providers. That is the major argument against this amendment. Is it going to provide for a ``blank check'' for doctors, for hospitals, and for emergency care providers? If these provisions are a ``blank check,'' I might ask, then, why did one of the oldest, largest, and most successful managed care organizations in the country, Kaiser-Permanente, help create them in the first place? Kaiser-Permanente likes this because it knows it makes sense. It helps patient care and it helps reduce costs. Kaiser-Permanente is a strong supporter of the poststabilization provisions in our bill; that is, the provisions offered by the Senator from Florida. Why does Kaiser-Permanente support this? One simple reason. They realize that coordinating care after a patient is stabilized not only leads to better patient care but--guess what--it also saves money. Let me give you an example of how the poststabilization services in this amendment can actually save money. Just last week, while the Senate was in recess, I learned of a 40- year-old woman who went to an emergency room complaining of numbness on the right side of her body. The symptoms began to improve in the emergency room, and she was diagnosed with what her physicians referred to as a ``mini-stroke'' or a ``TIA.'' This condition is a warning sign for the possibility of a more serious, debilitating stroke. The patient was stabilized in the emergency room, and the emergency physician attempted to contact the patient's physician but was unable to do so. The emergency doc tried to contact the patient's physician but could not. If the poststabilization provisions in our bill had been in place, it may have been possible to send this woman home to continue her tests as an outpatient. It would have been possible. It would have been probable because of the way she was stabilized. But because the plan and the private physician were not available to provide coordinated and timely followup care, the emergency physician had to admit the patient to the hospital. Now, I am confused. Why don't some of my colleagues support this provision? Why don't they support a provision that provides a pathway to more efficient medical care? Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I first ask unanimous consent that my assistant, Brent Asplin, be allowed floor privileges during the remainder of this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from North Dakota for his statement. He is on target. He raises an issue that so far this Congress has not dealt with. It is as precipitous, as calamitous, as tragic, frankly, as the Senator indicated. I very much hope that Senators heard the statement of the Senator from North Dakota. I also hope the White House heard his statement, and others, too. I do not know exactly what the answer is, but I do know we need an answer. We need a solution to the problems our farmers are facing because the conditions he described in North Dakota are the same conditions one would find in my State, particularly the eastern half, which produces a lot of grain and some barley. But it is a wheat- producing area that is experiencing very difficult conditions.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to add my strong support to the Single-Point Tax Filing Act of 1999 introduced by my colleagues Senators Kerry and Grassley. As a result of language I had included in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, Montana is the only state in the nation currently testing a Single-Point Tax Filing system, also known as the Simplified Tax and Wage Reporting System, or STAWRS. The STAWRS pilot project in Montana has been a tremendous success. Earlier this year, the State of Montana and its Department of Revenue received a Regulatory Innovation Award from the Small Business Administration, the Commissioner's Award from the Internal Revenue Service, and the ``Hammer'' Award by the National Performance Review. These awards were all given in recognition of the pilot project's achievement in dramatically reducing paperwork and cutting red tape for small businesses. I was also honored to receive SBA's Special Advocacy Award for my efforts to have legislation enacted that allowed the pilot project to go forward. The STAWRS program is designed to help businesses file their paperwork with one office, instead of wading through a blizzard of paper. It's one-stop shopping and will go a long way toward streamlining payroll information, making filing faster and easier. Right now, businesses find themselves reporting the same exact information, on wide variety of forms, to a range of state and federal agencies. This takes time and effort, both of which small business owners could put to much better use running their businesses. The STAWRS project is intended to eventually make it possible for employers to file a single, one-page report that is then shared by the appropriate revenue agencies. The governments will do the work and extract the information they need rather than the employer. Small businesses are the engine for economic growth in this country. They have created close to two-thirds of America's net new jobs since the 1970's, helping drive our unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. All of this growth has been achieved despite the crushing paperwork requirements that small business owners face. The Single- Point Tax Filing Act gives us an opportunity to reduce this paperwork burden at no cost to the government. I am proud that Montana has taken the lead in reducing paperwork for small business, and strongly believe it should be made available to small businesses in every state, and on a permanent basis. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a friend and former colleague of many of us in this Chamber, Jim Sasser. Jim will complete his assignment as our Ambassador in Beijing this week, an assignment that has lasted forty months, longer than any previous American Ambassador to China. After three terms in the Senate, including his excellent leadership as Chairman of the Budget Committee, Jim spent a year in the private sector before taking up residence in Beijing in February of 1996. Since then, Jim has watched over the U.S.-China relationship during an incredibly tumultuous period. Jim arrived in Beijing just as the crisis began in the Taiwan straits in early 1996. Three years later, he watched over the first exchange of Presidential visits between our two countries when Jiang Zemin visited the United States and President Clinton paid a return visit to China earlier this year. I had the distinct honor to lead the Congressional delegation accompanying the President to China and can attest that I was profoundly impressed by Jim Sasser's understanding and management of this critically important and complex bilateral relationship. Then, most recently, we all watched with great worry and anticipation as Jim was trapped inside the Embassy during the violent demonstrations against the United States. We saw him ably represent and defend American interests during that extremely difficult and tense week. Jim Sasser has represented this country through the most difficult of circumstances. When Jim left the Senate, I was proud that to have served in this body with him. As he leaves China, I am proud that he was my country's representative there. I wish him the best and know that my colleagues do so as well.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, when we look at Asia these days, Americans' primary focus is on China and the many difficult challenges that we face in that relationship. Next on our list of what we are watching in the region is Japan where our economic and security relationship remains the linchpin of our presence in Asia. These days, however, Japan seems to get scant attention from either the public or the policymaking community. That is a mistake, but I will leave that issue to another day. After Japan in our focus comes the Korean Peninsula where we are concerned particularly about North Korea and its nuclear weapons development, missile technology, military adventurism, possible economic collapse, and internal instability. As we continue down the list of important things to think about in Asia, we come to Indonesia and the future of economic and political reform and internal stability in that hugely important nation. Some may differ with my analysis, but it appears to me that, right or wrong, these days, our nation is looking at Asia in this way. Today, however, I would like to call the Senate's attention to two important developments in other countries in Asia, specifically Southeast Asia, that are not on this list. These developments have been reported in our media, but, generally, on the back pages. They should not be ignored, because they relate to America's broad strategy toward the region where our interests are in security, stability, and open markets. The two developments are the passage by the Philippine Senate of a U.S.-Philippine Visiting Forces Agreement and the progress being made toward completion of a U.S.