Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will take just 2 or 3 minutes before I yield back my time. We are getting into the repetitious stage. Let me say that it is important to think about the precedent. Congress has never voted on this issue before. There are a lot of other countries that are going to be seeking membership in the WTO. They are basically former Soviet Union republics. Russia--name them. They all are going to be looking for membership in the WTO. If we start voting now on membership, I think we have to do the same for all the others, and they will get caught up in the other issues, too, that have already been discussed. Frankly, the Senator from Arkansas made my case when he said that at this time we have the greatest leverage. It sounds to me as if the leverage he is talking about is on human rights. It is on lots of issues. I just think that we do not want to get to a debate on China policy if and when the U.S. executive branch seeks to have China become a member of the WTO. I also suggest to my good friend from Arkansas it is a good opportunity for the Senator and all of us who are concerned about the terms of China's infamous WTO, the economic terms, to make our case very strenuously now with the administration, with Ambassador Barshefsky, with others in the administration, so that they do come up with terms that we would more likely agree with than not. Now is the time. There are intense negotiations going on now. Premier Zhu Rongji is about to visit this country. I think it is Premier Zhu Rongji's visit to the United States which gives us ``leverage,'' because he will want to come with an agreement. We should make use of that leverage by vigorously talking with the administration. It has been a good debate and I think we should deal with all these issues of China separately, not in the context of WTO. I hope that the Senators would agree with the Senator from Alaska when he moves to table the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas raises obviously a very important question, and that is, essentially, the terms under which the United States should agree to help encourage China to be a member or accede to the WTO. It is obviously important because China, particularly in the next century, is going to be a very important country. It is now the largest country in the world, the most populous, the largest standing army, a nuclear power, one of the fastest growing ``developing countries,'' thousands of years of history, a very proud people. We in the United States clearly must be very careful and clear headed in our relationship with such a country, particularly when the question arises as to the terms under which China would accede to the WTO. It is also true that under the Constitution, the U.S. Congress provides that the Congress essentially set trade policy. That is true. But the use of power is a very important matter. Sometimes it is important to use power that is entrusted to one. Sometimes it is important to forebear the use of power that is entrusted to one. Certainly, Congress has the authority to pass the amendment suggested by the Senator from Arkansas. But that is not the question. The real question is, Should Congress adopt that amendment? In my judgment, it has the ring of simplicity which often sounds good, but when one thinks about it a little bit more deeply and what the consequences of that amendment would be, it, at the very least, causes people to pause and, in my judgment, causes Senators to not support the amendment. I am reminded of a statement by H.L. Mencken, a famous Baltimore Sun journalist: ``For every complicated problem, there is a simple solution, but it is usually wrong.'' That is this case. There is a complicated problem--China and our trade relationship--and the simple solution to some degree is, ``Congress should vote on whether to admit China to the WTO or not.'' This would set new precedent, a groundbreaking and very alarming precedent. In each of the previous 110 cases where countries have acceded to the GATT, or to the WTO, there has not been a congressional vote. Congress has never voted on whether a country should accede to the GATT, currently to the WTO. That is an executive decision. There is a good reason why Congress has not voted in the past. Essentially, it is for the reasons suggested already by the Senator from Arkansas, because if we were to vote on whether China should accede to the WTO, that vote would essentially be a vote not on WTO, but it would be a vote on our ``overall China policy.'' It would include countless other relationships that we have with China. The Senator from Arkansas already mentioned them. Human rights, for example. The Senator is very upset with China's human rights policy. He said that should be looked into. He implied looking into it in the context of this debate. I, too, am upset with China's human rights policy. I daresay every Member of the Senate is upset with China's human rights policy. But are those issues considered in trade negotiations? Are they considered by the World Trade Organization? The Senator from Arkansas might think that they should be, but they are not considered in trade negotiations and in whether or not China is or is not meeting commercially acceptable principles under which it would properly be admitted to the World Trade Organization. The Senator also mentioned the words ``political environment.'' He said this issue has to be considered in the total political environment of our relationship with China. He mentioned espionage. That is a charged issue right now. I daresay that if the Congress were to vote in the next several months presumably on whether China should accede to the WTO, there would be an amendment on espionage, there would be an amendment on human rights, an amendment on labor relations, an amendment on the environment. I can think of countless subjects that would be included, by the design of certain Senators, in any decision by the Congress whether or not China should be admitted to the WTO. It reminds me very, very much of the debate we already had with respect to China, and that is whether the Congress, when we come up with the annual MFN review--actually a lot of us like to call it normal trade relationship not most-favored-nation status. MFN is a gross misnomer. MFN is not at all what it implies. It is not most favored. In effect, it is least favored, because we have so many trade agreements with so many other countries under terms that are more beneficial than the bottom line terms of MFN. During the MFN debate, or normal trade relations debate, we have had in this Congress, particularly several years ago, the question was whether we should pass in this Congress every June a conditional extension of MFN or nonconditional extension of MFN. Those who argued for conditional extension said, ``Well, we will continue MFN with China for another year if China abides by certain human right regimes, if China abides by certain nuclear technology transfer provisions, if China signs a comprehensive missile test ban treaty, if China''--all these other things. In a sense, that debate became a debate about China and gave interest groups an opportunity--I use this term loosely--to kind of take off on or vent their spleens about a certain policy with which that Senator or interest group had a disagreement. I have no problem with that. In fact, I support it. I support Members of the Senate and the House working vigorously to improve upon the relationship with China in each of the specific areas that we engage China, and there are many of them. Trade is one. Even within trade, there are many, many different levels. There are tariffs. There are distribution systems. There is access. There are all kinds of matters with which we have to deal. Let's take national security, not very related to trade--indirectly but not directly. Our administration, other countries' administrations engage China on a host of national security issues. Let's take the Taiwan Straits, for example. That is a separate matter. It is an extremely important issue. It is one that has become a bit sensitive in the last several days, but the U.S. Defense Department, the NSC, and our executive branch are working out with Taiwan, with China, and with Japan as much as possible the various interrelationships of that issue. The main point is, those issues should be dealt with separately and on separate tracks. They should not be all subsumed in the one vote on whether China should be a member of the WTO. I think it is also important to remember we have a lot of problems with China, but China has done a lot of good things, too. What are they? Recently in the economic sphere, China, at great cost to itself, has not devalued its currency. China, in the last year, has been under tremendous pressure to devalue its currency so that it could sell more products overseas; it would help boost its economy. But China has not. Why has China not devalued its currency? In many respects because the Americans have encouraged them, have asked them not to devalue. Why? Because if they were to devalue their currency, then the other southeastern countries--the baht in Thailand, the Indonesian currencies, North Korea--there would be great pressure on them to devalue further, which means that our exports will be that much more expensive, their exports to the United States that much less expensive, and