Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you Senator Bumpers, and thanks to the Chairman, as well for his assistance.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, number 3150. This amendment would provide increased funding for research activities to improve counter- narcotic efforts. I realize that the Subcommittee faced a very difficult challenge with the level of the funding allocation this year. While I am disappointed that it has been impossible to fund this project at this time, I wish to call the attention of the members of the Subcommittee to this important proposal. I believe it makes sense for the future of the agriculture industry. This project would increase efforts to use biotechnology in the control of narcotic plants. This research would also enhance traditional agriculture production practices, supplying an important tool in weed control. Biotechnology research promises an economical solution to the spread of noxious weeds and other pests that threaten both public and private land across the nation. I believe this type of research holds great potential for success in the war on drugs. Related efforts are underway in private industry, but there is great need to increase our efforts. This project would be an important step in that direction. Finally, I would like to thank the Subcommittee Leadership, Senator Bumpers and Chairman Cochran for their efforts to find funding for this program. And I hope it will be possible for the Subcommittee to give this project strong consideration in the future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Breaux, the Home Health Access Preservation Act of 1998. Essentially, our legislation is geared at reforming the home health interim payment system. Several years ago, because home health care costs were rising at such a rapid, alarming rate, Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, decided to do something about it. What did we do? We passed a provision called the interim payment system as a transition interim system for home health care agencies to live under until we move to a prospective payment system. What does all that mean? It is this: In the first 15 years of Medicare, home health care constituted about 2 percent of the total Medicare budget. Medicare, as we know, is the program that is financed almost entirely out of payroll taxes. Those dollars go to Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam then pays hospitals and doctors for health care for senior citizens. Part A is hospital care; Part B is doctor's care for senior citizens. Again, only 2 percent of Part A of Medicare--that is the hospital part--was for home health care. In 1997, however, the total amount of Medicare Part A dollars--that is, the hospital dollars that go out to senior citizens--was about 15 percent. That is a rise from 2 percent up to 15 percent, a staggering increase in home health care. Why did that happen? Basically, because hospitals were moving patients out of hospitals. They were moving some of the patients into home health care settings. In addition to that, it was a lot cheaper to provide some services out of the hospitals. And, on top of that, seniors prefer to have care at home rather than sometimes in the hospital or perhaps in a nursing home. Home health care has risen dramatically. Well, as a consequence, there has been extra pressure on the Medicare trust fund. And that is why Congress, in 1997, decided to pass this provision, changing the way we reimburse home health care and moving to a system to try to get a handle on all this rising cost. The old way that Medicare paid home health care was called cost-based reimbursement. Essentially, a home health care agency would get reimbursed, get paid, for the costs that that home health care agency incurred in treating patients--basically cost-plus; that is, the agency would get whatever it cost and was able to add on just a little bit to stay in business. As a consequence, several phenomena developed. In some States, there was a proliferation of home health care agencies. They just sprung up all over because they are cost based. In addition to getting more patients to get reimbursed more, they provide more services to the public. In some other States, home health care agencies were very efficient; that is, they did their work, and they did not try to provide extra services, nor did they get extra reimbursement. We are in a position now where the interim system that Congress passed in 1997 is causing problems, and significant problems, for all home health care agencies, in particularly those rural areas. Why is that? It is because the provision we passed, the interim payment system, provided that home health care agencies would be paid on whatever their costs were in 1994. Well, that means that those home health care agencies that were very efficient in 1994, compared with those who were very inefficient in 1994, are adversely affected. Why is that? That is because, if the payment is based upon 1994 levels, and it is locked in at 1994 levels, and you are a very efficient home health care agency--you are cutting costs--then you are paid less. On the other hand, if you were a very inefficient home health care agency in 1994, and you are locked into whatever Uncle Sam was paying you in 1994, you can continue to be inefficient. Well, that is obviously not fair. It is not fair to those home health care agencies who were doing a pretty good job. In addition, there is another problem. The movement from cost-based reimbursement over to what is called a prospective payment reimbursement--that is, paying home health care agencies a certain payment for a given procedure regardless of what else is going on with the agency--is based on the assumption that the efficient home health care agencies, the efficient providers--hospitals are also paid on a prospective payment system--that is, the efficient ones will survive, they will do well; the inefficient, those that are getting the same dollars but are inefficiently run, poorly run, will fail, they will not be able to make it. That is good--the theory is--because the efficient survive and the inefficient don't. The theory goes on to hold that, well, that is OK for patients, for people, because when the inefficient fails, there is a nearby efficient hospital, or nearby efficient home health care agency in this case. So patients are still well served. They just go to the other, nearby, efficient home health care agency. That is a false assumption, Mr. President, for rural areas, because in rural areas of America, when an inefficient fails--or for some other reason that home health care agency cannot make ends meet--when it fails, there is no other nearby home health care agency, there is no nearby alternative provider because they are just too many miles apart. We, Mr. President, are introducing legislation designed to fix this problem until we finally move to a more permanent compensation system for rural health care agencies. Essentially, what it does is, we say to a State, we are going to have a single rate per State, not differential among States, but per State. We also get rid of the cap on agency- specific costs, because we move to a 50-50 blend of regional as well as national averages. That is, I think, a fair compromise between those who want fixed costs based on a national rate and those who want the rate to be based upon the particular characteristics of the region. I think this helps. I think it goes a long way to solving the problem that many home health care agencies have. This, by the way, is in addition to the surety bond problem facing home health care agencies, another matter which we are addressing separately. But I hope this interim measure that we are now reforming will be reformed along the way to provide for, in the bill, making sure that a lot of people get health care who otherwise would not have it available.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Breaux, the Home Health Access Preservation Act of 1998. Essentially, our legislation is geared at reforming the home health interim payment system. Several years ago, because home health care costs were rising at such a rapid, alarming rate, Congress, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, decided to do something about it. What did we do? We passed a provision called the interim payment system as a transition interim system for home health care agencies to live under until we move to a prospective payment system. What does all that mean? It is this: In the first 15 years of Medicare, home health care constituted about 2 percent of the total Medicare budget. Medicare, as we know, is the program that is financed almost entirely out of payroll taxes. Those dollars go to Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam then pays hospitals and doctors for health care for senior citizens. Part A is hospital care; Part B is doctor's care for senior citizens. Again, only 2 percent of Part A of Medicare--that is the hospital part--was for home health care. In 1997, however, the total amount of Medicare Part A dollars--that is, the hospital dollars that go out to senior citizens--was about 15 percent. That is a rise from 2 percent up to 15 percent, a staggering increase in home health care. Why did that happen? Basically, because hospitals were moving patients out of hospitals. They were moving some of the patients into home health care settings. In addition to that, it was a lot cheaper to provide some services out of the hospitals. And, on top of that, seniors prefer to have care at home rather than sometimes in the hospital or perhaps in a nursing home. Home health care has risen dramatically. Well, as a consequence, there has been extra pressure on the Medicare trust fund. And that is why Congress, in 1997, decided to pass this provision, changing the way we reimburse home health care and moving to a system to try to get a handle on all this rising cost. The old way that Medicare paid home health care was called cost-based reimbursement. Essentially, a home health care agency would get reimbursed, get paid, for the costs that that home health care agency incurred in treating patients--basically cost-plus; that is, the agency would get whatever it cost and was able to add on just a little bit to stay in business. As a consequence, several phenomena developed. In some States, there was a proliferation of home health care agencies. They just sprung up all over because they are cost based. In addition to getting more patients to get reimbursed more, they provide more services to the public. In some other States, home health care agencies were very efficient; that is, they did their work, and they did not try to provide extra services, nor did they get extra reimbursement. We are in a position now where the interim system that Congress passed in 1997 is causing problems, and significant problems, for all home health care agencies, in particularly those rural areas. Why is that? It is because the provision we passed, the interim payment system, provided that home health care agencies would be paid on whatever their costs were in 1994. Well, that means that those home health care agencies that were very efficient in 1994, compared with those who were very inefficient in 1994, are adversely affected. Why is that? That is because, if the payment is based upon 1994 levels, and it is locked in at 1994 levels, and you are a very efficient home health care agency--you are cutting costs--then you are paid less. On the other hand, if you were a very inefficient home health care agency in 1994, and you are locked into whatever Uncle Sam was paying you in 1994, you can continue to be inefficient. Well, that is obviously not fair. It is not fair to those home health care agencies who were doing a pretty good job. In addition, there is another problem. The movement from cost-based reimbursement over to what is called a prospective payment reimbursement--that is, paying home health care agencies a certain payment for a given procedure regardless of what else is going on with the agency--is based on the assumption that the efficient home health care agencies, the efficient providers--hospitals are also paid on a prospective payment system--that is, the efficient ones will survive, they will do well; the inefficient, those that are getting the same dollars but are inefficiently run, poorly run, will fail, they will not be able to make it. That is good--the theory is--because the efficient survive and the inefficient don't. The theory goes on to hold that, well, that is OK for patients, for people, because when the inefficient fails, there is a nearby efficient hospital, or nearby efficient home health care agency in this case. So patients are still well served. They just go to the other, nearby, efficient home health care agency. That is a false assumption, Mr. President, for rural areas, because in rural areas of America, when an inefficient fails--or for some other reason that home health care agency cannot make ends meet--when it fails, there is no other nearby home health care agency, there is no nearby alternative provider because they are just too many miles apart. We, Mr. President, are introducing legislation designed to fix this problem until we finally move to a more permanent compensation system for rural health care agencies. Essentially, what it does is, we say to a State, we are going to have a single rate per State, not differential among States, but per State. We also get rid of the cap on agency- specific costs, because we move to a 50-50 blend of regional as well as national averages. That is, I think, a fair compromise between those who want fixed costs based on a national rate and those who want the rate to be based upon the particular characteristics of the region. I think this helps. I think it goes a long way to solving the problem that many home health care agencies have. This, by the way, is in addition to the surety bond problem facing home health care agencies, another matter which we are addressing separately. But I hope this interim measure that we are now reforming will be reformed along the way to provide for, in the bill, making sure that a lot of people get health care who otherwise would not have it available.