-Vietnam trade agreement. After a decade of stable democracy and economic reform, the Philippines may be the strongest economy in Southeast Asia after Singapore. Security ties, however, have remained at a very low level since the end of the base arrangement in 1991. This changed dramatically two weeks ago when the Philippine Senate ratified the new Visiting Forces Agreement. This arrangement, typical of the relationship we have with many of our allies, allows us to apply U.S. military law to American soldiers and sailors overseas. Its ratification will permit us to renew joint military exercises, pay naval port visits, and develop a stronger and more cooperative relationship than we have had in the decade since we left Subic Bay and Clark Field. President Estrada and the Philippine Senate deserve great credit for their statesmanship in bringing these talks to conclusion. The Visiting Forces Agreement also comes at an opportune time. Disputes between Southeast Asian states and China in the South China Sea are becoming more frequent. The financial crisis has forced most Southeast Asian nations to concentrate on internal economic issues. This agreement should give Southeast Asian countries more confidence in the U.S. commitment to the region, and, hence, serve as a long-term force for stability. In the case of Vietnam, we appear to be getting close to a bilateral trade agreement, which will promote economic reform in Vietnam and allow us to grant them Normal Trade Relations status, NTR. Vietnam, the fourth largest country in Asia and one that shares a land border with China, is an essential part of any regional policy. We have obvious historic sensitivities to address as we develop closer relations with Vietnam. We have taken a number of steps in the past few years--lifting the trade embargo, normalizing diplomatic relations, dispatching Pete Peterson as Ambassador, and concluding a Copyright Agreement, all in association with a commitment by Vietnam for full cooperation on resolving POW/MIA issues. As time passes, a normal and productive relationship with Vietnam will contribute immensely to stability and security in the southern Pacific. We are now negotiating an agreement that would begin to open the Vietnamese market to foreign trade and investment. This will support economic reform and market opening in Vietnam while also creating new commercial opportunities for Americans in a market of 80 million people. The strategic implications of this agreement, which will move us down the road to a normal bilateral relationship with Vietnam, are important. It will strengthen Southeast Asia, reduce chances for conflicts in the wider Asian region, and place the United States in a stronger regional position. Of course, an agreement must be meaningful in trade policy terms. It is not a WTO accession and, therefore, need not meet WTO standards, but it should include elements such as reform of trading rights and opening of key service sectors, in addition to other market-opening steps. For our part, if the Vietnamese are willing to conclude such an agreement, we should proceed rapidly to grant them Normal Trade Relations. This is in our trade and commercial interest, and also in our strategic interest. We have an opportunity to integrate Vietnam more fully into the Asian and world economies. I encourage our Administration, and the Vietnamese government, to complete the Commercial Agreement expeditiously. We should, parenthetically, also proceed to Normal Trade Relations with Laos, where a trade agreement has already been completed. The Philippine Visiting Forces Agreement and the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam, once completed, mean we have taken additional steps toward creating a post-Cold War framework involving open trade and security relationships in the Pacific. This is very much in our national interest.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to add my strong support to the Single-Point Tax Filing Act of 1999 introduced by my colleagues Senators Kerry and Grassley. As a result of language I had included in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, Montana is the only state in the nation currently testing a Single-Point Tax Filing system, also known as the Simplified Tax and Wage Reporting System, or STAWRS. The STAWRS pilot project in Montana has been a tremendous success. Earlier this year, the State of Montana and its Department of Revenue received a Regulatory Innovation Award from the Small Business Administration, the Commissioner's Award from the Internal Revenue Service, and the ``Hammer'' Award by the National Performance Review. These awards were all given in recognition of the pilot project's achievement in dramatically reducing paperwork and cutting red tape for small businesses. I was also honored to receive SBA's Special Advocacy Award for my efforts to have legislation enacted that allowed the pilot project to go forward. The STAWRS program is designed to help businesses file their paperwork with one office, instead of wading through a blizzard of paper. It's one-stop shopping and will go a long way toward streamlining payroll information, making filing faster and easier. Right now, businesses find themselves reporting the same exact information, on wide variety of forms, to a range of state and federal agencies. This takes time and effort, both of which small business owners could put to much better use running their businesses. The STAWRS project is intended to eventually make it possible for employers to file a single, one-page report that is then shared by the appropriate revenue agencies. The governments will do the work and extract the information they need rather than the employer. Small businesses are the engine for economic growth in this country. They have created close to two-thirds of America's net new jobs since the 1970's, helping drive our unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. All of this growth has been achieved despite the crushing paperwork requirements that small business owners face. The Single- Point Tax Filing Act gives us an opportunity to reduce this paperwork burden at no cost to the government. I am proud that Montana has taken the lead in reducing paperwork for small business, and strongly believe it should be made available to small businesses in every state, and on a permanent basis. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I need to point out that this letter doesn't endorse all of the provisions in the Patients' Bill of Rights. However, it strongly supports the post-stabilization provisions in our bill. I'll read a small portion of the letter: In summary, this program has served the needs of our patients, the treating emergency physicians, and our own medical care teams, while providing substantial savings in both clinical expense and in administrative hassle over retrospective approval of payment for services provisionally approved through the telephone call. We are strongly in favor of the post-stabilization coordination provision as an essential element of the emergency access provision of the Patients Bill of Rights. Mr. President, I don't know how you can say it any more clearly than that. Our version of the prudent layperson standard for emergency services is the right one for several reasons: (1) It's patient-centered; (2) It's comprehensive; (3) It promotes coordination of care with the patient's health plan; (4) It decreases overcrowding in our nation's emergency rooms by requiring timely decisions; (5) And last but not least, it saves money. Frankly Mr. President, I am puzzled by the fact that my Republican colleagues oppose this language. I can't understand why they oppose extending protection for emergency services to all Americans with health insurance. Shouldn't we do the right thing, and approve the real prudent layperson standard? I urge my Republican colleagues to allow us to have an open debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We need to have this debate. Americans want protections in their health plans. Americans want a system that balances the needs for access, quality, and cost-control for their health care. I am confident that we will have this debate. The last thing any of us want to do is put up barriers for patients who need medical care during an emergency. Mr. President, this legislation removes barriers and allows patients to get the care they need, providers to deliver care in a timely fashion, and health plans the opportunity to coordinate care efficiently. I am confident that when we have this debate, we will be able to come together and pass the real prudent layperson standard for emergency services. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I return to the floor today to urge my colleagues to allow an open debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. For some time now we have been asking for this debate. Actually, we have been asking for about 2 weeks. Yet we still have not reached an acceptable agreement. I return to the floor today to continue my discussion of a critically important provision in the Patients' Bill of Rights. This provision ensures appropriate coverage for emergency services according to the prudent layperson standard. Unfortunately, the alternative standard that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are offering falls short of the true prudent layperson standard. It is unfortunate that we are locked into a divisive debate, since I believe we could reach agreement on this provision. We have already passed the prudent layperson standard for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries--a very important point. It is already in the law. Now we need to complete the task and offer the same protection for hard-working Americans with private insurance. The bipartisan bill I cosponsored and the Democratic Bill of Rights contain the real prudent layperson standard for emergency services. What is the problem with the version of the prudent layperson standard proposed by those on the other side of the aisle? There are two weaknesses in their version. First, it provides an inadequate scope of coverage