the trade deficit we are all so worried about will be even worse. China, at great cost to itself, has so far--that might change--not devalued the currency. China has also signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. They signed it. That is a major step. That is good. China has helped provide more stability between India and Pakistan, particularly when those countries were starting to test missiles. It has been a very great help to us. They also have begun to downsize their state-owned enterprises. That is not something we asked them to do, but at great cost to themselves, they are doing so, and that is a major effort. There is banking reform. The PLA, their army in China, which used to be a major competitor with companies in the United States, was not just an army, it was a manufacturing firm, an industry or a company making all kinds of products. The PLA are going out of business. It is not entirely done yet, but they are going out of business. That is good. Even more fundamentally, let's think of this. What if this were 25 years ago and we were faced with the Asian currency turmoil, which did spread over to Brazil and over to Russia and has affected the whole world, as a matter of fact? If this were to have happened 25 years ago, I daresay that China would have used it as an opportunity to further destabilize--they could have used it as an opportunity to gain a strategic position in, say, Vietnam or in Burma, Thailand, maybe even in Japan, as they did 25 years ago when they exercised their power, but not in the economic sense. Instead, today, 25 years later, when presented with this crisis, what has China done? It has not been a bad boy; it has been a good boy. China has, instead, downsized its state-owned enterprises as much as it possibly can. It is reducing its bureaucracy, cutting a lot of the dead wood. It is cutting back on the army dramatically. I was in China about a year ago talking with a general and all his colleagues who were being given the boot because the general officers corps, in addition to the lower ranks, was being cut back dramatically. They are going through a lot of painful times. I am not going to stand here and apologize for China. We are very concerned about China. But instead, China is trying to be a player. Why is WTO good for America and why is it good for China? WTO is good for America only under commercially acceptable principles. I must underline that forcefully. It is good for America because it will help encourage a greater rule of law in China, because there are commitments that China would have to agree to. It would help America because we could take China to the WTO. The Senator from Arkansas has a concern whether we could ``trust'' China. I tell you, Mr. President, China will do more of what we wish if they are a member of WTO, at least on trade issues, because we can take China to the WTO. The WTO is now much more impartial and more effective as a dispute settlement mechanism than it was under the old GATT, to be honest about it. The WTO as an institution is being tested now, particularly with respect to bananas and beef hormones, and some other issues--whether countries live up to it--but still it is a lot better than the old GATT, under which there was virtually no dispute settlement mechanism. WTO is good for China, too. Why? Basically because it gives China status and more investment in China; it gives China the opportunity to be more of a player in the world economic scene. And that is all good. That is good for China; that is good for America. We are so interrelated today economically, politically, socially that when one part of the world's economy collapses or goes south, it has effects everywhere. It affects the Senator's farmers. They have a harder time selling soybeans. It affects farmers in my State. They have a harder time selling wheat. That is why, when the Asian currency crisis occurred, at least in my State, our agricultural exports fell $50 million compared to the preceding year. I must say, I think we have done a pretty good job as a country in managing, as near as we could, the currency crisis, which we did not cause. It was caused by a whole host of factors--essentially greed by a lot of creditors who did not look at financial statements closely anymore. But we have done a pretty good job managing. Secretary Rubin, Chairman Greenspan, Secretary Summers have done a good job of helping stabilize, as much as they possibly could, this turmoil. Mr. President, the Senator also asked, ``Well, gee, who should be admitted first, Taiwan or China?'' That is a political issue. We should not look at this as a political issue. We should look at these countries on their merits. And if China does meet the commercially acceptable principles test closely, tightly, we should admit China. If they do not, we should not. There are lots of different areas there that I wish to just briefly mention as to the test I think China should meet. I must say, Mr. President, I do not think this administration is going to send us a weak agreement. It would be foolish for them to agree to China's accession into the WTO under noncommercially acceptable terms. It would not make any sense. For one thing, it would be an outrage. Second, it would have an effect on MFN, a vote later. It would have an effect on fast-track proposals that may or may not come up. It just does not make sense. They will not do it. One final point is this. The Senator wants a vote. The Senator is going to have a vote. It is on MFN extension, because, by definition, if the United States agrees, because China has met commercially acceptable principles, that China should accede to the GATT, then by definition this Congress must vote on whether to give China permanent MFN status. There will be a vote. And obviously, if the U.S. Senate believes that the terms under which China is admitted are not acceptable, I daresay that this body will not agree to permanently extend MFN to China. So we ought to have a vote. The Senator wants a vote. By definition, there will be a vote. But to have a second vote--and the second vote would be whether to admit--I say, would essentially be a referendum on China. It would not just be trade issues, it would be all the other issues, with all the other amendments that would come up, just as they did in the old MFN extension debate. Back then, after lots of gnashing of teeth and working ourselves through all this, what did the Congress do? The Congress agreed, the President agreed, that it made more sense to have unconditional extension of MFN rather than conditional. What the Senator from Arkansas is essentially saying is, he wants conditional, he wants to have a vote on accession. And I would guess he also would like to have an opportunity to offer amendments on the pending bill. If the Senator says no amendments on the pending bill, that is another matter. I would like to hear the Senator's views on that--whether the Senator wants a straight up-or-down vote only on whether China should be a member of the WTO, whether he would oppose all amendments, whether he believes, frankly, there should be no amendments or not. That would be an interesting question. Anyway, Mr. President, I made my main point, which is, let's have the vote, let's have the vote on MFN extension, not on the overall policy, because it has never happened before. In all the trade agreements that have been submitted to the WTO and in all the questions of accession to the WTO in the past--there have been 110 of them--never has a Congress voted, never. And there are reasons. There are executive agreements. If we were to vote on it, particularly in this body, as a nonparliamentary form of government, it would be filled up with all different types of issues which are virtually unrelated to trade--very important issues: Human rights, national security, missile proliferation, nuclear proliferation, labor laws, environmental laws, but not WTO accession. So I say, let's not vote for the Senator's amendment. Let's look at WTO when it comes up in the context of MFN. Then let's also work to engage China on all of the other issues on which we are dealing with China but on separate tracks, separate ways, because that is going to be a lot more effective. We should not link all this together. We should not link it together, but, rather, deal with these issues separately. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

