Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation providing for the permanent authorization of the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank [FARAD] program. I am joined by 15 of my colleagues and I hope the Senate will pass this legislation very soon. Mr. President, food safety has long been of tantamount importance to the veterinary profession and to the American consumer. Customers rightly expect that the food they purchase is of the highest quality. More importantly, consumers must know that the food they consume is safe. And our veterinarians work to help consumers in this endeavor. This legislation is designed to help Americans maintain their safe, wholesome food supply. In 1982, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service undertook an educational effort to prevent chemical residues in food animal products. That same year, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS] sponsored a Residue Avoidance Program as a repository of residue avoidance information and educational materials. FARAD was founded as a cooperative, multi-State effort by Drs. Stephen Sundlof of the University of Florida, Jim Riviere of North Carolina State University, Aurther Craigmiller of the University of California, Davis, and William Buck of the University of Illinois. Each investigator brought a unique expertise to the collaboration. Since that origin, FARAD has evolved into an expert-mediated residue avoidance decision support system which is crucial to food safety across the Nation. FARAD provides an invaluable service to the animal health profession, helping veterinarians provide appropriate, science-based therapy-- improving animal health while preventing food safety risks to consumers from residues. FARAD's computer-based decision support system is designed to provide livestock producers, pharmacists, and extension specialists with immediate access to practical information on drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants which hold the greatest potential for residue formation in livestock food products. Since its inception, FARAD has published three handbooks and two practical software products, while maintaining a telephone hotline and an internet access site--all devoted to providing the information necessary to protect the livestock food system from contamination. Through the USDA Extension Service, FARAD has received approximately $200,000 per year since its inception. These funds have been awarded on the basis of competitive grants, relying on matching funds from the participating universities. However, for the universities providing this valuable service the price has been too high. It is time to provide adequate Federal funding to accomplish this vital work. FARAD provides a vital service across the country. Congress must now express its support for this tool which can help maintain the well- founded confidence of the American consumers in their food supply. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this valuable legislation and I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation providing for the permanent authorization of the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank [FARAD] program. I am joined by 15 of my colleagues and I hope the Senate will pass this legislation very soon. Mr. President, food safety has long been of tantamount importance to the veterinary profession and to the American consumer. Customers rightly expect that the food they purchase is of the highest quality. More importantly, consumers must know that the food they consume is safe. And our veterinarians work to help consumers in this endeavor. This legislation is designed to help Americans maintain their safe, wholesome food supply. In 1982, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service undertook an educational effort to prevent chemical residues in food animal products. That same year, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS] sponsored a Residue Avoidance Program as a repository of residue avoidance information and educational materials. FARAD was founded as a cooperative, multi-State effort by Drs. Stephen Sundlof of the University of Florida, Jim Riviere of North Carolina State University, Aurther Craigmiller of the University of California, Davis, and William Buck of the University of Illinois. Each investigator brought a unique expertise to the collaboration. Since that origin, FARAD has evolved into an expert-mediated residue avoidance decision support system which is crucial to food safety across the Nation. FARAD provides an invaluable service to the animal health profession, helping veterinarians provide appropriate, science-based therapy-- improving animal health while preventing food safety risks to consumers from residues. FARAD's computer-based decision support system is designed to provide livestock producers, pharmacists, and extension specialists with immediate access to practical information on drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants which hold the greatest potential for residue formation in livestock food products. Since its inception, FARAD has published three handbooks and two practical software products, while maintaining a telephone hotline and an internet access site--all devoted to providing the information necessary to protect the livestock food system from contamination. Through the USDA Extension Service, FARAD has received approximately $200,000 per year since its inception. These funds have been awarded on the basis of competitive grants, relying on matching funds from the participating universities. However, for the universities providing this valuable service the price has been too high. It is time to provide adequate Federal funding to accomplish this vital work. FARAD provides a vital service across the country. Congress must now express its support for this tool which can help maintain the well- founded confidence of the American consumers in their food supply. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this valuable legislation and I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as my side is allowed to consume.