for emergency services. The prudent layperson standard in their bill only applies to 48 million people. Both the bipartisan bill and the Democratic bill apply this support and protection to all 180 million Americans with private health insurance. I heard arguments from the other side of the aisle that the Federal Government shouldn't get involved in private health insurance. The problem with that argument is simply this: We already are involved. Thankfully, we have made the decision that even if there is no other guarantee in our health care system, we will have guaranteed access to emergency services. Health care that millions of Americans receive during emergencies is a safety net on which our system relies. Federal legislation already mandates this safety net. The prudent layperson standard in our bill-- which, I might add, has bipartisan support--parallels the Federal mandate for emergency care. If we fail to extend the prudent layperson coverage to all privately insured individuals, then we are choosing to continue an unfunded mandate. The other major weakness in the prudent layperson provisions in the Republican bill is the lack of provisions for post-stabilization services. Mr. President I want to point out what the debate about post- stabilization services is all about. It simply boils down to two questions: (1) Is post-stabilization care going to be coordinated with the patient's health plan, or is it going to be uncoordinated and inefficient? (2) Are decisions about post-stabilization care going to be made in a timely fashion, or are we going to allow delays in the decision-making process that compromise patient care and lead to overcrowding in our nation's emergency rooms? When I have heard arguments about the post-stabilization services, I have heard opponents of these provisions characterize post- stabilization care as ``optional.'' Mr. President, we need to understand that no matter what Congress decides to do, post-stabilization care will be delivered in our nation's emergency rooms. The care delivered after stabilization is not optional. The choice Congress has is to decide whether the care will be coordinated or uncoordinated. Kaiser-Permanente is a strong supporter of the post-stabilization provisions in our bill for a simple reason: They realize that coordinating care after a patient is stabilized not only leads to better patient care, it saves money. Mr. President, I have a letter of support from Kaiser-Permanente which outlines their reasons for supporting our version of the prudent layperson standard. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business, and I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be allowed to follow me when I have finished.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join my Democratic colleagues in their fight to have an open and unrestricted debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Over the past several days, we have heard the Republican leadership say they are interested in having an up-or-down vote on their bill, followed by a vote on the Democratic bill. We all know this is not how the Senate is supposed to work. We are a deliberative body, and as such, we should have debate on important issues that affect the lives of Americans. The Patients' Bill of Rights addresses one of the most important issues the Senate can debate: the rights of Americans to have access to quality health care. Our health care system essentially relies on three important factors: First is access to health care; second is the quality of our health care; and third is cost controls, that is, the cost of our health care. The problem is it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have the best in all three areas. If we concentrate on two of the areas, that usually results in sacrifices in the third area. The whole reason we are trying to have this debate is that this trio of access, of quality, and of cost control has shifted out of balance. Our market- driven health care system has become too focused on controlling costs and protecting corporate profits. Although predictable, this, unfortunately, has led to sacrifices in access to health care and quality health care. It is important to point out we do need to be concerned about cost control in our health care system, no doubt about it. In fact, managed care has done many of the things we hoped it would do. For example, it has improved the efficiency of health care delivery, it has slowed down the growth in health care costs, and it has enhanced the collection of data to assess the quality of care. It has done all that, and that is good. The message of this debate is not that managed care is the enemy. As I said, managed care has done a lot of things which are very important. This debate, rather, is about restoring a balance in our health care system. We certainly could design a health care system that is only concerned about money, but that would miss the point. Unfortunately, though, we are headed in that direction. We need to stop and ask ourselves what we value in our health care system and what it means to have health insurance in America. That is why we want this debate so we can find answers to those questions. I stand with my Democratic colleagues who have called for an open debate. One of the reasons an open debate would be helpful is there is room for compromise. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a bipartisan patient protection bill that I think strikes an important balance between the two sides which we have heard about in the last few days. We need to come out of our corners and debate the issues because I believe there is an important middle ground, one that many Senators can support, if we simply have the courage to debate the provisions of these bills and let the votes fall where they may. I want to address an important area in the Patients' Bill of Rights; that is, the provisions that address coverage for emergency services. Both the Republican and Democratic bills provide coverage for emergency services using a prudent layperson standard. Unfortunately, the Republican version of the prudent layperson standard falls short of the standard that Congress has already enacted for the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This means that under that bill, hard-working Americans with private insurance will have less protection for emergency services than beneficiaries in Medicaid and Medicare programs. The bipartisan bill that I cosponsor and the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights contain the real prudent layperson standard for emergency services. What is the problem with the other version, that is, the Republican version of the prudent layperson standard? There are two important weaknesses in that standard. First, that standard provides an inadequate scope of coverage for emergency services. We have heard a lot of discussion about the scope of coverage in the two bills over the last 2 days. The best example of why we need to have uniform protections for patients throughout the country is the prudent layperson standard. The Federal Government is already involved in every emergency room visit in this country. We have strict Federal standards to protect patients with medical emergencies. These standards are embodied in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA. It is hard to argue that the Federal Government should not be involved in protecting patients with medical emergencies when the Federal Government already is involved. The prudent layperson standard in the Republican bill only applies to 48 million people. Both the bipartisan bill and the Democratic bill apply this important protection to all 180 million people with private health insurance. We need to realize in the Senate, again, we have already mandated that anybody who goes to an emergency room should receive health care. That is mandated. We now have an opportunity to ensure that patients are not held financially hostage for the decisions they make in an emergency. There is broad bipartisan support for the patient-centered concept of the prudent layperson standard. Now we need to extend this scope of coverage so that it parallels the Federal statutes that are already on the books. The other major weakness in the prudent layperson provisions in the Republican bill is the lack of provisions for poststabilization services. I want to point out what the debate about poststabilization services is all about. It simply boils down to two questions. First, is poststabilization care going to be coordinated with the patient's health plan, or is it going to be uncoordinated and inefficient? Second, are decisions about poststabilization care going to be made in a timely fashion, or are we going to allow delays in the decisionmaking process that compromise patient care and lead to overcrowding in our Nation's emergency rooms? We have heard a lot of rhetoric about how poststabilization services amount to nothing more than a blank check for providers. If these provisions are a blank check, then why did one of the oldest, largest, and most successful managed care organizations in the world help create them in the first place? Kaiser-Permanente is a strong supporter of the poststabilization provisions in our bill for a simple reason: They realize that coordinating care after a patient is stabilized not only leads to better patient care, it saves money. Let me give an example of a case which took place in the past 2 months. It illustrates the problem quite nicely. A woman came to an emergency department after falling and sustaining