Mr. BAUCUS. I am speaking against the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I was thinking of 10, 15 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the distinguished Senator from Alaska is saying he is going to move to table. I would like to speak on the amendment, but the Senator is moving to table as soon as the Senator is finished.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Roth, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and fellow Montanan, in introducing this important bill. Mr. President, I have agreed to join Chairman Roth in introducing this bill for one reason--I believe we must increase the level of personal savings in our country. Personal savings have been on a precipitous decline during the last 2 decades. Net personal savings have dropped from 9.3% of Gross Domestic Product in the 1970's to one-half of one percent in 1999. This is the lowest rate of personal savings since 1933. If we are to reverse this decline, and help Americans plan for their retirement years, we must create a culture of savings in our country. The Retirement Savings Opportunity Act is one piece of a much broader effort to reverse this trend. Another important part of this puzzle is represented by the package of regulatory reforms I have been working on with Senators Graham and Grassley, in a bill that will be introduced shortly. Yet another approach is represented by the President's proposal to create Universal Savings Accounts for all working Americans. I support the President's commitment to dedicate a portion of our projected budget surpluses to helping Americans save for their retirement, though I am modifying his proposal to take advantage of our existing pension system and enhance it. All of these proposals, when taken together in a comprehensive package, will help Americans of all income levels save for the future. My particular concern is in pension coverage for small businesses and their employees. Less than one in every five Americans working for small businesses have access to pension plans through their workplace. This represents 40 million working Americans who do not have pension coverage. And since virtually all of the net new jobs being created in this country are being created by small businesses, their retirement security must not be neglected. We simply must make it easier for small businesses to start pension plans, and to provide pension coverage to their employees. I am particularly pleased with the small business incentives included in the Retirement Savings Opportunity Act. This bill contains a tax credit to help defray the administrative costs small businesses incur when they start up new pension plans. It also includes an additional tax credit as an incentive for small business owners who contribute money on behalf of their employees into new plans. Finally, the bill includes a new, simplified defined benefit plan for small businesses. These are not by any means the only ways we can help small businesses provide pensions for their workers, but they are a good start down that road. The increased limits that are included in the bill will also help this process by making it easier for employers to save, thus making it more likely they will also provide benefits to their lower paid workers. I am very excited that we are finally engaging in a public policy debate about retirement security. Only by elevating this debate to the highest levels will we be able to make the changes necessary to truly make the American dream a reality for everyone. We must help Americans make their Golden Years truly golden, so they can look forward to a secure financial future. This bill, as part of a comprehensive solution that includes other proposals directed toward lower-income workers, will help make retirement security a reality for all Americans.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Grassley in introducing the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act of 1999. The American farm is the cornerstone of our rich cultural heritage. Yet farming remains one of the most perilous ways to make a living. A family farmer's income depends on good weather and strong international markets. When either of these two factors turn negative, farmers have few tools at their disposal to cushion the blow. Farm families are now suffering record low prices on grain and livestock in the most severe farming crisis since the 1980's. Who could have imagined back in 1996 when Congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act that wheat prices would drop from $4.50 a bushel to $2.81 a bushel by September 1998? As wheat and other agricultural commodity prices dipped to record lows, America's producers have been stranded without a safety net, causing a severe financial crisis. I sincerely hope that 1999 will be the ``Year of Recovery'' for our battered farm economy. I believe we can make this happen by focusing on three goals: We must pry open foreign markets to agricultural products. We must help agricultural producers at home. We must install a permanent safety net to help producers weather times of crisis. In two other bills I have introduced, I have proposed changes to the crop insurance program in order to help re-build this safety net for farmers. Today's introduction of the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act is another step in this re-building process. The FARRM Act is a pro- active measure that would give farmers a five-year window to manage their money. It allows them to put aside up to 20% of their annual income for up to 5 years in a tax-deferred FARRM account. They only pay taxes on the amount set-aside when it is withdrawn from the account. The FARRM bill allows the farmer to help himself. It allows farmers to manage their incomes, to smooth out the highs and lows of the commodity markets. It is not a new subsidy, nor is it a new government program. It is simply a new tool farmers can use to cope with an uncertain world. It provides American farmers with a fighting chance to survive the down times with an opportunity to enjoy their success during the good times. I believe the FARRM Act is an essential strand in the safety net we must weave to protect our nation's farm families. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Grassley in introducing the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act of 1999. The American farm is the cornerstone of our rich cultural heritage. Yet farming remains one of the most perilous ways to make a living. A family farmer's income depends on good weather and strong international markets. When either of these two factors turn negative, farmers have few tools at their disposal to cushion the blow. Farm families are now suffering record low prices on grain and livestock in the most severe farming crisis since the 1980's. Who could have imagined back in 1996 when Congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act that wheat prices would drop from $4.50 a bushel to $2.81 a bushel by September 1998? As wheat and other agricultural commodity prices dipped to record lows, America's producers have been stranded without a safety net, causing a severe financial crisis. I sincerely hope that 1999 will be the ``Year of Recovery'' for our battered farm economy. I believe we can make this happen by focusing on three goals: We must pry open foreign markets to agricultural products. We must help agricultural producers at home. We must install a permanent safety net to help producers weather times of crisis. In two other bills I have introduced, I have proposed changes to the crop insurance program in order to help re-build this safety net for farmers. Today's introduction of the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act is another step in this re-building process. The FARRM Act is a pro- active measure that would give farmers a five-year window to manage their money. It allows them to put aside up to 20% of their annual income for up to 5 years in a tax-deferred FARRM account. They only pay taxes on the amount set-aside when it is withdrawn from the account. The FARRM bill allows the farmer to help himself. It allows farmers to manage their incomes, to smooth out the highs and lows of the commodity markets. It is not a new subsidy, nor is it a new government program. It is simply a new tool farmers can use to cope with an uncertain world. It provides American farmers with a fighting chance to survive the down times with an opportunity to enjoy their success during the good times. I believe the FARRM Act is an essential strand in the safety net we must weave to protect our nation's farm families. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Roth, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and fellow Montanan, in introducing this important bill. Mr. President, I have agreed to join Chairman Roth in introducing this bill for one reason--I believe we must increase the level of personal savings in our country. Personal savings have been on a precipitous decline during the last 2 decades. Net personal savings have dropped from 9.3% of Gross Domestic Product in the 1970's to one-half of one percent in 1999. This is the lowest rate of personal savings since 1933. If we are to reverse this decline, and help Americans plan for their retirement years, we must create a culture of savings in our country. The Retirement Savings Opportunity Act is one piece of a much broader effort to reverse this trend. Another important part of this puzzle is represented by the package of regulatory reforms I have been working on with Senators Graham and Grassley, in a bill that will be introduced shortly. Yet another approach is represented by the President's proposal to create Universal Savings Accounts for all working Americans. I support the President's commitment to dedicate a portion of our projected budget surpluses to helping Americans save for their retirement, though I am modifying his proposal to take advantage of our existing pension system and enhance it. All of these proposals, when taken together in a comprehensive package, will help Americans of all income levels save for the future. My particular concern is in pension coverage for small businesses and their employees. Less than one in every five Americans working for small businesses have access to pension plans through their workplace. This represents 40 million working Americans