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of the bill are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the American farmer. Mr. President, Montana's farmers and ranchers have suffered from an extraordinary turn of events that is driving people off the family farm. Low prices, shrinking Asian markets, drought and the adjustments to a new farm bill have left our producers with an inadequate safety net. For many, this is disaster. First, we have to deal with price. And we have to deal with price today. Our producers can't survive another setback. Montana farmers have already planted the smallest spring wheat crop since 1991--down 17 precent over last year and down 8 percent from what they intended to plant March 1. As I recall, we were talking about low prices as far back as December, And now, in mid-July we are talking about the same issues. We are simply farther down the rocky road. It's high time to act. I am sure many of you will recall last spring--nearly 6 months ago-- when our producers were desperately reaching out for help. So, we brought an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would extend marketing assistance loans. Unfortunately, we faced a brigade of opponents who wanted to push an aggressive trade agenda instead of an emergency price fix. Now I find it ironic, that despite all of our best efforts, the many hearings held about the ``Crisis in Agriculture,'' and the promotion of the sanctions package as the cure-all for our price dilemma--that we are exactly where we started--at ground zero. We've seen no improvement on price. In fact, we've lost ground: Montana's winter wheat average price decreased 22 cents from April 1998 to now, dropping to $3.06 per bushel. Beef prices also are lower--down $3.10/cwt. And sheep have dropped by $8.40. And still, we want our producers to believe that we should look for brighter days in the international market--without congressional intervention. Some would argue that this situation can be blamed on over- production, alone. I wholeheartedly disagree. While it is true that wheat stocks in Montana on June 1 totaled nearly 60 million bushels, up 80 percent from the same quarter last year, but our exports are down considerably. I think we can also make the argument that extending the market loans an additional six months is but a step in resolving the problem. It is true that we must move our wheat, our beef, and all other ``crisis commodities''--and now. We can't view this measure of extending loans and lifting the loan cap to become a last ditch-policy. But as an emergency matter, I would call on my colleagues to consider the ramifications of letting this disaster go another day. And encourage them to lend their support. That will solve the short-term issue of price. Then, we must address the long term. We did just that by stepping up our efforts on the trade front by passing a bill last week removing GSM ag credits from our sanctions package on India and Pakistan. Next we need to review those sanctions still pending on nearly 9 percent of the world and re-evaluate whether they are current, necessary and proper. If not, let's remove the sanctions and move our wheat into these markets and help our producers. Food should not be used as a weapon. And our policies should not hurt our hard-working producers. We should also support the country of origin labeling amendment for our livestock producers. Consumers in America can examine the label on any given product to make an informed shopping decision. But that is not the case with our imported meat. I am a cosponsor of Senator Johnson's efforts to require meat labeling. It makes sense. It costs little. And the benefit extends, not only to producers, but also consumers. And finally, we cannot ignore the force of Mother Nature. No one can argue that our farmers have been subject to an adverse and often hostile market. But this year marks a series of natural disasters that are beyond our control. Drought still plagues many counties in Montana. In fact, twenty-two percent of our crops are in poor condition because of lack of moisture. That is bad news for our livestock industry, as well. Fifty-nine percent of our pasture--used for forage--is in less than good condition. Clearly, efforts targeted at replenishing the disaster reserve would be hailed as relief for those victims of annual disaster. And finally, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support these measures--not on a partisan basis--but because it is the right thing to do for our producers back home. Our feet--and those of our producers-- are being held to the fire. Will we take action--or spout rhetoric? Will we show our constituency that we are here in Washington fighting for them--not amongst ourselves? I would hope we can take the higher ground and send a message to America--we need and support our farmers and ranchers--by lending our support. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The effective date provision creates no such inference.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first thank my good friend, the Senator from Delaware. Mr. President, we are now embarked on a very significant policy change with respect to sanctions. Over the past several years, it was simple for the U.S. Congress to slap sanctions on an offensive country. We could also give the President the authority to grant sanctions. We could do this because we believed this power was free. That is to say, we in Congress freely used sanctions to express our sentiments about issues of particular concern, and we passed several pieces of legislation giving the President sanctions authority because it didn't cost anything. And we made our statements loud and clear by doing so. Good statements, for example, that tried to curb proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And at that time, these efforts were necessary in steering certain countries away from a course contrary to world public policy. Unfortunately, despite our best intentions, most of these sanctions bills have been ineffective. Many have not accomplished the purpose for which they were intended. We may ask ourselves why? I believe one important reason is the fact that the world has become so global. In addition, this global marketplace is not conducive to the imposition of unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States. Quite simply, the sanctioned country can very easily avoid the purpose and penalty of our sanctions by going to other countries to get the products that they would otherwise obtain from the United States. So, by and large, unilateral sanctions have not worked very well. On the other hand, multilateral sanctions tend to work when a majority of countries in the world join together with the same purpose and to help accomplish the same objective. The legislation that we are considering today, and will pass today, recognizes that phenomenon. That being said, I believe that there is definitely a role for sanctions--unilateral and multilateral. We just have to work together to determine when and where each sanction is most appropriate and effective. Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen a demonstrated interest in reforming our sanction's policy. We realize today that it probably makes more sense to pass something narrowly crafted than to use a blanket action to achieve a specific goal. Take for example, the fact that we are considering a waiver with respect to GSM agricultural credits for food shipments to Pakistan. We now believe--and I think I am speaking for almost all Members of Congress--that food shipments should never be used as a foreign policy weapon. Barring a country from a necessary food source is wrong. It is anti-humanitarian. More often it hurts the very people who need it the most. It also tends to inadvertently penalize our producers here in America. Food as a weapon simply does not work, and the legislation before us today essentially provides a release valve with respect to food shipments and agriculture products. Today we are talking about Pakistan, but we should also rethink our policy toward India and the rest of the sanctioned countries after this particular vote. We must also devise a way to give the President a little more flexibility when targeting a specific result. These results include the reduction of nuclear tests and weapons of mass destruction in Asia. I believe that it is also important to point out that our agricultural producers are currently blocked out of 10 percent of the global market due to sanctions. This lack of market access obviously hurts our producers. It is almost ironic that in many cases we hurt ourselves far more than we hurt or influence an errant country. This is most often the result when we employ the use of unilateral sanctions. Our producers simply cannot afford to bear the brunt of our failed foreign policy endeavors. We simply must oppose and remove trade sanctions that unfairly inhibit market opportunities for our ag producers. I might also add that I recently accompanied President Clinton on his trip to China. During this trip, I talked to several Chinese officials and tried to encourage them to open up their markets to American products like Pacific Northwest wheat. Unfortunately, the response I received was to the effect that China would be willing to buy if America was a reliable supplier. Their spin on trade was justified by claiming we in America sanction our food exports too often. Why, then should they depend on us to provide a reliable source of wheat, or beef or any other commodity subject to sanctions? Now I'm not saying the sole reason China does not take wheat, particularly Pacific Northwest wheat, is due to sanctions. But I do believe our random sanctions policy is a contributing factor. Again it was obvious that if we stop using food as a tool of foreign policy, we will have an easier time in encouraging market access. Mr. President. It took awhile but sanctions reform is now moving quickly. Many Senators should be recognized for their efforts in bringing the forefront--Senators McConnell, Lugar, Dodd, Biden, Glenn, Murray, Feinstein and Roberts. There are many more and I would like to compliment them for their efforts. I only suggest that, as we work together on a solution, we be a little more thoughtful than we were this morning in rushing to push legislation throughout without thoughtful consideration and foresight. Discretion is the better part of valor. For that reason, I am pleased that we in the Senate decided to focus on a narrow sanctions reform provision that would pass on its merits in the immediate future. This is much more reasonable that trying to enact broader sanctions reform which we should do, but at a later date in the fall after we have a sufficient amount of time to work together to produce a truly dynamic sanctions package. In the interim, I urge us to think carefully, think thoughtfully. Find a proper role for sanctions and offer a nonpartisan solution. We need to work together as a team. We have to, in fact, as the world becomes more complex with regard to foreign policy and trade policy build a strong coalition. As a team of Americans representing the Democrats, Republicans and Administration we will be able to set forth a policy enabling Americans to be respected as we would like to be. With that, Mr. President, I compliment those who are involved in this legislation. It is a good first step. Let us continue down this path.