a serious and complex fracture to her elbow. The emergency physician diagnosed the problem and stabilized the patient. The stabilization process took less than 2 hours. Unfortunately, the patient's stay at the emergency room lasted for another 10 hours while the staff attempted to coordinate the care with the patient's health plan. The plan was unable to make a timely decision about the care this patient needed. The broken bone in her elbow required an operation by an orthopaedic surgeon. The patient's health plan did not authorize the operation in the hospital where the patient was located. They denied this care because the hospital was not in its network, even though there was a qualified orthopaedic surgeon available. After several phone calls, a transfer was arranged to another hospital. Unfortunately, the patient did not leave the hospital emergency room for almost 12 hours. When the patient arrived at the second hospital, the orthopaedic surgeon looked at the complexity of the broken bone and decided he could not perform the operation. The patient, therefore, had to be transferred to a third hospital, where the operation was finally performed. Let's look at the extra costs involved in this case. The patient had two ambulance rides and two extra evaluations in hospitals. The patient also laid in the emergency room with a painful broken bone for 12 hours before being transferred. During this time, the emergency room was very busy and the staff had to continue to care for new patients as they arrived. So why did this occur? In this case, the problem occurred because the plan was unable to make a timely decision about the poststabilization care this patient needed. This should not be how we in this country take care of patients with a medical emergency. I hope Republicans will join with us to pass a really prudent layperson standard for emergencies. I urge my colleagues to allow us to have an open debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We need to have this debate. Americans want protections in their health plans. Americans want a system that balances the needs for access, quality, and cost control in their health care. Before I close, I just want to mention how delighted I am to hear my colleagues talk about the needs of the uninsured in America. If they are serious about working to address the problem we have with 43 million uninsured Americans, I obviously look forward to working with them. Once we have established basic, uniform rights in health care, we should return to the equally important task of providing access to health care for the uninsured in America. It seems important that universal access to adequate health care should be our goal. But unless we recognize the importance of rights in health care, our constituents may end up with access to a system that is indifferent to both their suffering and their rights. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his work on this piece of legislation. I think it is responsive to the concerns that we heard from the fire fighters and the other first responders. They are concerned about losing access to information that would have been included in RMPs for those substances exempted by this bill. The RMP information was intended by Congress to aid emergency responders and communities in the prevention of loss of life and property that might occur due to accidental releases of hazardous substances. The component of the RMPs of greatest interest to the emergency responders is the hazard assessment required by section 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I).

Mr. BAUCUS. I believe these reports will be of great help to firefighters and other emergency responders in looking at the adequacy of the information they need and get to do their jobs well. If the reports come back showing that the Federal government has not done its share to make their job of protecting the public easier, then this committee and others should take quick action to address any gaps in the system.

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with my colleague, but NFPA 58 does not currently require the development of hazard assessment or off-site consequence analysis information. NFPA 58 also does not make specific provision for communicating or sharing this information with local emergency response authorities or personnel. Another problem with the NFPA Code is that state fire protection codes laws refer to NFPA 58 as of a certain date. Therefore, when the Code is updated, state laws do not automatically reflect subsequent changes to it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Fuels Regulatory Relief Act is a good measure. It has two major pieces. The first exempts flammable substances used as fuels, including propane, from the regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act's risk management program. The second is the matter of public access to worst case scenario data. The committee and all of Congress has heard the concerns of propane users and distributors. I have met with propane distributors from Montana on this subject. They feel that the burden imposed by the EPA's risk management program is costly and provides little public health protection. They have achieved some relief in court, but prefer, and this bill provides, a clearer statement of Congress' intent. In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress directed EPA to compile a list of at least 100 substances that ``pose the greatest risk of causing death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the environment from accidental releases.'' EPA was to consider the severity of acute health effects, the likelihood of releases, and the potential magnitude of exposure associated with accidental releases of a substance before putting it on the list. I was a member of the conference committee on that bill. And, I believe that Congress did not intend that propane or flammables used as fuels would pass those tests and be listed. Congress was focused on preventing major toxic catastrophes, such as occurred in Bhopal, India, not the type of accidents that are covered by existing Federal or State fire safety or transportation laws. Because it was not Congress' intent that they be added, I am supporting removing them from the list. As I mentioned during the committee's markup of S. 880, I wanted to be responsive to concerns of the firefighters and fire chiefs. They had hoped to get information on flammables used as fuels as part of the risk management program. But, as we discussed the matter further, it became clearer that their interests would be best served by the comprehensive GAO study we have placed in the bill on their information needs and the ability of Federal and State laws and programs to help them do their jobs. The bill also directs the GAO to do an additional study on the status of changes to the National Fire Protection Association Code for propane (NFPA 58). This voluntary industry standard was often cited by members of the propane industry as sufficiently protective of the public so that no additional regulations were necessary. The GAO will report back on changes to NFPA 58 that will hopefully provide at least the same level of public benefit as would have been provided by the listing of propane under the RMP requirements. I look forward to seeing progress on NFPA 58 that is responsive to the fire fighting community. I am pleased to note that we have been able to come to an agreement on a managers' amendment which is a substitute for section 4 of the reported version of S. 880. That was largely the Administration's proposal for providing appropriate public access to the sensitive parts of the risk management plans. Our amendment will help the administration continue implementing the accident prevention provisions of the Clean Air Act in a sensible way. The amendment balances the public's right to know information about extremely hazardous substances with the need to place some limits on access to that information to prevent terrorists and other criminals from misusing it. Section 4 is a response to a potential threat identified by the administration and industry. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has testified before the Committee about its concerns that Internet posting of parts of the risk management plans (RMPs) required under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act could increase the threat of criminal or terrorist actions. The FBI is particularly concerned about the possible use of off-site consequence or worst case scenario information in the RMPs by terrorists to rank targets and maximize harm to the public. That section of the Act was created to help prevent incidents like the one in Bhopal, India, where 3,000 people died and 200,000 were injured due to a chemical plant disaster. I thank Senators Lautenberg, Chafee, Inhofe and representatives of the Administration for their work in developing the managers' amendment and moving this process along. It represents a real bipartisan team effort. Senator Lautenberg and his staff were particularly helpful in achieving a balanced agreement on the risk management plan portions of the amendment. In early May, the administration sent up a legislative proposal to create a more secure system for handling sensitive RMP information. The administration's hope was that Congress would act before June 21, 1999, because that is the statutory deadline under the Clean Air Act for significant users of extremely hazardous substances to submit their RMP information to EPA. The act directs EPA to make that information