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think that the American people essentially want us to do the right thing. They care less whether it is the Democratic policy or the Republican policy. They care less whether it is conservative or liberal. Essentially, they say, ``You folks back there in Washington, come together, do what's basically right, what's within the realm of reasonableness. Just get your job done. If you do that, you're doing a pretty good job.'' Mr. President, I think that is what happened here. We Democrats like to claim lots of credit for this legislation. A lot of us talk about the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which I do think is the cornerstone which led to declining deficits and allowed the American economy to begin to prosper, interest rates dropped, with inflation rates lower, unemployment rates lower, et cetera. Republicans like to claim that, oh, no, they are the ones that basically did all this. After all, they are the majority party in the Congress right now. But the truth of the matter is that it is the combination of both sides working together to reach this agreement. And even more truthful, we have a big assist, and that is the national economy. The economy is doing very well. We all know that. And that enables President Clinton to negotiate with the Republican majority in the Congress, and with all Congress for that matter, an agreement which makes most people pretty happy. That is, it cuts taxes. When the economy is doing very, very well, the U.S. Government is bringing in more revenue than it usually does, and it is easier to cut taxes. That is what we have done here. We all like to have our taxes cut. Second, there are additional spending programs in here. One big one is education, which is very needed in America. We must invest more in education. All of us know that. If we are going to compete with countries around the world and we are going to increase the quality of living for all of our people, it is critical that our young people get a better start and a better education. We spend quite a bit of money in this bill on education, whether it is direct spending or tax credits. So the economy has helped us very much. I wonder where we would be today, Mr. President, if the economy were not doing well today. Would we be balancing the budget as quickly? Would we be working as well together? Would there be as much peace and harmony on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue? I see the occupant of the Chair shaking his head in the negative, and I agree; we would not be doing as well. The economy gave us a big boost. We are here, in some respects, because of that. I, like most Members of this body, support this conference report. It does do basic things which are important. No. 1, it moves us toward a balanced budget. We are going to have a balanced budget at least by the year 2002. My guess, Mr. President, is that we will probably reach a balanced budget before the year 2002. In fact, the projected budget deficit for this year is to be as low as $50 billion. So we will balance the budget. We will be living within our means. That is no small matter. We also have tax cuts which help small businesses and help families around our country and help the country generally. That is good. This bill also keeps hospitals and clinics open in rural America. I mention rural America because my State tends to be rural, and we have been working for many years to be sure that we have quality health care in our part of the country, as well as in the cities. This will also help make sure America's children have health insurance. Not too long ago, we passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, which would disallow preexisting medical conditions as a condition for denying insurance to insureds. That helped to buy more health insurance for programs. We also allow for something called portability; that is, if a person has health insurance, he can carry it to his next job. We Americans don't have the world's best health insurance program. Other countries insure their people a little bit better than we do. But the one area this bill addresses is health insurance for kids, which is very important and critical. All of us here are very happy for that. The bill has some drawbacks and I will address a couple of them later on. By and large, the benefits far outweigh those drawbacks. Let's start with the good news. As work on this agreement began earlier this year, I set a few basic priorities for myself by which to judge the final result of this bill. One was that this bill must balance the budget, it must help small businesses, and it must promote education--those were all priorities of mine--and, finally, it must be fair; that is, the distribution effect of this bill must be fair to all Americans. On the whole, I think this agreement reaches those criteria. First, we will see a balanced budget by the year 2002. It might even be earlier. But to be realistic, this bill deserves only a bit of the credit. I believe that the 1993 budget bill made the real tough choices, and that was the bill that began us on a glide slope toward a balanced budget. It was a tough bill. We took some tough medicine back in 1993. But that laid the foundation for where we are today. It brought us from a deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to a deficit of perhaps just $35 billion this year. So we started this effort with most of the work already done. This is just a small finishing-up effort on that 1993 bill. I must say, a booming economy is helping us as well. Second, this bill goes in the right direction on taxes. That is, it lowers taxes. Overall, it will cut taxes by $90 billion over 5 years. That is not a revolutionary change, but it is significant, and it is going to help make a difference to some people. Particularly, the $30 billion in education tax credits is going to help families send their children to college. That is going to help. By cutting the estate and gift tax, we will help farm families, small business owners, and ranchers all across our country keep their land and their businesses and their operations in the family. That is very, very important to the people in the State of Montana. We have a lot of farmers and ranchers who have virtually no return on their investment, virtually no cash flow, but their land values are accelerating because some people are moving to Montana--wealthier people--which are pushing up land values. Relief in Federal estate and gift tax is critical. We