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak a little bit about the conference report that is before us, the IRS restructuring bill. Today, the Senate reaches the end of a journey that has been 2 long years in the making. It is actually a journey that began a couple years ago when the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS was charged with investigating the IRS' repeated failure to modernize its computer systems. There are many stories of the IRS computer systems falling down, crashing, systems not meshing; and essentially the commission felt that it was their charge to try to find the answer to all these problems. It became very clear, Mr. President, as the commission began trying to find a solution to the computer problems, that it was just touching the tip of the iceberg, that there are a lot more problems in the IRS that had to be addressed; namely, the abuse of too many agents, too many rogue agents, the insensitivity, too often, of its IRS employees toward taxpayers. Frankly, it led the commission to dig much more deeply into problems facing the IRS. Accordingly, the commission proceeded to look at other areas in addition to computers. The commission probed various problems that the taxpayers face in our country. Under the leadership of Senators Kerrey and Grassley and Representatives Portman and Coyne of the House, the commission, I think, produced a series of very good recommendations that have become the foundation of the bill before us. Again, it was a restructuring commission. They spent a lot of time looking at the problems of the IRS. They presented their recommendations to the Congress, and essentially, the bill before the Congress today is the manifestation, the outgrowth of those recommendations by the commission. In addition, Mr. President, under the leadership of our chairman of the Finance Committee, Bill Roth, with his very extensive hearings, we were able to draw out many more abuses, many more problems that our American people were facing with the IRS. As a consequence, I think we have a better bill. We were able to fine-tune some of those Restructuring Commission recommendations. In fact, we were able to add a few more. So altogether, I do think it is a combination of very good effort on the part of both the commission and the conference. And I think, Mr. President, that the result is going to turn out to be quite good for the American people--not perfect, but certainly an improvement. Justice John Marshall once said, ``The power to tax involves the power to destroy.'' We all know that the corollary to that is that the power of the tax collector must be very carefully balanced, because the tax collector, him or herself, has inordinate power when he or she tries to collect taxes. Any tax collection agency must be strong enough to make sure that everyone is paying his or her fair share of taxes, but not so powerful as to trample on the rights of ordinary citizens. It is quite clear, through the testimony of our witnesses before our committee and comments from our constituents at home, that the IRS has lost that balance over the years. Let me give you one example. This is a plea for help from a constituent of mine in Montana. ``The problem with the IRS started in 1997. John''--that is not this person's real name--``and I''--in this case it is John's wife--``had just bought a house. I was a semester away from graduating from college, and we thought the [failed] business [that we had] was behind us. The last week in July 1997, I returned home after a day of working at my part- time job to find a nasty note on my front door from [an agent] stating that he had `tracked' us down and expected a phone call or [else] action would be taken. I promptly called him to find out [what was going on]. He was very rude and reluctant to give me any information, [saying he could not talk to me, did not want to talk to me because he was not talking to my husband].'' The long and the short of it is--and I am paraphrasing the letter here--``. . . he began talking to me in a [very] degrading manner. He said, `. . . I expect to [get taxes] in full,' [and said it in a very rude way]. When I asked him to explain, he . . . [treated me like] a criminal who was running [away] from the IRS.'' Continuing further, Mr. President, basically, the agent in this case put a lien on everything this person owned, also made many personal comments. He obviously investigated the personal lives of these taxpayers and basically was so rude and so arrogant as to performing almost Gestapo tactics against my constituents. My constituent ends up, Mr. President, in her letter by saying that very clearly the Government was not working for the people, but rather was working against the people. I think this letter sums up the issue in a nutshell; that is, to make the Government work much more for people, not against them, that is, put service back into the Internal Revenue Service instead of being arrogant and degrading people as much as the Service has in the past. Now, we certainly do not want to tie the IRS' hands so much that tax cheats are encouraged. The rest of us, as we all know, end up picking up the tab when someone else cheats. At the same time, we also can't have the IRS harassing innocent citizens and assuming everyone is guilty the minute they walk into the door. We have to find that balance. It is not an easy matter. I believe this legislation will help the IRS find its way back to that balance. What does it do? It creates a board made up chiefly of private citizens, subject to the confirmation powers of the Senate, giving the Senate an opportunity to ask lots of questions of these new board members to see whether or not they fill the bill. The board will also keep an eye on the IRS budget, report independently to the Congress its recommendations on IRS budget matters, and not have to go through the regular Government channels. The board will focus on long-term goals. It will also make sure the Service stays on track to meet these goals. It will also ferret out problems to help the IRS itself find solutions. The bill creates much more personnel flexibility, making it easier for the new Commissioner, with his enthusiasm, who wants to get things shaped up, giving him flexibility to reward employees doing well. I think this flexibility will help the IRS attract competent people, people who are technically competent and management experts. You get what you pay for. If you want to get good people, you have to be able to pay them well and you have to give them the wherewithal to do the job right. There has not been sufficient flexibility to this point in the IRS. This bill also reorganizes the IRS, somewhat in the same vein as a major American company, IBM, was reorganized when IBM years ago realized it was falling behind, that it was not serving customers, customers were not No. 1. It made dramatic changes. Mr. Rossotti was part of those changes at IBM, and we are hopeful some of the changes will work here. What are some examples? One major example: Currently, when a taxpayer has a problem with the IRS and it involves several kinds of problems-- say, income tax or payroll tax or a corporate tax is involved--the agent who handles the case transfers all the files over to the person responsible, say, for payroll taxes; if it is a corporate tax file, it is transferred to a corporate tax person; and if it is another problem, it is transferred to that person, essentially passing the buck. So when an individual taxpayer tries to find out what in the world is going on with his file, sometimes the file is lost, the person he or she calls doesn't know the answer to the question; it is just a mess. How do we attempt to solve it? Essentially, the IRS now will be divided into four separate divisions: One for small business, one for large corporations, a third for tax-exempt institutions, and a fourth for individual taxpayers. Now, when you, a taxpayer, have a question for the IRS, one person is in charge of your file--one person, more accountability. If you are a small business person, it is the small business section; an individual taxpayer, the individual taxpayer section--even though you may have questions involving different parts of the code. That should help reduce ``buck passing.'' The bill also adds important new taxpayer protections to help protect citizens against arbitrary actions. There are penalty and interest provisions suspended or reduced. Too often, the IRS has taken advantage of the penalty and the interest provisions in the law to browbeat taxpayers. A number of due process requirements are created. For example, legislation would require the IRS to give a delinquent taxpayer 30 days' notice to request a hearing before property is seized. In addition, the IRS is required here to seize business property only as a last resort. That has not always been the case. It further prohibits the seizure of a personal residence without court approval. That is a major change. The bill further makes it easier for an innocent spouse to get relief from tax debts that the guilty spouse may have accumulated. It shifts the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in court proceedings so long as the taxpayer keeps appropriate records and cooperates with the agency. I am not positive this is exactly tailored the way it should be. Currently, in our judicial system, the burden of proof is on the Government when they bring an action against a citizen. That is the way it should be. Up to this point, that has not been the case with respect to our tax laws, the theory being that the taxpayer is the one who keeps the books and records so the taxpayer should have the obligation to show that he or she should not have to pay the taxes the IRS is seeking. The burden of proof still is on, probably, the wrong place. We have tried to find the right balance here. I hope this provision in the statute works. Only time will tell. If there are problems, we will have to address them. The bill further extends the attorney-client privilege in most cases to accountants and to others authorized to practice before the IRS. Again, I am not sure how good an idea this is. It will make it more difficult for major accounting firms to sign off as to the financial statements of a company they are auditing. They may feel compromised because of this new provision. I hope this works. It may not. If not, we will have to come back and revisit it as well. Finally, the bill before the Senate takes a first step toward addressing what may be the biggest contributor to taxpayer problems with our Tax Code; namely, all of us, Congress itself. Witness after witness at our hearings complained about the complexity of the code. This bill requires that every tax bill in the future be accompanied by an analysis of whether it will further complicate the code, how hard it will be for taxpayers to comply with new laws. As we strive to achieve fairness in our code, we sacrifice simplicity. With this bill, we will theoretically be able to more clearly understand the extent of that sacrifice. I hope this works. We need to address the complexity of the code. I am not certain this will work as well as it is cracked up to. This will only work if the Congress focuses with utmost intensity on this part of the change and focuses on how proposed change adds to the complexity. I worry that this will otherwise be window dressing, that the Service and the administration, Treasury, IRS, Congress, might gloss over this provision. It sounds good right now, but we will not follow up, do the hard work and heavy lifting, when the new provision is before us. It really depends upon us. It is like the Pogo cartoon, ``I have met the enemy, and he is us.'' This will work, the anticomplexity provision, only if we make it work. Time will tell. This bill certainly clips the wings of IRS agents, but we all know that clipping the Government's wings too closely presents its own dangers. The Service estimates that the so-called tax gap, which is the measure of how much legitimately owed