available to local emergency responders, the States and the public. Unless this bill or similar legislation is passed soon, with a retroactivity clause included, the Administration cannot limit public access to this sensitive information and would not be able to prevent it from getting on the Internet. The Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requires this kind of information be made available to the public, since it is not classified or considered confidential business information. The RMP information is a truly new category of government information. The committee approved the administration's proposal on May 11, 1999, with the understanding that changes would have to be made before it would be ready for the full Senate's consideration. Fundamentally, this managers' amendment is similar to the Administration proposal. They both establish a system for accessing RMP information which is separate and distinct from the usual FOIA process. However, the approach in the managers' amendment provides a one-year exemption from FOIA while regulations are developed to govern the handling of and access to worst-case scenario information. This rulemaking period is a recognition of the need to air the many issues rising from the creation of this new information access system. Concerns about it have been raised by the public, the States' Attorneys General, first responders, librarians and environmental groups, since the Administration proposal was approved. To encourage an expedited rulemaking process, the FOIA exemption would be lifted if the rule is not completed within one year. In any event, the FOIA exemption would be lifted six years after enactment. This deadline ensures that Congress revisits and oversees the matter and is in keeping with the probable obsolescence of any information technology developed to satisfy the security concerns of the FBI and the public access concerns of the EPA. State and local government personnel and affiliated individuals who need the worst case information for the official use of detecting, preventing, and responding to chemical facility accidents and their off-site consequences would be assured of getting it during the rulemaking period and after the rule is issued. However, to limit the chances that this information could get on the Internet, these people would be required to exercise great care in their use and distribution of it. The same restrictions would be placed on qualified researchers. Guidance will be issued by EPA, as part of the rulemaking, describing the official uses of the sensitive RMP information. The amendment establishes penalties for those who knowingly or willfully violate the restrictions on the dissemination of the sensitive parts of the RMP. There would be a two-tiered approach. People who knowingly misuse the information could be fined up to $5,000 for each infraction. People who violate willfully, meaning that they know what the law or regulations prohibit and proceed anyway regardless of potential consequences, could face fines up to $1 million per calendar year. The Clean Air Act's risk management program was created by Congress to help prevent chemical accidents that can harm our communities. People living near chemical plants do not care whether an accident occurs because of operator negligence or criminal activity. They want to feel and be secure from such threats. That is why we are taking this step today. We want to reduce the opportunity that Internet dissemination of worst case scenario information could be used by criminals to cause terror or destruction. We have even included an emphasis on preventing criminal releases of extremely hazardous substances, to make it clear that these should be an important focus of the accidental release prevention program. But, we also want to preserve the important incentive created by public knowledge about chemical accidents and their consequences. That knowledge encourages manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their processes and plant safety. That is why we have provided the maximum possible public access to RMP information in this amendment and the Clean Air Act. The right-to-know effect has been very successful in reducing overall toxic emissions to air, water and land. Knowing more about the off-site consequences of these substances should encourage companies to build safer facilities and look for alternative manufacturing methods. After all, it is part of the general duty under section 112(r) for owners and operators of chemical plants ``to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent [accidental] releases.'' Clearly, measures which entirely eliminate the presence of potential hazards, through substitution of less harmful substances or by minimizing the quantity of an extremely hazardous substance, as opposed to those which merely provide additional containment, are the most preferred and would be most effective in reducing the risk of accidental releases. The amendment specifically authorizes EPA and the Department of Justice to help owners and operators develop voluntary industry standards to carry out the various objectives of the general duty clause. Mr. President, we are prepared for final passage. I urge my colleagues to support the measure, and I hope the House will take up this matter and send it quickly to the President.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Lautenberg, Lincoln, and Daschle, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize and reform the Superfund program, the Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfields Cleanup Act. The Environment and Public Works Committee has been working on Superfund reauthorization legislation for more than six years. It's time to finish the job. To my mind, the best way to accomplish this is to focus on a set of modest but important reforms about which we are likely to be able to achieve a broad bipartisan consensus. That is what our bill aims to do. Superfund has been criticized as creating disincentives for cleaning up ``brownfields''--generally, sites in older neighborhoods or industrial areas that are contaminated, but not to the extent that they are likely to be put on the National Priorities List. The main charge is that fear of Superfund liability makes some developers reluctant to invest. Title I of the bill addresses this concern. It eliminates Superfund liability for prospective purchasers of contaminated property who are not responsible for the contamination, and thereby removes a potential disincentive for brownfields cleanup. The bill also provides liability relief for current owners of contaminated property who are not responsible for and had no reason to know of the contamination when they acquired the property, and persons whose property is contaminated as a result of migration from neighboring property. In addition, the bill authorizes funding for three purposes: $35 million per year for five years for grants to local governments, States and Indian tribes to inventory and assess contamination at brownfield sites; $60 million per year for five years for grants to local governments, States and Indian tribes to capitalize revolving loan funds and for site cleanup; and $15 million per year for five years to States to develop and enhance voluntary cleanup programs. Perhaps the most well known criticism of Superfund relates to the toll it can take on small businesses that, despite their often minimal contribution of waste to a site, have been forced to incur significant sums in attorney fees and payments toward cleanup. A significant portion of small businesses that sent waste to a site sent only municipal waste or very small amounts of hazardous waste. In addition, many small businesses simply cannot afford to pay the costs associated with retaining an attorney and cleanup. To address these problems, the bill provides two liability exemptions. The first is an exemption for parties that sent a de micromis amount of hazardous waste--presumed to be less than 110 gallons of liquid material or 200 pounds of solid material. (Note that this provision is not limited to small businesses: it also would exempt a large company that sends only de micromis amounts of waste.) The second is an exemption for small business and homeowners that sent municipal solid waste from their home or business. There is no limit on the amount of municipal waste these parties sent. In addition, the bill provides relief for those who sent a relatively small amount of hazardous waste, but more than allowed under the de micromis exemption, and for small businesses with a limited ability to pay. Specifically, the bill provides expedited settlements for contributors of de minimis amounts of waste and persons with a limited ability to pay. These provisions require EPA to make settlement offers as expeditiously as practicable to these parties. A party who contributed 1% or less of the waste to the site is presumed to be de minimis. Together, these provisions would provide relief for virtually every small business and homeowner that should get relief. The bill also requires that EPA establish a small business Superfund assistance section within the small business ombudsman office of EPA. Under Superfund, contributors of municipal solid waste and municipal sewage sludge have been sued, and in some instances, found liable, based on the fact that even municipal waste contains some small amount of hazardous substances. At sites with municipal waste (such as municipal landfills), frequently the majority of waste by volume is municipal waste, but the conditions that