phase in 100 percent health insurance for the self-employed, and that means a lot to small business people, self-employed people who can't take nearly the same deduction in taxes and health insurance they pay compared to people who work for big companies. Generally, in America, the more you work for a large corporation, the better your health insurance policy, because your employer takes the full deduction for the health insurance policy. If you are self-employed, you don't get that; you have to pay for it all yourself. We began a couple of years ago to phase in a deduction for the self-employed. This legislation will bring that to a full 100 percent, albeit over the next 7 years. A capital gains tax reduction is very important. That should help savings and investment in our country. With respect to health care, this agreement also means significant accomplishments, essentially by providing $24 billion for health insurance and services for working children. This is $8 billion more than the original plan, and it is paid for with a cigarette tax that will create its own health benefits by reducing smoking. We also set up a new limited-service hospital program, modeled on the Montana Medical Assistance Facility, or MAF's, which allows hospitals to keep their doors open in small towns. The MAF is a proven success in many communities like, in my State, Circle, Culbertson, Big Timber, and Ekalaka, and this agreement will make those MAF's permanent. This will also slow a two-decade-long trend that has closed nearly 10 percent of all rural hospitals. We also allow rural family practice residency programs that are just getting started to expand. That is very important. Montana's two residency programs, one in Billings and other in Glasgow, are critical to attracting doctors to our State's rural communities. It makes sure that rural areas get fairer managed care payments from Medicare compared to the big urban areas. And not least, we objected to proposals in the last Congress to make large cuts in Medicare and abolish Medicaid's guarantee of health insurance for poor people. But the agreement is not perfect. I would like to note four areas where I think it falls short. First, it contains many special interest tax provisions. This means a much more complicated Tax Code and more tax advantage to wealthy people and big companies who can hire large numbers of lawyers and accountants. This tax bill makes our Tax Code much more complicated, unfortunately. We should return to this issue in the future and work to simplify the Tax Code and eliminate loopholes. Second, it includes unreasonably tough cuts in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to health care providers. These reimbursements make up an average of 55 percent of Montana hospital revenue. And the smaller facilities, with under 30 beds, already are collecting, on average, over 4 percent less in revenue than their costs. It is tough to squeeze these facilities any further. Third, it misses a chance to improve our national transportation infrastructure. I, with Senator Warner, and 80 other Senators, requested extra money for highway and transit construction. That money would have meant safer travel and a more productive economy. But this agreement does not have that. It does move the 4.3-cents-per-gallon motor fuel revenues from the Treasury to the highway trust fund. But for accounting reasons--that is, the lack of an offset--that is only phantom money. It will not mean any real change in the highway and transit budget, and I regret that. I alert my colleagues that when we take up the transportation bill after the August recess, we are going to realize how much we regret that. Finally, this bill ducks some of our long-term fiscal challenges. As we look 15 or 20 years ahead, we know Americans will live longer. So the bills we pay for health care and pensions for older men and women will be much higher than they are today. With the healthy economy and a good fiscal situation we have today, we could have taken some steps now to ease the problems this situation will cause the next generation. This agreement doesn't take those steps. It is a missed opportunity. I wish we had taken this opportunity. But on the whole, this is a reasonably good effort. It does balance the budget. It helps small business and families. It makes sure America's children have health insurance, more than today. Those are very important things for our country, and we ought to get them done. So I support the agreement, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I might say at this point, Mr. President, how much I appreciate the bipartisan efforts, particularly of the chairman of our committee, Chairman Bill Roth, who worked very, very diligently to help make sure that both sides of the political aisle worked well together. That doesn't always happen in this body. There are some committees where that doesn't happen much at all. But Chairman Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, did work very hard to bring both sides together, and I think that is one reason we are here today finally with this bill. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over the last Memorial Day recess, I visited South Korea, Japan, North Korea, China, and Hong Kong, on an official Finance Committee trip. Today I am entering into the Record the first half of a trip report I recently filed with the Committee, and tomorrow I will include the second half, dealing with China and Hong Kong. I hope the Senate will find it of use. The material follows: Asia Trip Report--Covering Visits to South Korea, Japan, North Korea, Beijing, and Hong Kong, May 24-31, 1997