tax is not being collected, is now almost $200 billion a year. This amounts to more than $1,600 per year for every tax return filed by the rest of us--$1,600 per return, filed by the rest of us, is not being collected. Addressing this problem, unfortunately, is not in this bill. That has been left to another day. I truly hope we have not done anything in this bill which will exacerbate the problem further, because this bill may be sending a message to some American, ``Hey, the IRS' wings are getting clipped; I can get away with more; I don't have to report everything so much.'' That is not the message of this bill. The message of this bill is, the Service will treat individual taxpayers more like people and provide a service that it should be providing; that is, remembering that people are actually the employers in this outfit and the IRS is the employee. We have a second problem not addressed in this bill, and that is the tax gap. I hope that is addressed in the not too distant future because it is a problem that is mounting with each passing day. Partly it is caused by the complexity in the code. I am also concerned about how we pay for the lost revenues in this bill. I don't think it is the best result we could come up with. And I have further concern that the bill's provision may result in extended litigation, further slowing down our court system, because these are new provisions; they have to be interpreted. Lawyers are going to try to put one spin on it; another lawyer, another spin. A lot of the problems may end up in the courts. I firmly believe we must not let another tax session go by without at least the taxpayer protections in this bill. I am pleased to support the conference report. I am pleased I can go back to my constituents, including the young lady who wrote that letter, to say: We have tried to fix your problem, we have gone a long way toward fixing your problem; it is not perfect, but it goes a long, long way. In the end, Mr. President, the effectiveness of these provisions depends very much on the degree to which the White House, the administration, the Treasury, and the Congress continue to oversee the IRS, continue to have hearings into the IRS' operations, praising them when they are doing a good job, criticizing them when they are doing a bad job. We are here today, passing this legislation, in many respects because both the administration and the Congress for way too many years have let the IRS drift. There has been virtually no oversight. Treasury hasn't paid much attention to the IRS. Congress hasn't paid much attention to the IRS. As a consequence, they have kind of gone off in a direction that has not been as praiseworthy as we would like. So it is up to us, the people's representatives, to continue vigorous, aggressive oversight, if these provisions enacted today turn out to be as good as we all say they are and hope them to be. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from Montana is absolutely delighted to allow the majority leader to proceed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I consulted with my Democrat colleagues, knowing this request would come up, and it is our belief that the consent should not be granted. Accordingly, I object.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Chafee, the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in introducing the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. This bill will promote volunteerism on our national wildlife refuges. By encouraging volunteers to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to improve our national wildlife refuges, this bill will not only benefit fish and wildlife but enhance the outdoor recreation and education experience for thousands of visitors. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a sanctuary for our nation's fish and wildlife, many species of which are threatened or endangered. It is a sanctuary for people too, who use refuges for many purposes. Comprising some 93 million acres spread across the country in over 500 individual refuges, the system is an invaluable natural resource. To ensure that the resource is conserved for future generations of Americans, the Congress recently enacted legislation to guide the management of the National Wildlife Refuge System. But even improved management cannot make up for the lack of money. The refuge system is underfunded. Without adequate financial and staff resources, we will not realize the full potential of the refuge system, as envisioned by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. One way to address this need is through the use of volunteers, ordinary citizens who care enough about our refuges to contribute their time. To encourage volunteers to take a more active role in improving our wildlife refuges, this bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with partner organizations to undertake conservation and education projects. In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary to develop refuge education programs and provide for staff to assist partner organizations and coordinate volunteer activities. Mr. President, I believe that this is a good bill and that it deserves our support. It will benefit fish and wildlife, provide unique opportunities for citizens to donate their valuable time and expertise to refuges in their local communities, and enhance the refuge experience for the many people who visit our refuges each year. I intend to work closely with my colleague, Senator Chafee, and other members of our Committee, to help ensure that it is enacted this year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague Senator John Chafee in introducing legislation to extend the Work Opportunities Tax Credit (WOTC). This program was created after extensive consultations between the Congress and the Administration as a replacement for the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit. It was improved in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 with changes designed to make the program more accessible to employers who identify, hire and train welfare recipients and equip them with basic job skills necessary for long-term employment. As the June 30, 1998 expiration date for the WOTC program approaches, we are introducing this bill as a statement of Congressional commitment to the future continuation of the credit. WOTC encourages employers to participate in the national goal of moving millions from welfare to work through a hiring tax incentive that helps to offset the costs of recruiting, hiring and training those with few basic job skills. Congress enacted welfare reform in 1996. Since that time, employers have utilized WOTC to hire nearly one in four of those coming off public assistance. The time limits that were implemented through the welfare reform legislation are now reaching many of the more difficult welfare cases, those with the fewest job skills that have had the most difficulty finding jobs. As these welfare recipients search for jobs, it is extremely important to continue providing an incentive which will help defray the extra costs experienced by companies hiring these workers. The legislation we are introducing today will extend WOTC for three years. The current practice of extending the credit on a year-to-year, or partial-year, basis makes it extremely difficult for employers to use the credit. Small businesses in particular require some time to set up and use the program. All employers need some level of certainty for tax planning, which is not available when the credit is extended on a short-term basis. A multi-year extension will provide that certainty, and will show that Congress is serious about making the program work. I thank Senators Conrad, D'Amato, Hatch, Jeffords, Mikulski and Rockefeller for joining Senator Chafee and myself as original cosponsors of this bill. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to enact a multi-year extension of the Work Opportunities Tax Credit before the end of this legislative session.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce another in our series of international simplification bills. The International Simplification for American Competitiveness Act of 1998 will provide much-needed relief to American-owned companies that are struggling to compete in the world marketplace by simplifying our overly complicated international tax rules. America's economy, and economies of our individual States, are increasingly interlinked with the success of our businesses in the international economy. As the economies of previously less-developed countries around the world begin to expand, and the economic boundaries between our countries become more blurred, it is increasingly important for our businesses to be able to operate abroad from their most competitive position. Restraining American companies through redundant and unnecessary complexity in our own tax code dampens their ability to compete for foreign business. This only hurts our own economy. I have worked through the Trade Subcommittee to lower barriers to foreign markets and encourage agreements to keep trade free and fair. I have sought to open foreign markets for many Montana products, from beef to wheat, because of the positive impact on Montana's economy, and on the economy of our country. While we have made much progress on the trade front in opening barriers, our tax code remains mired in antiquated provisions that have not kept pace with the rapidly expanding global economic frontier. We must simplify our code, remove duplicative or outmoded provisions, and provide incentives for trade whenever possible, if we are to ensure continued U.S. success in the world economy. If we miss this opportunity, we risk the erosion of U.S. international competitiveness as countries with simple, favorable tax treatment of businesses lure away our foreign customers. There is a strong correlation between American corporate competitiveness overseas and the ability of those companies to continue providing jobs at home. According to a report prepared by the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse, United States exports in 1996 totaled over $600 billion and supported almost 7 million direct and indirect jobs. Exports alone account for over 11% of our Gross Domestic Product, and when combined with imports, total about 17% of GDP. Even in Montana, a state which is struggling to expand its foreign markets, exports totaled almost one-half billion dollars and supported 58,000 jobs in 1996. This bill does not by any means cure all of the problems in the international tax arena. But it is a good starting point which simplifies existing law, reduces the cost of compliance, and begins to rationalize the rules that need to be drafted with the competitiveness of U.S. businesses in mind. There are a lot of important international issues that this bill does not deal with. The problems associated with the interest allocation rules, for example. But Senator Hatch and I feel that these are larger issues that need more time to resolve, so they have not been included in this bill. I look forward to working with him, the Treasury Department and industry groups in an effort to find solutions to these bigger-picture issues over the next months. We live in a global economy. And we must help make American companies competitive in this economy, while fairly taxing their profits, if we are to keep this unprecedented period of economic expansion going. The ``International Tax Simplification for American Competitiveness Act of 1998'' is a major step in that direction, and I look forward to working with Senator Hatch and my other colleagues on the Finance Committee to have its provisions enacted into law.