result in listing the site on the NPL were caused by the more toxic industrial waste. Hence, there has long been controversy as to whether contributors of municipal waste, and municipalities that own municipal landfills on the NPL, should be treated the same as contributors of other waste. Last year EPA published a policy for settlements with municipal owners and operators of NPL landfills, and for public and private contributors of municipal waste. The policy was developed through negotiations with several municipal organizations. Our bill codifies EPA's policy. Under the provision, municipalities that own or operate landfills that are on the NPL are entitled to settle for 20% of the cleanup costs at a site, and for 10% if they have a population below 100,000. Contributors of municipal waste, including municipalities and private parties, can settle for $5.30 a ton. This number was calculated based on the cost of cleaning up a municipal landfill that does not also have hazardous waste. Title IV provides exemptions for contributors of certain ``recyclable material''--paper, plastic, glass, textiles, rubber (other than whole tires), metal and batteries--that meet specified conditions. It is virtually identical to the Lott/Daschle bill in the 105th Congress. In particular, I appreciate the work of Senator Lincoln on this issue. Contributions of orphan funding from the Superfund can mitigate much of the perceived unfairness of the joint and several liability system. Allocation pilot studies conducted by EPA revealed that the most important tool for achieving settlements, and in the process reducing transaction costs, is for EPA to offer some contribution of funding to offset costs attributable to parties that are unable to pay. The bill authorizes $200 million per year for five years in mandatory spending to be used by EPA in cleanup settlements. It is so used to offset costs attributable to parties that are insolvent or defunct or otherwise unable to pay, or for other equitable purposes. This mandatory spending is conditional, however, on the Superfund cleanup program being appropriated at least $1.5 billion annually, exclusive of the $200 million for orphan funding. That so-called ``firewall'' is intended to ensure that cleanups are not sacrificed in order to pay orphan funding. Assuming the program is funded at the required level, EPA would be required to contribute $200 million per year to cleanup settlements. However, to maintain flexibility, EPA would have the discretion to determine how much of the $200 million to allocate to which sites. The bill authorizes appropriations of $7.5 billion over five years, or $1.5 billion a year. At this level, EPA would be able to maintain the current pace of cleanups, which is resulting in the completion of construction at 85 sites a year. Now that we finally are making good progress in cleaning up sites, its important to maintain this pace. On a related point, the bill continues to fund cleanups principally through the Superfund Trust Fund. In doing so, it assumes the reinstatement of the two Superfund taxes--the excise taxes on petroleum and chemical feedstocks and the corporate environmental tax of .12 percent of corporate alternative minimum taxable income above $2 million. By doing so, the bill would retain the current reliance on the trust fund to pay for the majority of cleanup costs, with a limited payment from general revenues. Mr. President, the chairmen of the Environment and Public Works Committee and its Superfund Subcommittee, Senators Chafee and Smith, also have introduced a Superfund reform bill, S. 1090. There are several areas of general agreement between the bill that we are introducing today and S. 1090. Some examples are the exemption for bona fide prospective purchasers and other exemptions intended to promote brownfields redevelopment; exemptions for contributors of recyclable material; and exemptions and expedited settlements for contributors of municipal waste or small amounts of hazardous waste, to protect municipalities and small businesses. There are, however, some significant differences between the approaches taken in the two bills, particularly with respect to providing an adequate federal safety net to protect public health and the environment, the allocation system, and, perhaps most significantly, providing adequate and assured funding to operate the program. I hope that we can work cooperatively and expeditiously to resolve these differences, so that we can pass a Superfund reauthorization bill with broad, bipartisan support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Lautenberg, Lincoln, and Daschle, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize and reform the Superfund program, the Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfields Cleanup Act. The Environment and Public Works Committee has been working on Superfund reauthorization legislation for more than six years. It's time to finish the job. To my mind, the best way to accomplish this is to focus on a set of modest but important reforms about which we are likely to be able to achieve a broad bipartisan consensus. That is what our bill aims to do. Superfund has been criticized as creating disincentives for cleaning up ``brownfields''--generally, sites in older neighborhoods or industrial areas that are contaminated, but not to the extent that they are likely to be put on the National Priorities List. The main charge is that fear of Superfund liability makes some developers reluctant to invest. Title I of the bill addresses this concern. It eliminates Superfund liability for prospective purchasers of contaminated property who are not responsible for the contamination, and thereby removes a potential disincentive for brownfields cleanup. The bill also provides liability relief for current owners of contaminated property who are not responsible for and had no reason to know of the contamination when they acquired the property, and persons whose property is contaminated as a result of migration from neighboring property. In addition, the bill authorizes funding for three purposes: $35 million per year for five years for grants to local governments, States and Indian tribes to inventory and assess contamination at brownfield sites; $60 million per year for five years for grants to local governments, States and Indian tribes to capitalize revolving loan funds and for site cleanup; and $15 million per year for five years to States to develop and enhance voluntary cleanup programs. Perhaps the most well known criticism of Superfund relates to the toll it can take on small businesses that, despite their often minimal contribution of waste to a site, have been forced to incur significant sums in attorney fees and payments toward cleanup. A significant portion of small businesses that sent waste to a site sent only municipal waste or very small amounts of hazardous waste. In addition, many small businesses simply cannot afford to pay the costs associated with retaining an attorney and cleanup. To address these problems, the bill provides two liability exemptions. The first is an exemption for parties that sent a de micromis amount of hazardous waste--presumed to be less than 110 gallons of liquid material or 200 pounds of solid material. (Note that this provision is not limited to small businesses: it also would exempt a large company that sends only de micromis amounts of waste.) The second is an exemption for small business and homeowners that sent municipal solid waste from their home or business. There is no limit on the amount of municipal waste these parties sent. In addition, the bill provides relief for those who sent a relatively small amount of hazardous waste, but more than allowed under the de micromis exemption, and for small businesses with a limited ability to pay. Specifically, the bill provides expedited settlements for contributors of de minimis amounts of waste and persons with a limited ability to pay. These provisions require EPA to make settlement offers as expeditiously as practicable to these parties. A party who contributed 1% or less of the waste to the site is presumed to be de minimis. Together, these provisions would provide relief for virtually every small business and homeowner that should get relief. The bill also requires that EPA establish a small business Superfund assistance section within the small business ombudsman office of EPA. Under Superfund, contributors of municipal solid waste and municipal sewage sludge have been sued, and in some instances, found liable, based on the fact that even municipal waste contains some small amount of hazardous substances. At sites with municipal waste (such as municipal landfills), frequently the majority of waste by volume is municipal waste, but the conditions that result in listing the site on the NPL were caused by the more toxic industrial waste. Hence, there has long been controversy as to whether contributors of municipal waste, and municipalities that own municipal landfills on the NPL, should be treated the same as contributors of other waste. Last year EPA published a policy for settlements with municipal owners and operators of NPL landfills, and for public and private contributors of municipal waste. The policy was developed through negotiations with several municipal organizations. Our bill codifies EPA's policy. Under the provision, municipalities that own or operate landfills that are on the NPL are entitled to settle for 20% of the cleanup costs at a site, and for 10% if they have a population below 100,000. Contributors of municipal