who do not have pension coverage. And since virtually all of the net new jobs being created in this country are being created by small businesses, their retirement security must not be neglected. We simply must make it easier for small businesses to start pension plans, and to provide pension coverage to their employees. I am particularly pleased with the small business incentives included in the Retirement Savings Opportunity Act. This bill contains a tax credit to help defray the administrative costs small businesses incur when they start up new pension plans. It also includes an additional tax credit as an incentive for small business owners who contribute money on behalf of their employees into new plans. Finally, the bill includes a new, simplified defined benefit plan for small businesses. These are not by any means the only ways we can help small businesses provide pensions for their workers, but they are a good start down that road. The increased limits that are included in the bill will also help this process by making it easier for employers to save, thus making it more likely they will also provide benefits to their lower paid workers. I am very excited that we are finally engaging in a public policy debate about retirement security. Only by elevating this debate to the highest levels will we be able to make the changes necessary to truly make the American dream a reality for everyone. We must help Americans make their Golden Years truly golden, so they can look forward to a secure financial future. This bill, as part of a comprehensive solution that includes other proposals directed toward lower-income workers, will help make retirement security a reality for all Americans.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I rise to offer some thoughts on our relations with China, and in particular the prospects of China's WTO membership, as the visit of Premier Zhu Rongji to the United States next month approaches. context of relationship Let me begin, however, with some context. During this decade, the Senate and the country as a whole has had an intense debate on China policy. Participants in this debate have taken radically different views on the prospects of our relationship, and on the trade, security and human rights policies we should adopt in it. But virtually all participants have held one basic assumption: that is, that economic growth in China will inevitably continue at a very rapid rate for many years to come, and that consequently, China is a ``rising'' regional power which is likely to become a superpower economy and military power on a par with ourselves. For some time I have been skeptical of this assumption. In the past year, as the Asian financial crisis has affected China more and more deeply, another possibility has become quite clear: China's immediate future may be one of protracted economic difficulties and social instability rather than unbroken ascendance. Within the past year, China's growth appears to have dropped significantly. Foreign investment commitments have dropped. Signs of financial crisis have emerged in Guangdong Province. China's exports overall seem to have dropped due to the contraction of Asian economies. And unemployment in cities has risen sharply. This has coincided with growing strains in our relationship. A number of Chinese actions--notably arrests of a number of people associated with the Chinese Democracy Party, and a series of statements by Chinese officials about American research on theater missile defense--have raised a great deal of concern, and rightly so. These have been combined with inflammatory reports in the press on clandestine Chinese efforts to gain access to American military technology, including nuclear weapons design. u.s. response How do we respond? First of all, we should not simply set these issues aside and we should not be intimidated. In our bilateral relationship, I do not, for example, agreed with those who say that spying--especially in areas as sensitive as nuclear technology--is a natural and tolerable activity by foreign governments and that the only fitting response is better security in the U.S. Spying is intolerable and a breech of national security of this magnitude deserves the most serious attention and swiftest of action. And I do not agree with Chinese contentions that policies to defend American troops abroad, our treaty allies and our homeland from missile attack are destabilizing and provocative. And with respect to Taiwan, our goal must always be prevention of conflict in the Strait, and the more China threatens Taiwan with missiles, the more Taiwan will need to provide for security against missiles. Likewise, we should continue to develop our relationship with our Asian allies and the Pacific region generally. Special priorities this year should be ratification of the newly developed defense guidelines in our alliance with Japan; passage of the legislation allowing joint military exercises with the Philippine Senate; conclusion of the negotiations toward a commercial agreement and normal trade relations with Vietnam; and broader efforts toward economic recovery in Asia. At the same time, however, we should avoid seeing the present strains in relations with China as signs of inevitable confrontation. They likely reflect growing fears of domestic unrest and loss of confidence in China's future strength, rather than an arrogance born of security and success. And while we should be firm, we must also avoid being wilfully provocative or unwilling to seek out common interests. u.s. interests in wto accession That brings me to the largest single item of common interest on our agenda: China's potential accession to the WTO. Such an accession would have immense potential benefits for both America and China. From our perspective, it can create a more reciprocal trade relationship; promote the rule of law in China; and accelerate the long-term trend toward China's integration into the world economy and the Pacific region. This integration is, we should always remember, immensely important to our long-term security interests. To choose one example, twenty-five years ago China would likely have seen the Asian financial crisis as an opportunity to destabilize the governments of Southeast Asia, South Korea and perhaps even Japan. Today it sees the crisis as a threat to its own investment and export prospects and has thus contributed to IMF recovery packages and maintained currency stability. Thus China's policy has paralleled and complemented our own; and as a result, the Asian financial crisis remains an economic and humanitarian issue rather than a political and security crisis. From China's perspective, WTO entry has the long-term benefits of strengthening guarantees of Chinese access to foreign markets and promoting competition and reform in the domestic economy; and the short-term benefit of creating a new source of domestic and foreign investor confidence at a time of immense economic difficulty. commercially meaningful accession essential Neither of us, however, will win the full benefits of WTO accession unless the accession agreement is of commercially meaningful quality. Thus Congress should be vigilant about the details of such an agreement. Broadly speaking, this means: Significant tariff reductions and other measures to liberalize trade in goods; Market access for agriculture, including the elimination of phony health barriers of Pacific Northwest wheat, citrus, meats and other products. Liberalization of service sectors including distribution, telecommunications, finance, audiovisual and others; This requires a lot from China. It is not entirely clear that China will make a commercially meaningful offer to us. and if they do not, we should be willing to wait rather than push forward with this accession. accession must be judged on trade policy merits However, if they are ready to make such an offer, the United States should clearly be willing to say yes. That should include the permanent normal trade relations we offer virtually all WTO members. Congress would, of course, have to vote on permanent normal trade relations. Because Congress already holds all the cards with respect to the Normal Trade Relations vote, I am concerned about proposals to create a second vote, which would delay accession by requiring a prior vote on admission. This raises a number of troubling questions. First, I think we need to be prepared to move quickly if and when we get the desired commercially acceptable accession package--simply put, we must be prepared to strike when the iron is hot. Such an important step should not be hamstrung by requiring a separate vote by Congress. Second, the proposal raises constitutional and precedential questions. Congress has not voted on any of the previous 100 GATT and WTP accessions since 1948, since WTO accessions are executive agreements which generally require no U.S. concessions. But most important, a vote on WTO accession would more likely be a judgment on the immediate state of our overall relationship with China than on the trade policy details of the accession. China's accession to the WTO is about whether China is ready to trade openly and fairly with the United States. Whether China will accept rule of law and abide by that rule of law. In effect, we would likely hold a set of unilateral trade concessions by China to the United States hostage to every other concern we have about China--from human rights to security, environment, labor policies and much more. The likely result would be an immense loss to the United States. Therefore, I do not favor such a proposal and will oppose it on the floor. conclusion In conclusion, Mr. President, China policy must not be considered simply in isolation. Premier Zhu's visit offers us an immensely important opportunity, both to right the overall course of our relationship and to conclude the specific talks over WTO membership for China on the right, commercially meaningful basis. I welcome this and hope our colleagues will do the same. But this relationship is only one piece--important, but only one piece--in our broader relationship with the Pacific region and our Asian allies. If we are to develop these other relationships carefully; if we are firm with China when necessary but also willing to seek out areas of common interest; if we react to difficult periods with confidence in our own strength and commitment to our own interests, we can expect a very good future. I am fully confident that this is what we will do because we have some very important opportunities here to be sure to secure that relationship. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Crop Insurance Improvement Act of 1999. Senator Craig and I are introducing this bill today to provide a safety net to our agricultural producers and make rural America stronger than ever. I especially would like to thank Senator Craig's staff, Wayne Hammon, who has worked diligently with my staff in bringing together this bipartisan effort for agriculture. I also compliment my colleagues Senators Kerry and Roberts who have introduced crop insurance reform legislation, of which I am also a cosponsor, for setting the stage for a major overhaul of the crop insurance program. This bill, the Crop Insurance Improvement Act of 1999 is designed to compliment their efforts by extending the safety net to help those producers of speciality or alternative crops who find particular challenges in the present system. Now more than ever this crop insurance reform legislation is needed for my state's leading industry. Mr. President, agriculture is Montana's leading industry. More than 100,000 Montanans work in farm and ranch related jobs. That is nearly 20 percent of our state's total employment. In 1998, Montana agriculture generated $2.4 billion--65 percent of our state's total economy. In Montana, agriculture is not only an integral part of our economy, it's a way of life. And that way of life is in peril. In 1998, Montana producers were hit hard as our ag exports dropped by $570 million, and commodities such as wheat and beef plummeted to Depression-era prices. In response to this severe economic hit, we fought hard in the 105th Congress to install a safety net where the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill fell short. With help from the White House, we were able to get almost $8 billion in emergency assistance for our producers in Montana and across the country. We responded to the crisis but there's no assurance that we won't be faced with the same problems each year. This bill is aimed at getting Montana producers back on their feet. We do that by focusing on, and fighting for agriculture, together. I sincerely hope that 1999 will be the ``Year of Recovery.'' And I believe we can do this by maintaining focus on three goals: We must pry open foreign markets to Montana products. We must help agriculture producers at home. We must install a permanent safety net to help producers weather times of crisis. By aggressively pursuing these three goals, I am confident that we can help Montana agriculture not only recover, but be stronger than ever before. Today, however, I would like to focus on the goal of installing a safety net to help producers during times of crisis. Mr. President, no matter how well we are doing nationally and internationally, we must be prepared for hard times. In 1996, Congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act. Since then, wheat prices have fallen 55 percent. Who could have predicted that prices would plunge from $4.50 a bushel for wheat in 1996 to $2.91 a bushel by September 1998? This drop, triggered by a combination of natural disasters and oversupply in the marketplace, was impossible to predict. As wheat and other agricultural commodity prices dipped to record lows, America's producers were suddenly stranded without a safety net, causing a severe financial crisis. This made it clear to me that we need a contingency plan to help us when hard times come so that we can continue to grow when times are good. In February I hosted a crop insurance field hearing in Shelby, Montana. Ken Ackerman, Director of the Risk Management Agency traveled from Washington, D.C. to meet with Montana producers to hear first hand their concerns about crop insurance. At that hearing some of Montana's outstanding producers shared their stories, their frustrations and their ideas about reforming the system. I would like to thank Rick Sampsen, Bill Brewer, Verg Aageson, Brian Schweitzer, Nancy Peterson, Rollie Schlepp, Scott Kulbeck and Mary Schuler for taking the time to lend their voices to this important discussion. Their ideas are reflected in this legislation today which will: (1) Install a safety net; (2) Allow producers to buy a policy that covers their cost of production; (3) Shorten the Actual Production History requirement for rotated crops; and (4) Eliminate the Area Requirement for speciality crops reliant on the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). Simply put, Mr. President, the Crop Insurance Improvement Act of 1999 takes decisive action to help those producers who are presently in danger of losing their agricultural heritage. It provides them the flexibility to try new and alternative crops and gives them the freedom to farm, as originally intended, by allowing them the chance to build up a production history, cover their cost of production, and eventually purchase crop insurance coverage for their speciality crops. It gives producers a chance to do what they do best--farm. Mr. President, I urge all of all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and join Senators Craig and myself in getting rural America back on its feet.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Burns, to introduce the ``Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 1999.'' This bill, which is broadly supported, will ensure the Assiniboine and Sioux people of the Fort Peck Reservation, as well as the surrounding communities in my great state of Montana, something that each and everyone one of us in this body take for granted everyday--a safe and reliable water supply. This legislation authorizes a municipal, rural and industrial water system for the Fort Peck Reservation and the surrounding communities off the Reservation who compose the Dry Prairie Water Association. Using a small amount of water from the Missouri River, this project will benefit the entire region of Northeast Montana. This legislation has the support of the State of Montana, the residents of the Fort Peck Reservation, the Tribal Council of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, and all of the towns and communities surrounding the Reservation. I am proud to sponsor this legislation because it represents the coming together of people who have traditionally been divided on many issues. The need for water has surfaced a tremendous show of friendship and trust in Northeast Montana. This project has given the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes and the off-Reservation public common ground to work towards and provided the trust needed for rural communities to grow and prosper. The need for water exists not only for drinking, but also for agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes. Together, the people in this region are plagued with major drinking water problems. The Reservation and surrounding communities are clearly in desperate need of a safe and good source of drinking water. In one community, the sulfate levels in the water are four times the standard for safe drinking water. In four of the communities, iron levels are five times the standard. Sadly, some residents have been forced to abandon their homes and their farms because their only source of water has been polluted with brine from oil production. In all of the communities throughout the Reservation, groundwater exceeds the standards for total dissolved solids, iron, sulfates, and nitrates. In some instances, more lethal minerals such as selenium, manganese, and fluorine are found in high concentrations. In the area north of Culbertson, nitrate levels are too high to safely use ground water. Along the Eastern borders, from Froid to Plentywood, the high manganese, iron and total dissolved solids, make treating the water very expensive. In the Northeast, near Westby, there is oil field contamination from seismographing and salt water injection methods. In the middle of the service area, near Flaxville, nitrates and sulfates exceed safe drinking water standards also. Finally, in the west, in the St. Marie area, ground water is so hard and in such short supply that it is unusable. In addition, several local water systems have had occurrences of biological contamination. As a result of the poor water that exists here, the