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr President, as the first chapter of the Analects of Confucius says, ``is it not a great joy when friends come from far away?" This week we have had the pleasure to welcome two good friends to Washington--President Kim Dae-jung of the Republic of Korea, and Chief Secretary Anson Chan of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. And today, as President Clinton prepares to make the first visit of any sitting President to Hong Kong, I would like to offer some thoughts on the events of the past year in Hong Kong. Let me begin with some context. When we speak about Hong Kong, we are really talking about three different Hong Kongs. One Hong Kong is Hong Kong itself: a city of six million people on China's southern coast. It is a place of hard work, good humor and open debate; one of our major Asian trading partners; the site of $15 billion in direct American investment and the base for much of our business in China; a site for 60 Navy port calls a year; a place many of us have visited and where our country has many friends. A second Hong Kong is part of China. This Hong Kong, emerging from 150 years as a Crown Colony to become the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, can play a unique part in China's future history. It combines a living western intellectual and legal heritage with a Chinese identity, and as such offers Chinese reformers a model for the rule of law and an open society, as well as for economic and financial management. And of course Hong Kong also plays a unique part in our own broader relationship with China. And a third Hong Kong is the financial and management hub of a vast productive region which extends from southern China to Southeast Asia. And so Hong Kong is also bound up with our economic and trade relationship with most of Asia--and in particular the financial crisis which afflicts so many Asian nations this year. In summary, history has placed a very heavy responsibility on Hong Kong and its people--for the management of their own city; for China's future; and for Asia's prosperity. How have they managed these responsibilities since the Union Jack went down and the Bauhinia went up last July 1st? Here I will quote the very succinct view of an American businessman based in Hong Kong, who came to see me back in February: ``Everything we thought might be a problem is not a problem. Everything we assumed would be fine has become a problem.'' He was referring, of course, to politics and economics. Last year at this time, many were worried about Hong Kong's political future, asking whether Chinese sovereignty would mean a controlled press and repression of political debate. Few saw any threat to its economic future. And what have we seen since? Hong Kong residents retain and exercise their rights. The Hong Kong Alliance holds regular commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Han Dongfang's China Labor Bulletin and the Human Rights Monitor operate just as before. All are freely and widely covered in the Hong Kong press--as are American China policy debates, the recent interview given by the Chinese political reform advocate and former political prisoner Bao Tong, and much more. Hong Kong's elections of May 24th went off more freely and its results were more interesting than anyone might have expected. Turnout rose from 35% in 1995 to 55% this year. The Democratic Party, along with the other parties which opted out of the Provisional Legislature, participated and did brilliantly. Equally interesting, the success of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, traditionally identified as a ``pro-Beijing'' party, may point toward the eventual establishment of a two-party system in Hong Kong. And China has, as far as I can tell, kept its promises to stay out of the Hong Kong government. These facts, I believe, disprove two theories. After this election, nobody can now pretend that Hong Kong people are indifferent to political rights and elections and care only about money. Likewise, after the election, the view that China has malevolent intentions and will inevitably crack down on Hong Kong seems naive at best. And although one year is a short time in which to judge, the facts also tend to show that the one-country, two-systems idea may work. And it is a disappointment, but not a surprise, to see that none of last year's doomsayers have stepped up to the plate and admitted they sold Hong Kong--and China--short. Unfortunately, what they should have been selling short was not Hong Kong--nor its government, nor its citizens, nor the Chinese government--but the Hang Seng Index. And those of us who were optimistic about Hong Kong's prospects last year should also admit that we didn't get it quite right. The things we felt would not be a problem--Hong Kong's economy--has become not only a problem but a crisis. I last visited Hong Kong in May of 1997, as the last stop on a trip that also included Seoul, Pyongyang and Beijing. At that time, the Koreans were worrying about a slowdown in growth rates--maybe to 5.5% or 6%--and some scandals in the chaebols. And The Economist magazine ran a cover story on financial problems in Bangkok. And in Hong Kong, I asked a few people what might show that the transition was going wrong--and a few said that one clue might be a speculative boom in the Hong Kong markets. Not a single person I met--and that includes American diplomats, tycoons, civil servants, Chinese dissidents, legislators from the Democratic Party, the Citizens Party and the Liberal Party--predicted that the economy might go wrong. What has happened since? We need no longer worry about a speculative boom in the markets. The Hang Seng is down from nearly 16,000 then to below 8,000 this week. Hong Kong is in its first recession ever, with growth at negative 2% so far this year. Some predict that the contraction could be 5% or worse. Unemployment is already at 4% and will rise in the months ahead. This, ironically enough, has overshadowed the political divisions in the new Legislative Council, to the point that the Democrats, the DAB, the Liberals and other parties have come together to criticize the government's budget and push for emergency economic relief. Why has this happened? The answer is obvious. The problem is not the Hong Kong economy per se--its properties may have been overvalued, but the real problem is the crisis affecting every country around Hong Kong. When a typhoon blows, everyone feels the wind and rain. In summary, Hong Kong is a territory whose politics are in better shape, and whose economy is in worse shape, than anyone guessed last year would be possible. And with that let me now turn from the lessons of the past year to the issues we must address, together with Hong Kong, in the next. Our interest is clear: a prosperous, healthy Hong Kong whose politics are free and open, which integrates peacefully with China, and which continues to play its part as the center of a prosperous Asian economy. And to secure this interest, we need three things: first, a solution to the Asian financial crisis; second, a working relationship with China, especially in the field of economics and trade; and third, a continued good relationship with Hong Kong's government, political leaders and people. And let me begin with the first of these. When a typhoon blows, people feel the wind and the rain. But they also tend to see, perhaps more than they might in easier times, that they need to work together. We see that in Hong Kong's Legislative Council today. And we see it on a larger scale, as the crisis has brought together the countries hardest hit by the crisis, Hong Kong and China, Japan, and we ourselves. The affected countries--particularly Thailand and Korea--have acted with a great deal of courage and good sense. And as bad as the times may be, their approach is working. In the last few months their currencies have stabilized and capital flight ended. The task now is no longer stopping a panic, but restoring financial health, enduring recession and protecting the most vulnerable people. Indonesia, with an even more difficult economic situation and a weaker political system,thus far, has weathered an even more difficult situation with a weaker political without descending into violence. China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have responded admirably. Hong Kong's refusal to devalue the dollar last October did more than any single other action, anywhere in the world, to prevent the crisis in Southeast Asia and Korea from becoming a meltdown. And China's refusal to devalue the yuan since then has allowed markets to recover and begin acting more rationally. The proof is that the revolution in Indonesia, as earthshaking an event as that is, has not created a new currency panic. And continued commitment by China and Hong Kong will make sure that the worst-affected countries can get back on their feet. This will impose tremendous strain on China in the months to come, because China is in no way immune to the crisis itself. The Central Bank Governor, Dai Xianglong, said yesterday that while China will stick to its commitment not to devalue: ``The economic adjustment in Southeast Asia and the sluggish Japanese economy, particularly the depreciation of the yen, have all produced a very negative impact on China's imports, exports and inflow of investment funds, and increased pressure on the restructuring of our country's economic system.'' This points to the need for rapid action in Japan to pass its fiscal stimulus package and perhaps to go further to prevent recession. In this crisis, Japan should be importing and growing; if it slumps and devalues its currency we can expect the situation to worsen. And we in the United States must act sensibly and seriously. Our open market is as important to recovery as the currency commitments by China and Hong Kong. So far, we have not given in to fears or temptations to reduce imports as our exports to Asia have fallen, and that should continue. We must pass our IMF replenishment, as the Senate has done. And we should give a strong endorsement to China's MFN status. As Ms. Chan said on arrival to the United States, revoking MFN status: ``[W]ould not only deal a devastating blow to business confidence in Hong Kong when we are grappling with the fallout from the regional turmoil, it would also undermine our ability to continue to play the role of firewall in the Asian financial crisis. Eventually it would take away a powerful line of defense in the economies of the region. None of us, including the United States, can afford another wave of uncertainty.'' As this comment indicates, our annual debate over MFN status has become a pointless and essentially destructive affair. It does nothing to promote human rights, political reform or better security policies in China; instead it threatens jobs here and economic stability in Hong Kong and China. And that brings me to the second point: our economic relationship with China, and in particular to China's accession to the WTO. As Governor Dai's comments indicate, China is by no means immune from this crisis. Its growth rate has fallen; its export growth rates dropped by nearly half; and foreign investment in China is off. These are some of the early warning signs we saw in Southeast Asia two years ago. And that should worry us--because today's China is not so different from yesterday's Southeast Asia. China has some advantages that its neighbors lacked. It has more fixed investment, less short-term debt, and larger foreign currency reserves than its neighbors. But it also has many of the problems they had before the crisis. We see a level of bad debts about the same, or even higher, as Thailand had before a year ago. We see nepotism, corruption and intimate ties between big business and the state; politically directed loans to unnecessary industrial policy projects in fiber optics, semiconductors, autos, and other areas; property bubbles in the big cities; foreign investment dropping; and early signs of an economic slowdown that could worsen if the Asian crisis deepens. And all this is combined with a brittle political system, intolerant of opposition and with only a weakly developed rule of law, that in the event of crisis may not offer China the flexibility it needs to get through economic difficulties without a social upheaval. Part of the answer must be political reform. China has a good example, inside its own political borders, with Hong Kong's strong rule of law and open society in a Chinese society; and when the one-country, two-systems formula comes to an end in 2047, political development in China may be its most important legacy. but in the short term, the economic reforms WTO accession will bring are equally crucial for China's economic health. WTO accession, on the commercially meaningful basis we should expect, will reduce subsides and break the links between ministries and their semi-privatized profit-making offspring. Promote open competition at the expense of rigged markets. And strengthen the rule of law. This will produce a more rational economy which is more open to imports; has less interference by ministries in the market; which is run more by the rule of law than by informal connections; and offers more freedom for ordinary Chinese to determine their own future. And in the long run it will help ensure that China has a stable, sustainable economy. So as President Clinton's state visit approaches--and in its aftermath if necessry--we should push as hard as we can to reach a commercial meaningful agreement. We must not accept less than we should; that would be unfair to our own country and it would mean little to China. But we should work hard to get the job done right. And of course, when it happens we should live up to our responsibilities by granting China permanent MFN status. Finally, let me turn back to the first Hong Kong--the one that is simply a city. A year after the transition, Hong King faces and extraordinary array of challenges. It is at the eye of an economic storm worse that any Asia has faced since the Vietnam War. It is adapting to a political role unique in China and probably unique in the world. And its own government and constitution are very new. These challenges might bring a lesser city to its knees. But Hong Kong has handled them about as well as anyone could have. And beyond that--as far as I can tell from ten thousand miles away--it has grown because of them. Last May's election, to me, indicates that the ordinary Hong Kong people understand how important a responsibility history has given them this year. The qualities we have always associated with Hong Kong--hard work, good humor, honest government--have been amplified by growing civic responsibility, democratic participation and political maturity. In summary, a year after the transition, Hong Kong has defended its rights; acted to good effect in an economic crisis; and can look ahead with confidence. And as President Clinton prepares for the first visit any sitting American President has ever made to Hong Kong, he is going to a city whose future is bright.