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this week the United States Trade Representative will conduct a set of talks on China's accession to the World Trade Organization. Their results will have a great effect on our trade policy for years to come. So this afternoon I want to take a few minutes to discuss the reason these talks are important, the state of United States-China trade, and a strategy that can help improve the situation. The reason these talks are important is simple. China is a big market, a big exporter, and a country with which we have a large and difficult trade agenda. By virtue of population, only India equals China as a potential export market. And China's economic growth, at nearly 10 percent a year throughout this decade, is unmatched in the world. Much of this growth has come from trade. Twenty years ago, China barely participated in world trade. It is now the world's sixth largest trader and is now our third largest source of imports after Canada and Japan. If you count Hong Kong together with China, the figures are even more impressive. But our American export performance to China is very poor. The Commerce Department reports $11.7 billion in goods exported in 1995, $12 billion in 1996, and on track for the same level this year. Adding exports of services, the total is about $2 billion larger, but the trends are no better. By contrast, our exports to the rest of the world have grown by 18 percent since 1995. So despite China's size, despite China's economic growth, our export performance is weak and China's importance as an export market relative to other countries is rapidly declining. We should be doing much better than this. There are two reasons for our weak performance. The first is that many of our own policies appear designed to cut our exports to China. And the second, larger problem, is Chinese protectionism. We will start with the first point. Because while bringing down trade barriers takes a lot of work and hard negotiations, we can fix our own mistakes pretty easily. And let me offer three examples. First, we bar trade promotion programs like the Trade Development Agency, OPIC, and sometimes the Eximbank from operating in China. The Senate took a good step forward by passing my amendment last week showing the Asian Environmental Partnership to work in China, but we have a very, very long way to go. We refuse to sell nuclear powerplants to China. This is foolish enough when we see that France and Japan are pushing nuclear powerplant exports in our absence. And it is almost surreal when you consider that we are actually giving nuclear powerplants to North Korea. We have an antiproliferation law that embargoes electronics exports if China sells missiles. That is, if China misbehaves, we sanction ourselves. This will not work. If we are serious about reducing the trade deficit, if we want a trade policy that creates jobs in America, we cannot routinely prevent ourselves from exporting. That is part of the solution, but not the whole solution. Because while fixing our mistakes are important, structural economic issues and Chinese trade barriers do much more to cut our exports. To date, we have used our own domestic trade law to solve our problems, section 301 and Special 301, to bring down trade barriers, the antidumping and countervailing duty laws to fight dumping and subsidies. This policy won some results, and if necessary we should continue using it into the future. But it is a slow and frustrating policy which addresses individual, specific problems rather than the full spectrum of trade barriers. We need a more comprehensive approach. And we have it in China's application to enter the World Trade Organization. WTO rules address most of our China trade problems, from tariffs and quotas to subsidies and distribution. If China accepts these rules, our trade future may be much brighter than the present. So I regard these discussions in Geneva as critically important and view China's entry to the WTO on commercially acceptable grounds as very much in our national interest. But these talks come with risks. If we sign a bad agreement, whatever we miss will stay there a long time. In that case, we should never expect much from the China market. And we would set a dangerous precedent for other reforming communist countries from Russia to Ukraine to Vietnam which hope to enter the WTO. To this point, China has not made acceptable offers. And if they will not do it this week, we need to be patient. We need to hold out for a good deal. And a good deal basically means four things. First, it means market access. Today, Chinese tariffs rise to 120 percent for cars and 80 percent on beef. They must go down, way down. We need much less restrictive quotas, abolition of unscientific barriers to agricultural products, like the unfounded claims about ``TCK smut'' on our wheat, an end to unpublished quotas and regulations, no more unfair inspection rules, and an open market for services. Second, we need an agreement by China to accept basic standards of trading behavior. Trade regulations must be the same in every port and province all across China. Intellectual property must be protected and technology transfer requirements outlawed. Restrictions on national treatment must go. The government must abandon policies requiring investors to export all or part of their product rather than selling it to the Chinese. And restrictions on trading rights must end. Third, there are subsidies. We need clear and visible separation between ministries, officials, and public taxes on the one hand and private business on the other. And we need to preserve our safeguards against export subsidies and dumping. Our antidumping law has special rules that calculate dumping from noncompetitive economies. This is the right policy, given the present state of economic reform in China, and we need to keep it in place. Fourth, results and enforcement. China, as a large partially reformed economy, presents questions the GATT and WTO have never encountered. So we ought to have some benchmarks to measure success, including objective measures of Chinese imports, and a prearranged system of consultation if we see things going wrong. And when problems arise, if they do, we must be ready to enforce our rights. Of course, a good WTO accession works in both directions. And that brings me to the third part of a better China trade strategy. As GATT and WTO members, we have always, as Americans, accepted one basic commitment; that is, MFN for all members, permanently and without conditions. If China agrees to a good WTO deal, the Chinese have the right to expect us to fulfill this commitment to them. It is good policy on the merits. It is also the fair and honorable thing to do. The right trade policy toward China is clear. We must end restrictions on export promotion. We should bring down China's trade barriers through a fair WTO accession agreement, if we can, and through laws like Section 301, if China is not ready to make a good offer. When China does make a good offer, we should live up to our own responsibilities by making MFN status permanent. It can begin this week. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, later this year the 166 countries that signed the 1992 climate change treaty will meet in Kyoto, Japan. They will be seeking stronger measures to control a potential threat to the future of our planet and to the lives of everyone living today and children yet to be born. The threat is easy to understand, even if the science is complicated and a bit uncertain. In hearings before the Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this month, a panel of respected scientists gave us their assessment of the problem. They told us that man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, have led to a distinct warming of the Earth over the past 100 years. More troubling, however was their prediction. If left unchecked, the continued growth in these emissions, which trap the sun's heat, will have potentially serious effects. These consequences include shifting climate patterns and more frequent violent weather events, such as floods and droughts. Now most areas of the country experience extreme weather conditions from time to time. But permanent shifts in climate patterns can seriously alter our lives and our economy. For instance, in an agricultural State, such as Montana, the prospect of more flooding and longer dry spells is a threat to the livelihood of our farming and ranching families and their communities. And, if weather patterns change, crop yields can be seriously decreased. These kinds of threats to our future are serious enough that we must take action to avoid them. We can begin by controlling our greenhouse gas emissions. And if we start with modest steps now, instead of waiting, we will likely avoid any serious economic disruptions. In 1992, the Rio summit asked developed countries to lead the way. The climate change treaty committed these countries to voluntarily reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2000. Unfortunately, the voluntary actions didn't work. The good intentions of most countries never translated into concrete results. So if we are to control these emissions, the new treaty must contain binding limits on emissions. However, we also need to make another change in the 1992 treaty. We certainly need binding controls on developed countries, which currently emit about 60 percent of global greenhouse gases. But we also need them on developing countries, which are responsible for the remaining 40 percent. We simply can't reach a solution by addressing only 60 percent of the problem. Furthermore, unless all countries participate, we run the risk of giving our economic competitors an unfair advantage. Yet developing countries are resisting such efforts. So how can we change their thinking? Perhaps by broadening our own. Let me take one country, China, as an example. Why China? For one, because over the next 20 years, China will be responsible for one-third of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. For another because the United States has a lot of issues to deal with China on. Trade, human rights, regional security, and environmental protection, to name a few. So despite fundamental disagreements on some issues, we share many mutual interests, including climate change. China has more people potentially at risk from rising sea levels and violent weather than any other nation. It also has an urgent need to increase its domestic energy supplies. If we consider the broad array of interests we share, I suspect we will find ways to gain their support on climate change issues. After all, China is a growing part of the problem, it must be part of the solution. Another aspect of encouraging developing nations to participate in new emission controls is to include in the treaty flexible, market- based strategies, such as joint implementation and emissions trading. Market-based strategies have been very successful here at home. For instance, the acid rain program in the 1990 Clean Air Act included trading of sulfur dioxide emissions credits. This program stimulated technological innovation. It also reduced sulfur dioxide emissions at a cost that was less than one-tenth that predicted by industry. By including similar programs in a climate change treaty, we can achieve greenhouse gas reductions at the lowest possible cost. It gives U.S firms the flexibility to comply with emission targets in a way that makes the most sense for them. And it will protect our worldwide economic competitiveness. For developing countries, emission trading can give them access to new technology and financial support that will make it easier for them to comply with their new obligations. The language contained in Senate Resolution 98 will help achieve the goal of including all countries in the new treaty. It requires that the treaty mandate new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing country parties within the same compliance period as developed countries. But since developing and developed nations are starting from different places, it makes sense to require different targets. Here again, the language crafted by Senator Byrd helps. It does not specify that developed and developing countries meet the same targets and timetables. When Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth recently appeared before the Environment and Public Works Committee, he spoke in support of Senator Byrd's resolution. I believe he said it was ``largely on the button.'' He added that the administration ``very much agrees with the thrust of what [Senator Byrd] is saying related to developing country commitments.'' So although the language of the resolution requires new commitments from developing countries, the administration should seek emission targets that are more consistent with their level of industrialization. I plan to follow the treaty negotiations carefully to be sure that developing countries have agreed to commit to controlling their greenhouse gases. And while the resolution unfortunately omits any mention of the need for market-based strategies to achieve the emissions targets, I believe the treaty must include them. They simply make much more sense for all countries than the command-and-control approach being advocated by some. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that the toughest issues for democracies to handle are those in which the threat to society builds gradually, but inexorably, over time, such as with global climate change. We deal well with immediate crises. My hope is that by debating this issue today, by passing this resolution, we will elevate the public discussion about climate change and avoid the need for a future crisis to spur us into action.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who spent his life and career working on behalf of Indian tribal governments and ensuring that the United States fulfilled its trust responsibility to Indian people, Marvin Sonosky of Alexandria, VA. On July 16, Mr. Sonosky died of heart failure. He was 66 years old. I join his many friends in mourning the loss of one of Indian country's greatest advocates. I would like to convey my sympathy to his wife, Shirley Freimuth Sonosky, and his daughters Judith Kreisberg, Joann Hirsch, and Karen Hecker and his seven grandchildren and one great grandchild. Mr. Sonosky was born in Duluth, MN, and received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Minnesota. After 4 years of private practice, Mr. Sonosky came to Washington in 1937 and joined the Lands Division of the Department of Justice where he served for 17 years. As a special assistant to the Attorney General he frequently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1951, Mr. Sonosky returned to private practice. In 1976, he formed the firm of Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse, where he practiced until his death. He remained active in the trial practice of the firm through the last week of his life. Mr. Sonosky was a unique individual in this city in that he was one of the best advocates in his field yet he never sought the accolades or tributes that so many seek. Instead his tribute came from knowing that every day that he worked he had the potential to improve perhaps just one Indian person's life. I would like to share with this body some of the many legislative initiatives involving Indian tribes that were the brainchild of Mr. Sonosky. These are but one measure of the impact that he had in improving the lives and opportunities of Indian tribal governments and their people and ensured that the United States stands behinds its trust obligations to them. Following devastating losses of Indian reservation land and its resulting poverty, Mr. Sonosky worked with Congress to secure the enactment of federal statutes that returned over 1 million acres of undisposed surplus lands within those reservations to the tribes--the resources from these lands have been vital to the economies of many of these Indian communities. Mr. Sonosky also brought to the attention of Congress the need to amend Federal law authorizing Indian tribes to recover just compensation for lands taken by the United States so that the damages awarded would not be unfairly diminished by the value of food and rations that the United States had promised in exchange for the lands it acquired. When Government officials unlawfully offset welfare claims against trust funds of individual Indians, Mr. Sonosky successfully challenged the practice in Federal court. He subsequently worked with Congress to ensure that all individual Indians who had been harmed by this practice were properly reimbursed. While much of Mr. Sonosky's congressional efforts focused on righting past wrongs, an equal part of his work resulted in legislation that will protect Indian rights for generations to come. Through his efforts Federal law that had previously allowed States to assume jurisdiction over certain matters on Indian reservations was amended to expressly require tribal consent prior to application of State jurisdiction. And, most significantly, when limitations contained in the statutes governing Federal court jurisdiction effectively barred Indian tribes from invoking that forum to vindicate federally protected rights, Mr. Sonosky successfully developed and advocated for a Federal law that today vests Federal courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate any claim brought by an Indian tribe. The honor of the Nation with regard to our obligations to Indian people has indeed been well served by Mr. Sonosky. We will miss him dearly.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in today's world, trade doesn't stop at the borders. Whatever business you're in, and whether you operate a Fortune 500 company or a small family farm, every day you have more opportunities and more competitors overseas. That's why an organization like the Montana World Trade Center is so valuable to our State. We are a small business State. We have small timber mills, environmental technology firms, Indian manufacturing companies, and family farms. And, Mr. President, our Fortune 500 companies may well have all the information and all the connections they need to succeed in world trade. More power to them. But a small Montana farmer, or a specialized high-techology business, simply doesn't have the money and manpower to keep up with overseas opportunities. Even at the most basic logistical level, the paperwork and customs forms associated with imports and exports can be too much for a small business to handle. Additional burdens include finding foreign partners in faraway countries--and while Canada makes up about half our exports, other Montana markets range around the world, from Kuwait to the Philippines to Bangladesh. So our Montana farms, ranches, and businesses can gain a lot from the world marketplace. But they often need expert assistance in finding likely markets and partners abroad. And they need early warning when foreign competitors try to take advantage of them--as one firm found a Chinese company pirating its hunting decoy designs and advertising them in sportsmens' magazines. That is what the Montana World Trade Center provides. And the $2.5 million grant included in this bill will help the center meet that goal. It will help Montanans compete in the world marketplace and export more effectively. That is critical to our State's economic future. So this grant is a good investment that will pay off in new exports and more jobs. I hope the Senate will approve it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson amendment, which