Indian Health Service has issued several public health alerts. In most communities in this region, residents are forced to buy bottled water at a cost of at least $75 a month. Those who cannot afford to buy bottled water--of whom there are many--must continue to use the existing water sources, at great risk to their health. Yet, despite the above mentioned health risks, an ideal source of safe water, the Missouri River, flows past these people every day. In addition to the need for safe drinking water, an adequate source of water is needed to preserve and protect agricultural operations. As you know Mr. President, Northeast Montana relies almost exclusively on agriculture to survive. The changing agricultural industry has brought high unemployment and low family income to this area. To compete in these challenging times, most agriculture producers in rural America are adding value to the products they grow. To add value however, you must have processing facilities that allow you to manufacture a high quality, finished product. The people of Northeast Montana do not have the quality of water needed to support industry of this kind. The region's ability to supply employment and compete in agriculture is destroyed without essential infrastructure. I have described a desperate and complex situation, Mr. President. The solution however, is simple. We need to provide a water system that will deliver a safe and good source of water to the residents of the Region. Fortunately, most of the work has been done. By working together on a local and state level, these groups have struck a deal that provides an adequate source of water for all who need it, for this generation of users and for future generations. By using a small amount of water from the Missouri River, combined with the structure this bill provides, residents of Northeast Montana will be able to enjoy the same, safe water supply that you and I do. I look forward to swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Vermont, for yielding time. Mr. President, I am very strongly in favor of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. That is very simply because if there is any investment that makes sense in this country, it is investing in education, pure and simple, full stop, end of subject. At all levels--whether it is Head Start, whether it is the early years zero to 3, whether it is after Head Start, whether it is kindergarten, whether it is elementary and secondary, whether it is college, whether it is postgraduate education, whether it is continuing education, whether it is technical skills development--education is the investment which is going to make the difference in our country and assure our future as Americans, the time we spend continuing to educate our people in a very thoughtful, constructive way. Of course, we do not want to just throw money at the problem but, rather, we want to invest wisely; and this legislation, S. 280, is very much, in my judgment, a step in that direction. Let me address Ed-Flex, that is, the basic underlying bill, and tell you why I am so proud to be a cosponsor of the bill and why I think it is important legislation. The name of the bill basically explains it--Ed-Flex. It is flexibility for educational programs, and particularly at home. It is very simple. The Federal Government, I believe, ought to trust parents, trust teachers, and trust local school boards. We should do everything in our power here in Washington to liberate our children from Federal Government rules that might make sense in Manhattan, NY, but perhaps do not make sense in Manhattan, MT. I was a little surprised at the previous speaker, my good friend from Georgia, saying an amendment on this bill is Washington wizard wonk stuff telling local governments what to do. That is just not true. This is Ed-Flex. It is giving more flexibility to local communities to decide more on their own what makes most sense. For example, let's talk a little bit about computers. Right now, for example, a well meaning but distant Federal bureaucracy does too often stand in the way of a school district. For example, let's talk about Federal funds allowed to a small Montana school, or even a large New York City school, to purchase computers for students with disabilities. We know those computers probably will not be used all day long, that is, computers, mandated by Washington, for students with disabilities. It obviously makes sense that these computers should be utilized to help other students when the disabled students do not need them. But there is a rule, a Washington rule, that prevents this from happening, preventing other students from using those computers. That is the point of this bill, more flexibility. Under Ed-Flex, the underlying bill, States can get a waiver to use these computers to educate our kids. In short, the bill makes eminent sense. It is the next logical step to help our kids be better educated. Let me address an amendment that has been under discussion, the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, an amendment to lower class size in our country. This is pretty basic stuff. There aren't many things we can do to help students more than lowering class size. I hear some Senators in the Chamber say the opposite; they at least are very strongly implying that lower class size does not help kids, does not help the quality of education. If we just think about it intuitively, Mr. President, that just doesn't make sense. But what is the evidence? One Senator recently mentioned Minnesota, a State that ranked third in recent national test scores but apparently, according to the Senator, has high average class sizes. I cannot speak about Minnesota, but I can speak about my State of Montana. Our teacher-to-student ratio is much lower than the national average, but we are very proud of the quality of education in our State. Montana's fourth graders and eighth graders placed among the top four States in three of the four categories, again, with class sizes that are lower than average. I can tell you from at least my experience years ago going to Montana schools that we had smaller classes, and it made a big difference. I have very vivid memories of very good teachers in classes that were not too large. I also want to relate an experience that is not directly relevant to this discussion, but I think it does have some bearing on the basic underlying point. Mr. President, like a good number of other Senators, I have what I call a ``workday.'' About 1 day a month I work at some different job. I might wait tables, work at a sawmill, work in a mine. I show up at 8 in the morning with my sack lunch and I am there to work. I am not there to watch, I am there to work. My good friend, Senator Graham from Florida, has been doing this for many, many years. Frankly, I got the idea from him about 6, 8, or 10 years ago. It is a great idea and it is one of the best parts about this job, frankly--to be able to do things like that. One day on my workday in Helena, MT, I was assigned to a health care center. In the morning I helped an Alzheimer's patient. This patient was obviously in great need of care and I learned a lot, I must say, about the problem of Alzheimer's disease--both for the person who has it and with respect to the care giver. But in the noon hour, for 2 hours the center assigned me to the Meals on Wheels Program. They gave me a little van loaded up with hot lunches and a list of names and told me which part of town to go to, to drive around and deliver these meals. This is the basic hot lunch program. About the second or third name on the list was a name that seemed familiar. It rang a bell; I wasn't sure what. It was Mrs. Foote. I asked myself: Why is that familiar, that name, Mrs. Foote? I didn't think a lot about it. I knocked on the door and the lady said come in. She opened up the door, and way back in this hot little kitchen, sitting at the kitchen table, was a lady. Then it dawned on me. I said, ``Mrs. Foote, by any chance did you ever teach kindergarten?'' She said, ``Why, yes, I did.'' I said, ``Did you teach kindergarten in the basement of the First Christian Church, at the corner of Power Street and Benton Street?'' ``Why, yes, I did.'' That was my kindergarten teacher, whom I had not seen since kindergarten. Why did I have such a strong memory of Mrs. Foote? One, I do vaguely recall, I must say we didn't have a large class. I must be honest and say I don't remember much about that. I do remember Mrs. Foote being a super teacher. She didn't remember me from Adam, as I must confess, but as I was talking to Mrs. Foote she then pulled out some newspaper articles about her. I then realized why in many respects Mrs. Foote meant so much to me. Mrs. Foote had a master's degree in art history, she had a master's degree in English literature, yet she was teaching kindergarten. She was one of these wonderful Americans who was sacrificing her time to be a teacher, a high-quality teacher, and also a teacher, as I recall, who did not have an awful lot of kids in her class. Not too long ago, in fact about a half-hour ago, I heard a Senator here on the floor saying, ``Gee, you give me a choice between a high- quality teacher and a large class size and I'll make the choice every time for the quality teacher.'' Obviously, that is a false choice. That is not what we are talking about here. We want high-quality teachers. But