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 consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are here to debate one of the most significant components of our foreign relations policy, and that is the Department of Defense authorization bill. There is often a great temptation to exploit foreign policy debates for partisan political purposes. We all are tempted. But I believe that when we do--that is, on a foreign policy debate--it is a mistake. Such partisan fighting over critical issues of worldwide importance is both dangerous and counterproductive, and that is why I see engaging in congressional debates over China policy at this time, particularly amendments which are perceived as mischievous, is not a good idea. Although China does not manage its affairs as we would like, it makes little sense to base our relationship entirely on that concern. We should base our relationship, rather, with China on a clear view of United States interests, a foundation of basic American values, and appropriate methods that will secure those interests and advance those values. China is the fastest growing country in the world. It is the world's most populous country. It has the largest army in the world, is a nuclear power. China is a force to be reckoned with. And of all the areas our foreign policy must address--peace and security in Asia, prosperity and open trade, environmental protection, the prevention of climate change, and human rights--we will achieve our goals more easily through a cooperative relationship with China than with a destructive one of confrontation, one that seeks common ground and addresses differences frankly rather than through a policy limited to sanctions and confrontations. That is an approach that has succeeded with China over the past 25 years. China is a large country. The most progressive regions of the country are those engaged in trade with the West. That is no accident. Our presence in China has an enormously positive influence--one that would be lost if we cut off trade or cut off discussions with China. This relationship with China has grown out of the foresight and the cooperative efforts of those who have gone before us. Our modern relationship with China began over 25 years ago with a visit to China by President Nixon. President Nixon anticipated the difficult nature of this relationship. But he also recognized the importance of establishing a sound working relationship with the most populous nation in the world. As Envoy to China, former President Bush continued the efforts to open China to the rest of the world. His work set the stage for the U.S.-China relationship we have today. Perfect, it is not. But it is a relationship, and it can be improved. And it calls to mind other relationships which we have encouraged over the years. Fifty years ago, we had no relationship with Japan. Since then we forged an enduring alliance with that important nation. It is the work of statesmen like Douglas MacArthur and Yoshida Shigeru after the end of World War II; Dwight Eisenhower and Kishi Nobusuke, who steered the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty through the Senate and Diet in 1960; and Montana's own Mike Mansfield, who served for years as our Ambassador to Japan. This relationship was not--and is not--a partisan issue. Its champions came from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. And we have all benefited from their hard work. This relationship has weathered great adversity in the last half century--the Chinese Revolution, the Korean war, Vietnam, and 40 years of the cold war. Through it all, this relationship has helped many of the nations in the Pacific give their people better lives. It is important to remember that we spent years engaged in a standoff with the former Soviet Union. But by engaging that nation, we witnessed the end of the cold war, the end of the conflict and the birth of a new relationship with Russia. It took hard work and cooperation to make this new Russia a reality. The same is true in our dealings with China. A policy of engagement--tough, frank, hard-nosed engagement--is correct, not because it is in the interest of China, but because it is in the interest of America. There are still great strides to be made with China, particularly on human rights. It is a mistake to focus only on our differences and to ostracize China. We must ask ourselves whether we should seek to reform China by continuing engagement in a positive manner, or, instead whether we should seek to force the Chinese to change course by isolation. I think we ought to pursue the first choice--engagement. Mr. President, some have suggested that we are appeasing, even coddling, China, that we are ignoring their human rights abuses and other egregious acts, that somehow they are being given undue special treatment. I disagree. Obviously, there are problems with the way China cracks down on political dissent and treats its dissidents. However, I think the insinuation that there is double standard for China is not correct. We must continue to speak up when China acts contrary to international norms. Simply put, we cannot and should not look the other way when China disregards its commitments. However, we cannot have much say in these matters if we do not talk-- if we do not engage in constructive dialogue. After all, China's most repressive periods have occurred when China was isolated from the rest of the world. During the debate on this bill, as we consider amendments we should ask ourselves one question. Does the amendment strengthen America's hand, and improve our relationship, or will it make things worse? If the latter, I would urge my colleagues to vote it down. Let me apply this question to the pending, divided, amendment. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has proposed a series of amendments to the DOD authorization bill which aim to change China's behavior through a series of minor but bothersome sanctions. I deeply appreciate the Senator's reservations with some of China's policies. We all have reservations with some of China's policies. But, I believe this amendment goes about changing them in the wrong fashion. Surely every member of Congress would take issue with forced abortions--I would; we all would--religious persecution the same, and the imprisonment of individuals for the expression of political beliefs. That is clear. Americans hold as their most cherished freedoms the right to worship as they please and speak their minds. It is a measure of the country's greatness that we are allowed to speak freely. We expect this freedom on this Senate floor and indeed we have it. We expect it in our homes and throughout our workplaces. It is therefore natural that we extend these freedoms to peoples in other lands. We object strongly when those rights are denied. Clearly, there are other issues concerning China that Americans can disagree with. Despite significant progress, today's China is still too repressive and too restrictive. Those who would speak out against the government still risk imprisonment, house arrest and the denial of political rights. I wish to change that. We all wish to change that, and change that eventually with the right policies we will. We must hold China accountable to the human rights agreements it has signed, most notably the universal Declaration of Human Rights. But alienating China will not convince China. Ostracizing China will not endear it to the practices we would most like to see implemented. We can continue to facilitate China's transformation through engagement and dialogue or we can give in to the isolationist sentiments that these amendments represent. As we near the President's departure for China tomorrow, I urge the Senate to express its support for continued engagement of the Chinese Government. No doubt about it, the President has much to discuss when he gets to Beijing. But it is both important and appropriate that the discussions occur. They must occur. Frank discussions of necessary improvements in China should be forthcoming. The success of the trip will be enhanced with the endorsement of this body. Mr. President, today's debate illustrates an even more important point--the need for a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. It has been said that politics ends at the water's edge. When it comes to foreign policy there are no Democrats, there are no Republicans, there are only Americans. In this world today, there are many serious, global issues: India and Pakistan exploding nuclear bombs, the expansion of NATO, the collapse of the Asian economy. To the maximum extent possible, we must work together to address these issues. But often, partisan actions hinder progress on important issues of national importance. One such instance is the conflict over funding for the International Monetary Fund. The attempt to link family planning policy and international financial assistance is an effort to conduct a debate for the benefit of a domestic constituency. If a debate on the IMF is in order, then we should debate the IMF on its merits. But to stall the passage of this important legislation may weaken the hand of the U.S. Government and it may allow real problems to get worse. This is a situation where cooperation is critical. Last week, I invited my colleagues to join me in an effort to establish a more cooperative, bipartisan approach to our foreign policy matters. I, along with Senator Hagel of Nebraska, am working to focus more energy seeking constructive solutions to American foreign policy problems. We intend to work together, to help reduce the rancor that partisan bickering tends to produce. Just as engagement is the proper way of working with China, so too must we engage each other in order to better articulate Americans' interests and needs aboard. We are many voices. We represent many ideas. Making progress requires constructive dialogue by all parties, and I encourage my colleagues engage in that discussion. One final note, Mr. President. When President Clinton travels--when any American President travels overseas--he is the President of the United States of America. He is not a Republican President. He is not a Democratic President. He is the American President. When he travels, we in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives must give him our full cooperation. There are other times when he returns when we can debate what our foreign policy should be. But when it comes to foreign policy, we Americans will do much better, our stature in the world will be much higher, if we work out these differences among ourselves so that in the end we truly have a bipartisan foreign policy, a foreign policy that the Congress and the President have worked out together so that we stand taller and get more done than we otherwise might. There is plenty of room here in domestic politics for partisanship. There is more than enough here for partisanship in domestic politics. I deplore most of it, even in domestic policy, but when it comes to foreign policy, we must stand together. I urge Senators who have amendments to think twice before offering them, and perhaps bring up that issue when the President returns from his trip to China, because then the country is much better off. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, good afternoon.