waste, including municipalities and private parties, can settle for $5.30 a ton. This number was calculated based on the cost of cleaning up a municipal landfill that does not also have hazardous waste. Title IV provides exemptions for contributors of certain ``recyclable material''--paper, plastic, glass, textiles, rubber (other than whole tires), metal and batteries--that meet specified conditions. It is virtually identical to the Lott/Daschle bill in the 105th Congress. In particular, I appreciate the work of Senator Lincoln on this issue. Contributions of orphan funding from the Superfund can mitigate much of the perceived unfairness of the joint and several liability system. Allocation pilot studies conducted by EPA revealed that the most important tool for achieving settlements, and in the process reducing transaction costs, is for EPA to offer some contribution of funding to offset costs attributable to parties that are unable to pay. The bill authorizes $200 million per year for five years in mandatory spending to be used by EPA in cleanup settlements. It is so used to offset costs attributable to parties that are insolvent or defunct or otherwise unable to pay, or for other equitable purposes. This mandatory spending is conditional, however, on the Superfund cleanup program being appropriated at least $1.5 billion annually, exclusive of the $200 million for orphan funding. That so-called ``firewall'' is intended to ensure that cleanups are not sacrificed in order to pay orphan funding. Assuming the program is funded at the required level, EPA would be required to contribute $200 million per year to cleanup settlements. However, to maintain flexibility, EPA would have the discretion to determine how much of the $200 million to allocate to which sites. The bill authorizes appropriations of $7.5 billion over five years, or $1.5 billion a year. At this level, EPA would be able to maintain the current pace of cleanups, which is resulting in the completion of construction at 85 sites a year. Now that we finally are making good progress in cleaning up sites, its important to maintain this pace. On a related point, the bill continues to fund cleanups principally through the Superfund Trust Fund. In doing so, it assumes the reinstatement of the two Superfund taxes--the excise taxes on petroleum and chemical feedstocks and the corporate environmental tax of .12 percent of corporate alternative minimum taxable income above $2 million. By doing so, the bill would retain the current reliance on the trust fund to pay for the majority of cleanup costs, with a limited payment from general revenues. Mr. President, the chairmen of the Environment and Public Works Committee and its Superfund Subcommittee, Senators Chafee and Smith, also have introduced a Superfund reform bill, S. 1090. There are several areas of general agreement between the bill that we are introducing today and S. 1090. Some examples are the exemption for bona fide prospective purchasers and other exemptions intended to promote brownfields redevelopment; exemptions for contributors of recyclable material; and exemptions and expedited settlements for contributors of municipal waste or small amounts of hazardous waste, to protect municipalities and small businesses. There are, however, some significant differences between the approaches taken in the two bills, particularly with respect to providing an adequate federal safety net to protect public health and the environment, the allocation system, and, perhaps most significantly, providing adequate and assured funding to operate the program. I hope that we can work cooperatively and expeditiously to resolve these differences, so that we can pass a Superfund reauthorization bill with broad, bipartisan support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman, Dorgan, Kerrey, Johnson, and Daschle. I rise to introduce the Trade Injury Compensation Act of 1999. Under U.S. trade law, we may retaliate when a trading partner improperly closes its market to American goods or services. In certain circumstances, the World Trade Organization endorses that retaliation. The normal form of trade retaliation is to increase the tariff to one hundred percent on a designated list of imported goods. The intention of retaliation is not protectionist. It is just the opposite--use the leverage of access to the huge United States market to open up a foreign market and expand trade. Retaliation is a tool designed to inflict enough economic pain on a trading partner that he returns to the negotiating table and removes the trade barriers that started the problem in the first place. Sometimes these negotiations restart quickly, sometimes even before the retaliation goes into effect. Other times, the negotiations start again only after the impact of retaliation sinks in. In some cases, the new one hundred percent tariff raises the price of the imported good so prohibitively that it is priced completely out of the market. In other cases, the product is still sold in the United States, perhaps at a higher price, or perhaps at the original price with the importer absorbing the added tariff. The United States is increasingly taking trade disputes to the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. However, some of our trading partners have been, in effect, snubbing their nose at the WTO's decisions. The most egregious example of this is the European Union, whose approach to WTO dispute settlement is, frankly, outrageous. First, in bananas, and now in beef, the EU is using legal and procedural technicalities to delay implementation of important and legitimate WTO panel decisions. Each time they do this, the EU seriously undermines the credibility of the WTO as a fair and even-handed place to get trade justice. The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using the tariffs imposed when a country fails to comply with WTO dispute resolution decisions. Normally, the additional tariff revenues received from retaliation go to the Treasury. This bill establishes a trust fund so that the affected industry will receive those revenues as compensation for its injury. In the case of agriculture, the money will be spent on promotion and development of products for the industry. In non-agriculture cases, the money will go to additional Trade Adjustment Assistance payments to the affected industry. Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow. We all recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of my colleagues, are working on ways to fix it, starting with the WTO Ministerial in Seattle. But, while the United Staes is striving to support and improve the WTO system, the EU seems to be working overtime to undercut the WTO. We must stop this abuse of the WTO, and we must provide assistance to our industries that are damaged by these illegal actions of the EU or others in the future. Within two weeks, the Administration will implement retaliatory measures against the European Union because of its WTO-illegal restrictions on beef. My bill would provide the American beef industry with much needed compensation while the retaliatory measures remain in place. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill. 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 today to speak to the surging wave of cheap, imported lamb meat that threatens to drown the United States lamb industry, an industry that has been part of our nation's economy since independence. This surge of imports, primarily from the nations of Australia and New Zealand, can be seen in the numbers collected by our federal inspectors. In 1993, just 56 million pounds of lamb meat entered this country and its markets. By 1997, that figure had risen to 84.4 million pounds--a shocking increase of nearly 50 percent. Those figures have been converted to carcass-weight equivalents, and are higher than those collected by the U.S. Commerce Department. But that department's information shows no indication that the surge is slowing. In 1998, a record 70.2 million pounds--by volume--of lamb meat entered the domestic market. Not only has the level of imports increased, but the lamb meat flooding the domestic market is directly competitive with products produced by this nation's lamb industry. In place of lamb carcasses, shipments of fresh, chilled meat--cut and processed and ready for the grocery store shelves--are displacing domestically produced meat across the country. At this point, importers control one-third of the United States lamb consumption, a market share that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for our producers to control their own destinies. The importers do not participate in voluntary price reporting. In fact, they have actively fought a joint lamb promotion program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Despite ample notice of the effect their skyrocketing levels of imports have had on the domestic industry, and despite ample notice that the industry intended to file a case against them, the importers refused to pull back voluntarily, or even discuss the situation. The lamb industry's case now rests with the President. I call on this Administration to follow through with the strong and effective relief this industry needs to regain its footing and confidence. With confidence will come investment, and with investment, will come a more competitive industry.