is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that we should revoke China's most-favored-nation status. MFN status should not be a political issue. It is nothing more than the normal trade status we give virtually all our trade partners. But if we are to consider MFN a political issue, a look at the facts shows that MFN for China is legally right; it is morally right; and it is right for our American national interest. Why? First, and most simply, renewal of MFN status is right under our law. The Jackson-Vanik law has governed renewal of MFN status for non- market economies since 1974. It conditions MFN on two things--the existence of a bilateral commercial agreement and freedom of emigration. And under the law, the President's choice is clear. We have a bilateral trade agreement signed with China in 1980. And China allows free emigration. Therefore, as a legal matter, the President was right to renew MFN and we should back him up. Second, renewing MFN status is morally right. At times people in Washington are tempted to see a vote to revoke MFN as something which might promote human rights in China. That is a fine sentiment. Senator Hutchinson's remarks indicate that human rights is the central reason he wants to revoke MFN status. But while those who advocate revoking MFN status to promote human rights are well- intentioned, if we actually went ahead and revoked MFN status we would see the opposite of what they intend. To revoke MFN status, very simply, is to raise tariffs from Uruguay round to Smoot-Hawley levels. To take one example, that means raising tariffs on toys and stuffed animals from zero to 70 percent overnight. That hits one of China's major exports to the United States, at about $6 billion worth last year. And who makes them? On the whole, young Chinese working people trying to improve their lives. What will happen if we revoke MFN status? The result should be obvious. Millions of innocent Chinese workers in toy factories and other walks of life would lose their jobs. The Chinese Government would certainly be hurt, but the lives of these workers would be ruined. So, far from improving human rights, revoking China's MFN status would cause immense human suffering. And as the Senator said, we would be sending the Chinese people a message with his resolution. But it would not be a message of support--it would be a threat to put them out of work. And of course, that would discredit our human rights efforts with the Chinese public. No rational person can expect anyone in China to thank us for harming their economy and inflicting misery on them, their families, or their fellow citizens. By contrast, if human rights is our motivation, MFN is an irreplaceable part of any effective policy. As the Democracy Wall activist Wang Xizhe--until recently a political prisoner--says: * * * the goal of exerting effective, long-term influence over China can only be achieved by maintaining the broadest possible contacts with China, on the foundation of MFN, thus causing China to enter further into the global family and to accept globally practiced standards of behavior. A long-term policy may emotionally be hard to accept. There are real human rights problems in China. About 3,000 political prisoners remain in jail. Strict limits on freedom of assembly. Very severe policies in Tibet. The Senator from Arkansas is right to be concerned about these issues. We would like to solve them all in a day. But the fact is, that won't happen. This resolution will not help us solve these problems. Only by staying involved, through trade and human exchange as well as diplomacy, can we hope to make a difference. Finally, we are Americans first and we are responsible to the American public on our policy decisions. And renewing MFN status is right for our own national interest. And let me give perhaps the most important example. I visited Seoul, South Korea, and Pyongyang, North Korea, during the last Memorial Day recess. And I can say from firsthand experience that we have a very complex, very dangerous situation at hand in the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is a politically isolated government, with very severe food and economic problems, and a large and well-armed military machine. We just considered an amendment addressing the most recent provocation by North Korea. We have a commitment to joint defense of South Korea, and 37,000 men and women permanently on the line just a few miles south of the DMZ. I spoke with their Supreme Commander, General Tilelli. I met with some of the enlisted men. I got a threat briefing from a young Army major from Wolf Point, MT. If you go there, you know how seriously these men and women take the responsibility we have given them. You see it in their faces. It is a very dangerous place. And we here in the Senate owe it to them to pursue a very serious, responsible policy that can keep the peace, and ensure a swift victory if, God forbid, there is any conflict. Chinese cooperation is absolutely essential to that. China is the largest country, with the most powerful army, in the region. It is probably the only country that can help make sure the North Korean Government understands the realities on the peninsula. It has played a critically important role in restraining North Korean military aggression and in preventing nuclear proliferation. And deliberately antagonizing the Chinese Government and armed services by continually threatening to revoke MFN will not help at all. You can go on from there to many other issues. Take trade. We need a more fair, more reciprocal, better trade relationship with China. We have an opportunity to do that this year by bringing China into the World Trade Organization on a commercially acceptable basis. Cutting off MFN status would put us on the opposite track--it would balance trade at close to zero, cutting off jobs and prosperity here as well as in China. And as we look into the next century, we must work to slow global warming, ocean pollution, and loss of biodiversity. To take just one statistic, in the next 20 years, world greenhouse emissions will grow from 6 to 9 trillion tons a year. Fully 1 trillion of the additional 3 trillion tons will come from China. We have a chance now to moderate that trend. And a political crisis caused by revoking MFN would make that mutually beneficial