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 address the upcoming summit in China and to stress the importance of this visit to U.S.- China relations. Mr. President, as the age old adage says, ``A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.'' We should begin this journey with the first step--by defining our goals in Asia, and, more directly, in China. America's goals are simple: we want peace; we want prosperity and fair trade; and we want a decent world to live in. How do we achieve these goals? First, by guaranteeing peace and stability in the Pacific. That means preserving our permanent military presence in Asia. Remaining committed to our alliances with Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia. Defining our interests clearly to China. But it also means preventing unnecessary conflicts. And to do that we must find common ground. Remain engaged. Preserve and foster our working relationship with China. We must build and strengthen our diplomatic ties. In many ways China remains a challenge--a great wall in and of itself. Its intransigence in many areas of trade, human rights and arms proliferation presents a clear challenge for U.S. policy. Whether the topic is pirated software or the incarceration of political prisoners, China has often proved unwilling to adopt practices that the rest of the world perceives as reasonable and just. And when China behaves contrary to accepted norms, or to the rule of law, we must not look the other way. But we also must not fail to recognize China's importance to the United States and the rest of the world. And to engage China, we must understand China. This is a vast and old nation. When Kublai Khan conquered southern China in 1279, he presided over the largest empire the world had ever seen. And at that time the Chinese empire was already 1,500 years old, and Chinese history 2,500 years old. Today's People's Republic of China is the world's most populous nation, accounting for one-fifth of humanity; a nuclear power; and one of the world's fastest-growing economies. It is also a diverse nation. China is a mosaic of language, religion and culture. The majority of its 1.2 billion population are Han. The remaining 70 million people belong to 55 different ethnic minorities. China has eight major languages and 600 dialects. Yet we often think of China as one mind, one voice. China has many voices. Those who have not traveled to China may find it hard to truly grasp the differences in lifestyles. How many Americans today live without a telephone? Many have two or more. In China, one in four homes has telecommunications capability. And about six out of ten have a radio. The average per-capita income in China is estimated at $360 to $700. Yet it is possible that in the next century China will become the world's largest economy. At the same time, it will continue to face enormous problems of unemployment, overpopulation, a low level of education, and poverty. Now is the time for the United States to help bring China into the 21st Century. Now is the time to engage China with great expectations. In the areas of weapons proliferation, Most Favored Nation Trading status and the World Trade Organization. And with human rights and the environment. Mr. President, Secretary Albright recently stated that ``we have an abiding political interest in a region whose cooperation we seek in responding to the new global threats of proliferation, terrorism, illegal narcotics, and the degradation of our environment. And we have an abiding interest as Americans in supporting democracy and respect for human rights in this, the most populous region of the world.'' Our relationship with China will be essential to all these interests. And we must begin with peace and security, because our diplomatic and security interests in China are critical to maintaining a peaceful and strategic relationship in Asia, as recent events in the Taiwan Strait, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula show. China regards our Taiwan policy as the most critical and sensitive issue in this relationship. So while we must treat Taiwan policy with great care, our historic policy, based on commitments to Taiwan's security through the Taiwan Relations Act, and our commitments to acknowledge China's view of sovereignty under our three Joint Communiques, remains sound today. And the events of the past few years show that. China has made its point about how seriously it views independence in the crisis of 1996; and former Secretary Perry made our point about Chinese threats of military force. Today the situation has calmed. Taiwan and China are beginning to talk once again. And we can, with caution and foresight from all three sides, expect if not reconciliation, at least stability in the Taiwan Strait. We need make no major changes, and in particular should avoid deals at Taiwan's expense as relations with China improve. For us, the division of the Korean Peninsula, and the continuing threat posed by the 1.2-million-man North Korean Army just above the demilitarized zone, is equally sensitive. In fact, this is the only issue that ever brought the U.S. and China to war And to maintain the peace, we need a cooperative working relationship with China; and on this issue we have it. China is doing precisely what we hope it will do. It offers the North Koreans advice that only a one- time ally can give. It provides food aid. And it does what it can to move the four-party talks ahead, even if that is limited to figuring out seating and handshake arrangements that the two Koreas will accept. Then let us look to the spread of nuclear weapons in South Asia. This has created an immense danger for the world of a breakdown in the Non- Proliferation Treaty; an immediate danger of war between India and Pakistan; and a new strategic question for China, as the Indian government has indicated that its decision to test nuclear weapons was due to fears about China. China's potential as a positive mediator in South Asia cannot be underestimated. I remain concerned that China may have contributed to the arms race by aiding Pakistan in its development of a nuclear device. It is incumbent on all nations to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and we must hold China to its signed commitments on this issue. Just as China worked constructively to avert further spread of the recent Asian currency crisis, so too must it be expected to work towards preventing the further proliferation nuclear arms in Asia. Mr. President, before I speak about the issue of China and trade, let me say a few words regarding the recent flap over satellite launches. First, the concept of allowing China to launch American satellites is sound. It can be done without transferring technology useful for ICBMs. And to suggest that we would willingly facilitate the process of other countries launching ICBMs does not make any sense. However, the controversy over this question indicates the large emerging question of a proper approach to the rapid advance of technology from military to commercial fields. This is the basic question not only in satellite launches but in software encryption, technology exports and many other issues. Our country needs a strategic approach to the entire question, and the time to begin is now. With respect to the specific question of satellite launches, if oversight was weak, we should strengthen our policy. If any American companies broke the law they should be punished. But derailing potential progress in U.S.-China relations does not improve the situation one iota. The second thing we need is a fair, mutually beneficial economic relationship. And that begins with the most urgent question--the Asian financial crisis. I think China's performance--along with that of the Hong Kong S.A.R. government--during the Asian financial crisis has been impressive. With Southeast Asia's currencies suffering, China's competing exports are under intense pressure. A devaluation of the yuan could ease life for many Chinese businesses. But it would start a new panic in the currency market, just as Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines and other Asian nations are beginning to rebuild from last year's collapse. Up to now, China and Hong Kong have remained committed to avoid devaluations. And if Asia recovers this year, it will be in no small part because of China and Hong Kong. We also need a stable bilateral trade relationship. And the foundation for this relationship is Most Favored Nation Status. President Clinton has just put forth his annual request for renewal of Most Favored Nation status for the Republic of China. Not surprisingly, this request has been greeted with suggestions that the United States should use MFN as a tool. As a weapon, to convince China into making dramatic reforms. It is not. It is the foundation of commercial relations and should be left alone. As Winston Churchill once said: ``A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. An optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.'' Those are good words to live by. I stand here today because I believe that we should use MFN as our way of helping China address its internal reforms while preparing for its accession to the World Trade Organization. I do not believe that an open trade policy means Americans should be indifferent to human rights abuses in China. The United States should take a strong stand against serious infractions against workers, dissidents, women and children. But restrictions, such as the denial of MFN trading status or the use of sanctions that hurt Chinese people and fail to directly punish the abusers of power, do little to encourage social reconstruction on the mainland. In fact we should do the opposite. We should give China unconditional MFN trading status, upon China's accession to the World Trade Organization. I have long promoted this process. And I will do so again as we prepare for this historic summit. The extension of permanent MFN status to China would benefit both of our countries. It would reduce uncertainty in our trade relations. It would increase the chances of China moving to a more open economy. In addition, it would ensure that the U.S. is able to benefit fully from the economic liberalization measures that China must adopt in order to be accepted as a WTO member. Finally, we need a fair trade relationship. China's market should be as open to our goods and services as we are to theirs. And today it is not. In this case, the numbers speak for themselves. It may be true that we have a large and growing deficit with China. At the same time, U.S. exports to China have increased from $11.7 billion in 1995 to $12.8 billion in 1997. In the first quarter of 1998, our exports have reached $3.3 billion. My home state of Montana exported $6.2 million worth of products to China just last year. Furthermore, our agriculture industry relies on Asia. Ag exports to Asia constitute 40 percent of all agricultural exports. In the United States we produce more than we could ever possibly consume. Our agricultural producers simply cannot survive without markets in China and the Pacific Rim. Our economic goals and China's economic goals are not so far apart. China seeks a working market economy for China's people. We seek that as well. We want a fair and open market for our goods and services. Yet we continue to face the startling implications of the trade imbalance between the United States and China--our deficit is almost $50 billion and growing. British writer G.K. Chesterson once said: ``Do not free a camel from the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel.'' We cannot change China to make its leaders think like Americans, act like Americans, and participate in the world marketplace like Americans. We should accept our differences. But we must insist on a minimum standard of behavior. We must continually push for the elimination of unfair trade barriers, such as the phony ban on Pacific Northwest wheat due to TCK smut. We must encourage private investment over State-Owned Enterprises. We must fight for market transparency. We must insist that President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji open China to more U.S. imports. And the way to do that is a commercially meaningful accession for China to the WTO. This is in everyone's best interest. It is good for China and it is good for the United States for the world's largest country to become a member of the WTO. But the accession is going too slowly. It is not good enough to wait for China to reach internal consensus on WTO membership. We need to show China that the status quo is not acceptable. I believe that by engaging China, we can help China's reformers balance internal change and global opening. This does not mean delivering WTO carte blanche. Rather, the Administration and Congress should pursue a three-pronged approach to serious engagement. First, the United States must give China a material incentive to enter the WTO. The Administration should endorse, and Congress should pass, a law to make permanent MFN status automatic when China enters the WTO. Second, the United States should target China's moral incentive to enter the WTO. With our bilateral talks on Taiwan's WTO membership complete, the Administration should push for Taiwan's rapid entry into the WTO, regardless of where talks stand with China. Third, the United States must convince China that unnecessary delay in entering the WTO is costly and counterproductive. Distribution and market access are just two issues that farmers and traders want fixed. At the same time, we want to make certain that China will be able to agree to, live with and abide by a signed agreement. If talks remain stagnant after President Clinton's visit to China at the end of this month, we should strongly consider opening a broad market access case under Section 301 of our trade law. It should begin with the areas where China is violating our 1992 agreement. It should set a deadline for sanctions if they do not shape up. Let me now turn to our third goal: a decent world to live in. President Clinton is right to go to Tiananmen Square when he visits China this month. But he will also be right to speak out on human rights and the rule of law. It is a sad fact that those who would speak out against the government are still in danger of being imprisoned or subject to house arrest. Just as China will be expected to abide by the standards of nuclear non-proliferation and the WTO, it also should be expected to live up to the international standards of human rights, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although I welcome the recent release of political prisoners Wang Dan and Wei Jingsheng, I am disheartened that they are subject to a de facto exile, unable to return to their homeland because of their political activities. Upwards of 2,000 political prisoners remain in China, imprisoned for the simple expression of their beliefs. Mr. President, Americans hold freedom of expression as one of their most cherished rights. It is a prerogative that is all too often denied the Chinese people, but one that I view as essential to that country's political and economic viability. Where ideas are suppressed, creativity and innovation are lost. And we need look no further than the world's leading economy to see the importance of innovation and expression. America's economic power is indicative of its political and economic freedom and the extent to which ideas and innovation are exchanged. It is true that China's economic success in the last 20 years is impressive. But how far can innovation and growth proceed in the absence of true freedom to carry out discourse and exchange ideas? The global marketplace grows increasingly competitive every day. China and the rest of the world stand to lose if that great country's people aren't allowed maximum ability to express, innovate and progress. Finally, Mr. President, we must also engage China when it comes to environmental concerns. As economies develop throughout the world, they use more fossil fuels. Of course, with increased usage often comes significant pollution. Nowhere is that more true than in China. In the coming years, China will likely burn more fossil fuels, dispose of more chemical and industrial waste and emit more carbon dioxide than any country in the world. As economic growth in China accelerates, demand for electricity and the coal used to generate it will also increase. Mr. President, 9 of the last 11 years have been the warmest of the 20th century. If the emissions from China's burgeoning power plants are not subject to controls, our efforts to prevent global warming will be undermined. China is part of the problem, and should be part of the solution. Although this is true for all developing nations, it is especially true for China, its appetite for hydrocarbons being what it is When I worked on the Clean Air Act 1990, emissions trading was proposed as an alternative to inflexible, across-the-board efforts to control emissions. Initial reports indicate that the system of emissions trading works. I am interested in possibly applying the concept on a global scale, to include developing countries such as China. Again, Mr. President, if we are to minimize the impact of these outputs, the United States must engage China in a cooperative relationship. We must do it in the areas of environmental protection, international security, human rights and trade. Although I agree with the Chinese proverb that says, ``It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness,'' I also think that the words of that great American Henry Ford are apropos here: ``Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.'' Mr. President, the United States and China have come together. For our benefit and that of the rest of the world, let us continue to work together for success. Finally, Mr. President, let me say a few words about the approach I see developing in Congress. We have not covered ourselves with glory recently. We have not passed our IMF replenishment. We have not passed our UN dues. We have not passed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We have not passed fast track. And some have seen the recent satellite launch controversy as an opportunity to make points in domestic politics. This is not the way a great power behaves. We have serious responsibilities in our foreign affairs--whether in peace and security, in economics and trade, human rights or environmental protection. And we diminish our institution at home, and our country abroad, if we do not take these responsibilities seriously. We have time to fix our deficiencies. But it is not unlimited time, and as we see in South Asia; in Hong Kong; in Korea; events will not wait for us. So as the President makes this historic trip, let us reflect a little more deeply on ourselves, on our responsibilities, and on what we can do for our national, rather than political, interest. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the Bond-Baucus-Grassley Joint Resolution introduced today that nullifies a regulation which threatens to put many of my state's home health agencies, or HHAs, out of business. Our resolution officially disapproves the regulation issued by the Health Care Financing Administration on June 1 of this year. The rule requires each home health agency that receives Medicare reimbursement to buy a costly surety bond. This expensive bond is out of reach for many of the agencies that provide in-home service to Montana's elderly and low income residents. Let me say from the outset that I support the provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requiring HHAs to post a surety bond for Medicare and Medicaid. Perhaps we need to make some changes to the statute, but the underlying idea--to protect the Medicare program by requiring home health agencies to post a bond--is a good one. Unfortunately, the regulation HCFA plans to implement requires a much higher bond amount. One Montana home health agency based in Butte would have to post a bond of more than $600,000 under the HCFA regulation. That's an outrage. And it will put that company, and many others across the country, out of business. I am also concerned that HCFA has incorrectly interpreted Congressional intent by using the bonds to collect on Medicare overpayments, not just fraud. As a result, many HHA owners are being asked to put up personal assets, such as their house, as collateral for the bond. These agencies tend to be non-hospital based and not tied to a larger corporate structure. All have far less than $600,000 in personal and business assets. We shouldn't expect anyone to sign over those assets just to do business in the Medicare program. Also, many HHAs are family-owned small businesses. We cannot let any federal regulation force small businesses to close their door. This not only affects businesses, but also their customers--our bed-ridden elderly. That is why we have acted here today. The Bond-Baucus-Grassley resolution will invoke the Congressional Review Act to disapprove HCFA's regulation. And I urge quick action in the Senate on this important matter.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an outstanding Montanan, Beverly Gibson. She will retire June 30 after twenty years as assistant director of the Montana Association of Counties and nearly 30 years of outstanding public service to her State. Through her work I believe Bev knows almost everyone involved in county government in the State, and those of us who have had the great fortune to know her stand in awe of this great lady's achievements. Montana-born and journalist by training, Bev has been the heart and soul and living history of MACO since its very early expertise have touched many lives. In a State like mine, with its vast area and sparse population spread over 56 counties, local government is the lifeblood of politics. Bev is the real champion in this arena. At MACO Bev is known as the person who gets things done. Twice a year, MACO holds statewide meetings and she was always the first to get there and welcome everyone. She would research all the issues, staff committees, act as official photographer, coordinate speakers and agency representatives and was the last to say goodbye. Can you imagine doing that for 168 commissioners of different parties? I honestly don't know how the organization will get along without her, except that she is leaving an incredible legacy that will brighten the way for others. As she retires, I want to wish her much joy, health and happiness. And I also want to say thanks, Bev, for a job well done and for a real service to Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. So it, the current program, is roughly $18 billion, the current ISTEA which expired. This bill is $26 billion, roughly; hence, roughly a 43-percent increase. And a State, on average, will receive that 43-percent increase. So, while there are little ``i's'' that are not dotted properly according to some Senators, or ``t's'' that are not crossed properly according to some, I submit this is a good bill. It is good for the country. It repairs a lot of needed repairs. There are a lot of roads in our country that need repair and curves that need to be straightened out--in addition to our very good environmental programs in this bill. I just hope the Senate, when we see the conference report from the House, acts on it very quickly because then we will have finished our business, people home will be proud of what we have done, and we can get on to other business when we come back after recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. In July of 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated final rules that set new National Ambient Air Quality standards for fine particle air pollution, known as PM2.5. The standards require three years of monitoring data to be collected before determining whether an area is meeting the standards. It is my understanding that under the Clean Air Act, Governors are required to submit designations for attainment, nonattainment and unclassifiable areas within their states within 120 days but no later than 1 year following promulgation of a new or revised standard. The EPA is then required to promulgate designations within two years of the issuance of such final standards. For the July 1997 PM2.5 standard, this schedule poses a problem. Monitors are not yet in place and three years of monitoring data will not be available to permit Governors and the EPA to determine whether an area is or is not in attainment. Therefore, the Clean Air Act would require EPA to take the meaningless step of designating areas as unclassifiable in July of 1999 on the basis that three years of PM2.5 monitoring data are unavailable.