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman, Dorgan, Kerrey, Johnson, and Daschle. I rise to introduce the Trade Injury Compensation Act of 1999. Under U.S. trade law, we may retaliate when a trading partner improperly closes its market to American goods or services. In certain circumstances, the World Trade Organization endorses that retaliation. The normal form of trade retaliation is to increase the tariff to one hundred percent on a designated list of imported goods. The intention of retaliation is not protectionist. It is just the opposite--use the leverage of access to the huge United States market to open up a foreign market and expand trade. Retaliation is a tool designed to inflict enough economic pain on a trading partner that he returns to the negotiating table and removes the trade barriers that started the problem in the first place. Sometimes these negotiations restart quickly, sometimes even before the retaliation goes into effect. Other times, the negotiations start again only after the impact of retaliation sinks in. In some cases, the new one hundred percent tariff raises the price of the imported good so prohibitively that it is priced completely out of the market. In other cases, the product is still sold in the United States, perhaps at a higher price, or perhaps at the original price with the importer absorbing the added tariff. The United States is increasingly taking trade disputes to the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. However, some of our trading partners have been, in effect, snubbing their nose at the WTO's decisions. The most egregious example of this is the European Union, whose approach to WTO dispute settlement is, frankly, outrageous. First, in bananas, and now in beef, the EU is using legal and procedural technicalities to delay implementation of important and legitimate WTO panel decisions. Each time they do this, the EU seriously undermines the credibility of the WTO as a fair and even-handed place to get trade justice. The Trade Injury Compensation Act establishes a mechanism for using the tariffs imposed when a country fails to comply with WTO dispute resolution decisions. Normally, the additional tariff revenues received from retaliation go to the Treasury. This bill establishes a trust fund so that the affected industry will receive those revenues as compensation for its injury. In the case of agriculture, the money will be spent on promotion and development of products for the industry. In non-agriculture cases, the money will go to additional Trade Adjustment Assistance payments to the affected industry. Mr. President, the WTO is a critically important institution that sets the foundation and framework to make world trade grow. We all recognize that it needs improvement, and I, along with many of my colleagues, are working on ways to fix it, starting with the WTO Ministerial in Seattle. But, while the United Staes is striving to support and improve the WTO system, the EU seems to be working overtime to undercut the WTO. We must stop this abuse of the WTO, and we must provide assistance to our industries that are damaged by these illegal actions of the EU or others in the future. Within two weeks, the Administration will implement retaliatory measures against the European Union because of its WTO-illegal restrictions on beef. My bill would provide the American beef industry with much needed compensation while the retaliatory measures remain in place. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill. 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 today to recognize a very important event. All over the country, women and men alike are preparing for the ``Race for the Cure,'' a 5-kilometer foot race to raise money in the fight against breast cancer. Each year, the number of participants in the race has grown. Sixteen years after its inception, the Race for the Cure has become the largest 5-K in the world. I believe this race is widely attended because breast cancer has affected so many people. One in 9 women and approximately 12,000 men are diagnosed with breast cancer every year. So, in some way, everyone--every man, woman, and child is affected by this disease. The Race for the Cure is important because it brings awareness to this disease that is so prevalent today. This cause and this race are important to me for many reasons. There are several women who are very important to me who are survivors of this terrible disease. I have learned so much from these women; I have seen their courage and, believe me, I want to underscore that point-- very courageous. I have seen their willingness to fight. Through them, I have learned more about the value of life. We often take for granted the gifts that we have been given. We catch ourselves thinking about what will happen in an hour, or in a couple of days, and we forget to live for right now. The precious time that we have with our loved ones is invaluable. We take too little time with them. Through their struggles to fight breast cancer, these women have shown me the importance of a life lived well. And for that, I thank each of them. This race is being held in over 95 cities in the United States over the next few weeks. I am proud to say that this weekend, on May 15, the Race for the Cure will be held in Helena, MT, my State's capital. Approximately 3,000 runners will participate. More important, over 300 breast cancer survivors will participate this weekend in the race for life. Seventy-five percent of the race proceeds are used to provide mammography vouchers and grants for follow-up diagnostic tests for more than 600 women in Montana. Thirty-two health care facilities in my State participate in this program. I extend my special thanks to the Montana Race organizers Connie Malcom and Bobbie Pomroy and the hundreds of volunteers working together to make this important event occur. Women like Jan Paulsen, a seven-year survivor who will represent my State at the National Race for the Cure here in Washington, DC, on June 5. Congratulations to everyone involved in this important event and good luck to all! Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of a bipartisan group of 30 Senators, this morning I sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our view that bilateral negotiations with China over accession to the World Trade Organization should be resumed immediately and finalized quickly. After completion of an agreement that clearly advances U.S. economic interests, we are committed to granting China permanent Normal Trading Relations (NTR) status. It is critical, especially after the events in Belgrade and Beijing over this past week, that we understand what is in America's national interest. It is in our national interest to ensure that China is incorporated into the global trade community through membership in the WTO. It is in our national interest to make sure that China follows internationally accepted trade rules. It is in our national interest to improve market access and open China's markets to American agricultural products, services, and manufactured goods. And it is in our national interest to do what we can to help anchor and sustain the economic reform process currently underway in China. As I look at the Senators who signed this letter, I see a broad representation of our country, our society, and our economy. The nature of this group, half Democrat and half Republican, demonstrates that there is strong and broad support in the Senate for us to focus on America's long-term national economic interests in developing our trading relationship with China. We cannot, we must not, and we will not, ignore the many problem areas in the broad U.S.-China relationship, from human rights to espionage to weapons proliferation. But the message is clear that we must look closely at every aspect of this relationship in an objective way, determine what is best for us as a nation, and act accordingly. The agreements reached during Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji's recent visit to Washington are solid. We want no back-pedaling on those understandings. We want an early resumption of the trade negotiations and a rapid conclusion. We want to bring China into the global trade community, and to do so it is necessary to grant China permanent normal trading relations status. The broad bipartisan group of Senators who signed today's letter firmly supports that. Let me be clear about the intended recipients of the message in this letter. We want the administration to know that a core bipartisan group in the Senate is behind resumption of negotiations and conclusion of a WTO agreement, and that group will support permanent NTR status for China. We want the most senior levels of the Chinese government to know that a good WTO agreement with the United States will lead rapidly to WTO accession and to permanent NTR status. We want the American public to understand that we in the Senate are taking strong leadership in promoting the long-term economic interests of this country. And we want the American business community to know that they have responsibilities: first, to work ceaselessly to take advantage of the concessions China will make as it enters the WTO, second, to expand exports to China that will grow jobs in the United States, and, third, to educate the public and policymakers about the importance of integrating China into the global economy. The terms negotiated by USTR, the Department of Agriculture, and others are excellent. These are structural changes, market opening measures, and trade concessions made by China, not by the United States. We, the United States, are giving up nothing and are obtaining immeasurable possibilities for the future. I ask unanimous consent that this bipartisan letter be printed in the Record.