we also want small class sizes, because smaller classes--all things being equal--do help provide a better education. This amendment, the Murray-Kennedy amendment, is an additional sum of money for teachers. We in Montana will get about $4 to $5 million. In addition, the amendment has a 15-percent provision, which is that 15 percent of the funds can be used to train teachers. It gives that additional flexibility. I must say, this is a no-brainer, to me. I just don't know why school districts and teachers and parents would not like to have a little extra help, some extra help to hire a few more teachers, a little extra help to train a few more teachers. That is all this is. This is not rearranging the categories, the boxes. This is not taking money from one program to give to another. This is an add-on. This is additional. So I hope some of the viewers and listeners--who earlier heard other Senators speak--realize this is not Washington telling State and local district school boards what to do. Rather, it is saying: Here is some additional money for some teachers, for some training, because we want to help you. We want to form a partnership with you to make sure our kids get the best quality education they could possibly get. That is all it is. It is that simple. I strongly urge when we do vote on this tomorrow that the amendment pass. I know the bill is going to pass. It is a very important step we will be taking to help invest in our Nation's future. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 60, As Modified, To Amendment No. 31

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Post Office Community Partnership Act of 1999. There has been a great deal of debate lately on the importance of letting states and localities make their own decisions. Whether it is with highway funding, the the ``ed flex'' bill, or legislation to allow states more latitude in establishing rural hospitals, there is increasing sentiment that Washington really doesn't know better--states and localities should find solutions to the problems they know best. It is in the spirit of state and local control that I, along with Senator Jeffords, introduce legislation to give citizens a say in Postal Service decisions to open, close, relocate or consolidate post offices. Since its establishment over 200 years ago, with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General, the United States Postal Service has faithfully delivered the mail to generations of Americans. Across small town America, the post office is still the center of the community, the glue that holds towns like Livingston and Red Lodge, Montana together. Unfortunately, Americans all over have suffered as the Postal Service opens, closes, or moves post offices without considering the impact their decision will have on the community. Today, Senator Jeffords and I are introducing legislation to change that. With passage of the Post Office Community Partnership Act, downtown communities will have an increased say in their future. They will have input into Postal Service decisions that affect their communities, and they will be allowed the chance to offer alternatives to Postal Service changes. Under current law, communities have little say when the USPS decides to pull up stakes. Our bill would change that by allowing communities to work with the Postal Service in the decision-making process. With the exception of some minor changes, this is the same bill that we introduced last spring, the one that received 76 votes of support when it was attached to the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill. I was pleased when Senator Jeffords and I received such overwhelming support for our legislation in the 105th Congress. However, the amendment was stripped when the Senate and House reconciled their bills; I was very disappointed that the wishes of three in four senators were ignored in passing the final legislation through conference committee. That small communities across America are reeling from the effects of downtown post office closings is evidence enough that their voices need to be heard, and I am confident that this year we will pass this important bill. I believe that with mutual cooperation, the interests of communities and the Postal Service can be served. The nature--indeed the very name--of this legislation is participation. We will not give up the fight. For the sake of small communities everywhere, I will continue to do my utmost to see that their views are heard and accounted for. I am confident that with this bill's passage our communities and this important American institution may begin a new era of cooperation for the good of all involved. And we can put the community back in the Postal Service. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join Senator Jeffords and me in passing this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Post Office Community Partnership Act of 1999. There has been a great deal of debate lately on the importance of letting states and localities make their own decisions. Whether it is with highway funding, the the ``ed flex'' bill, or legislation to allow states more latitude in establishing rural hospitals, there is increasing sentiment that Washington really doesn't know better--states and localities should find solutions to the problems they know best. It is in the spirit of state and local control that I, along with Senator Jeffords, introduce legislation to give citizens a say in Postal Service decisions to open, close, relocate or consolidate post offices. Since its establishment over 200 years ago, with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General, the United States Postal Service has faithfully delivered the mail to generations of Americans. Across small town America, the post office is still the center of the community, the glue that holds towns like Livingston and Red Lodge, Montana together. Unfortunately, Americans all over have suffered as the Postal Service opens, closes, or moves post offices without considering the impact their decision will have on the community. Today, Senator Jeffords and I are introducing legislation to change that. With passage of the Post Office Community Partnership Act, downtown communities will have an increased say in their future. They will have input into Postal Service decisions that affect their communities, and they will be allowed the chance to offer alternatives to Postal Service changes. Under current law, communities have little say when the USPS decides to pull up stakes. Our bill would change that by allowing communities to work with the Postal Service in the decision-making process. With the exception of some minor changes, this is the same bill that we introduced last spring, the one that received 76 votes of support when it was attached to the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill. I was pleased when Senator Jeffords and I received such overwhelming support for our legislation in the 105th Congress. However, the amendment was stripped when the Senate and House reconciled their bills; I was very disappointed that the wishes of three in four senators were ignored in passing the final legislation through conference committee. That small communities across America are reeling from the effects of downtown post office closings is evidence enough that their voices need to be heard, and I am confident that this year we will pass this important bill. I believe that with mutual cooperation, the interests of communities and the Postal Service can be served. The nature--indeed the very name--of this legislation is participation. We will not give up the fight. For the sake of small communities everywhere, I will continue to do my utmost to see that their views are heard and accounted for. I am confident that with this bill's passage our communities and this important American institution may begin a new era of cooperation for the good of all involved. And we can put the community back in the Postal Service. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join Senator Jeffords and me in passing this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to state very simply but strongly and unequivocally that I support S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, and I support it very strongly. There is a very simple truth. That is, we need to trust our parents, trust our teachers, trust our local school boards. We should do everything in our power to unshackle our children from binding Federal Government-mandated rules that might make sense in Manhattan, NY, but not in Manhattan, MT. Two weeks ago I had the honor of addressing the Montana State legislature, and when I spoke I told them that the time has come to bring the promise of world-class education to every Montanan. I daresay that virtually everyone in this body has made the same statement, because he or she believes it very deeply, when speaking to his or her own legislatures back in their own States or to any group whatsoever that is interested in education. I believe very deeply we must do that. I also believe we need to ingrain that ethic into the hearts and minds of those who care about education all across our country. Indeed, it is similar to the environment. We are the stewards of our children's learning, and our future as a nation very deeply depends on our willingness to invest in them and our teachers and our schools all across our country. We have a moral responsibility to leave this Nation's children prepared to meet the challenges ahead. That challenge takes a unique form when we talk about meeting the standards of rural States. Nearly 40 percent of the children who go to school in America every day go to a rural school in a small town, yet somehow we as a nation invest only 22 percent of our total education funding in these students. Rural students are being shortchanged by a ratio of 2 to 1. I will work hard this year to see that every student in America, whether in urban America or in rural America, is provided for fairly and equally. But money alone is not enough. The Federal Government must be a partner in education with parents, teachers, and local schools, not an obstacle. Ed-Flex is the right step to take for our children. All Ed- Flex does is say to States, if you come up with a better way to do your job, we will get out of your way and let you do it. Right now, a well- meaning but confusing and distant Federal bureaucracy too often stands in their way. Let me give some examples. Say Federal funds allowed a small Montana school, or even a large New York City school, to purchase computers for students with disabilities. Those computers probably will not get used all day long, and it makes sense that these computers be utilized to help other students when disabled students do not need them. But Federal rules prevent other students from using those computers. Does that make sense? No. So, under Ed-Flex, States can get a waiver and use these computers to educate all our children. Another example: If a school has over 50 percent of its students who are under the poverty line, they can mix all of their Federal funds together, pool them with State funds, and create programs that help every student in that school. But what about schools in the next bracket, with between one-third and one-half of their students under the poverty line? In those schools, money for disadvantaged children must be spent directly on those children, even if that same money can be used in ways that will better educate the disadvantaged children and every other student in that school. The other day I talked to my very good friend, Nancy Keenan. Who is Nancy Keenan? She is the superintendent of public instruction for my State. There is no better friend to Montana schoolchildren than Nancy Keenan. She tells me that right now these schools beat their heads up against Federal rules, trying to untangle the redtape and convince folks over 2,000 miles away, back in Washington, DC, that their local plans make sense. It is very, very depressing. If this bill passes, Montana--all States--could get waivers so the schools could deal directly with the Nancys of the country, and their parents and teachers, to find a solution that works better for every child. It is time to restore trust back to the people. Right now, 12 States have been granted the right by Congress to experiment with education flexibility. You will not hear one Senator from those States stand up with even one instance where education flexibility has not worked. In fact, every State agrees that it allowed local folks to form partnerships, to create plans that work to better educate their children. That is all we want. We want our parents, our teachers, and local school boards, all working together, to give our children the very best. The Federal Government must be a better partner. We ought to do everything in our power to help our children. It is that simple. I believe the bill before us, Ed-Flex, is the right way to take care of it and I applaud Senators Wyden and Frist for their efforts. I very much hope this passes quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. This bill is a good beginning for a discussion in the Senate on how we can begin to develop constructive solutions to the problem of global climate change. Climate change is real. Over the last 130 years, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, global average surface temperatures have increased by one degree. Scientists project that this trend will continue and most of them believe the trend is due to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. The temperature increase may not sound like much, but the consequences of even such a small global change could be enormous. This warming trend could have many effects, including even more unpredictable weather patterns, and major shifts in agricultural soils and productivity and wildlife habitat. To me, that drives home the need to deal with the problem. As I have mentioned to some of my colleagues, there is a vivid example of the warming in my home state of Montana. The Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park has retreated over 3,100 feet over the past century. If this continues, Park Service scientists predict this 10,000 year old glacier will be entirely gone within 30 years. This glacier is a symbol and treasure to Montanans and its disappearance would be a hard thing to explain to our children and their children. This and other potential consequences of climate change are serious enough to warrant some action to reduce the threat it poses. The bill we are introducing today will hopefully be an incentive for people to take steps toward reducing the threat. This bill, the Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act, would allow those who voluntarily choose to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or to ``sequester'' them (meaning to keep them out of the atmosphere and in the soil or locked up in trees or plants) to get credit for those efforts. At some point in the near future, these credits are expected to have monetary value and could be sold in a domestic or global trading system. As my cosponsors acknowledge, this is not a perfect bill, but a complicated work in progress. As the Senate considers this matter, I am particularly interested in seeing how agriculture and forestry might benefit by participating in a credit system. These credits could be a financial reward for the good stewardship already taking place on America's farmland. Agriculture needs every opportunity to pursue markets, even if we're talking about unconventional products like carbon credits, to help with the bottom line. We already know that crop residue management and conservation tillage vastly improve carbon storage in soils and have side benefits, such as reducing erosion. Soils have an immense potential for locking up carbon so that it enters the atmosphere more gradually. Returning highly erodible cropland to perennial grasses could prove to be similarly effective. Many of these practices are already an important part of precision agriculture, so would be obvious low-cost ways for farmers and ranchers to earn credits. It is important that the rules of any trading system be written right, so they can work for agriculture. We can't let our international competitors, like Canada or Australia, be the only ones writing the rules in this developing market. Besides rewarding those who are willing to take early actions and move beyond normal business practices to address climate change, let's start to think outside the box about what else we can do. The U.S. has the most advanced environmental technology sector in the world. From new uses for agricultural waste and products to state-of-the-art pollution controls, we are leaders in improving efficiency and reducing waste. We need to jump start our public and private research and development structure so that it really focuses on new cost-effective products and systems that produce less greenhouse gas to meet a global demand. The Administration's Climate Change Technology Initiative is a reasonable first step. But, so far, Congress has approached this issue with a business as usual attitude. It's time to get serious and creative about developing more advanced technologies. We should be reviewing all the tools at our disposal, from research and development programs to taxes. We need to make this investment in our environmental future for the same reasons that we make investments in our economic future. People prepare for retirement because they want to reduce risks and reduce the cost of responding to future problems. For similar reasons, we need to make prudent investments like providing credit for early action, to reduce risks and reduce the cost of responding to future climate change problems. The more time we let go by, and the longer we let greenhouse gas concentrations rise unchecked, the more expensive the future's repair bills could be. There is still a long way to go with any climate change treaty. There must be real participation by the developing countries, like China, India, Brazil, etc. Carbon trading rules and the role of agriculture in sequestering carbon must be more clearly defined. In the meantime, however, the bill we're introducing will allow us to see what works and to get a leg up on the rest of the world. Mr. President, this bill starts an important dialogue about our country's contribution to world greenhouse gas concentrations. Make no mistake, there is still a lot of work ahead for all of us to make this bill a reality. But this country cannot afford to play the part of the ostrich with its head in the sand. We must seriously engage this matter. We owe it to our children.

Mr. BAUCUS

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