effort very difficult. Our own common sense should tell us China is a key player on all these issues. Wantonly picking a fight with the world's largest country by revoking MFN status, when only six countries in the world lack MFN status and we give 151 countries and territories tariff rates better than MFN, would be foolish. And our allies tell us the same thing. During my trip last May, I met top national security officials in the South Korean Government. I spoke with senior officers of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. And I met with Chinese dissidents and democratic political leaders in Hong Kong. These are our friends. Our strategic allies. People we work with every day. People who wish us well. Not a single one of them supported revoking MFN status. Not a single one. The right course to take is very clear. We should reject the Hutchinson amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a short, simple amendment dealing with our China policy. It has the support of the State Department; business; and Chinese dissidents. I hope it will also get the support of Congress. The amendment, very simply, allows the Asian Environmental Partnership to operate in China. It does not add any spending to the bill, and does not change the basics of the program in any way. So I hope this will not be controversial. Let me begin with a review of what the Asian Environmental Partnership does. AEP is a small export promotion program created during the Bush Administration. It offers technical help with environmental policy, and brings foreign governments together with American producers of environmental services and technologies. In several Southeast Asia countries, AEP has helped us achieve environmental goals and to boost American exports to a region where we suffer large trade deficits. But the Asian Environmental Partnership does not now operate in China. That is because it receives some funds from the Agency for International Development, which is barred from operating in China. It is very clear, of course, that we do not need a foreign aid program for China. China has a lot of money and is quite capable of supporting itself. But it is just as clear that we need a sound approach to environmental problems in China. Whether you look at water pollution, urban air, rural lakes and streams, or hazardous waste, China is one of the world's most polluted countries. That causes a great deal of suffering for Chinese people. And as China grows, it makes more and more contribution to global climate change, ocean pollution, and other phenomena which affect China's neighbors and even us here in the United States. We in America can help ease these problems. We can provide some humanitarian relief from needless suffering caused by unsafe water, air and waste. We can help protect ourselves from future environmental threats. And we can gain some benefit for ourselves in the process. We are among the world's most competitive producers of environmental goods and services, and with some effort we can create a large foreign market for our companies. That brings me to the second reason we need this amendment. That is, we need an export promotion policy for China. Last year, we exported about $14 billion worth of goods and services to China, while importing about $51 billion. So we had a $37 billion deficit. This year's figures look no better. The main reason for this deficit is the massive set of tariffs, discriminatory inspection standards, quotas and other trade barriers erected by the Chinese government. But a second reason--one which we don't really like to admit to ourselves--is that we do very little export promotion to China. Germans, Japanese, Southeast Asians and other competitors push exports as hard as they can. We don't match their efforts anywhere in the world, and we do worst of all in China, where agencies like AEP can't operate. There is no doubt that costs us. This is basically common sense. It is good for everyone. For no additional money, this amendment will help us export and improve our trade balance. It will help us deal with some very difficult environmental problems. And it will, to some extent, supplement our human rights goals by making life in China a little better. That is why this amendment has gotten very broad support. The State Department supports it. American environmental and business groups support it. And Chinese dissidents, support it. Let me quote from a letter I received from the China Strategic Institute, founded by former political prisoner Wang Juntao: The China Strategic Institute is pleased to learn of your efforts to bring the US-Asia Environmental Partnership to the People's Republic of China. Not only can such a program assist China in combating the severe environmental degradation that plagues the Chinese population, but also . . . the development of civil society. I strongly hope that this amendment finds the support to become law. To sum up, with this amendment we can do something good for everyone. By passing it, we can promote American exports. We can do something good for the Chinese people. We can promote the interest of both countries in a healthy environment. And we won't spend any more money. So I hope the Senate will support it. Thank you, Mr. President. amendment no. 907 (Purpose: To ensure Congressional notification of the costs to the Federal Government of all federal programs associated with the proposed agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the new section as follows:

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dodd-McCain amendment. For the past 11 years, we have experimented with the policy of ``certifying'' foreign countries as cooperating or failing to cooperate with our efforts against the international narcotics trafficking. That is a fair test for any policy. And it appears to me that the certification policy simply isn't working. Many countries we have decertified--Burma, for example, or Afghanistan--now produce significantly more narcotics than they did before. Cocaine, heroin, and marijuana are at least as easy to find on our streets today as they were in 1986. It is clear that, at best, our decertification of these countries did nothing to stop them and their mafia organizations from producing narcotics. So certification has been an ineffective policy. And the Dodd-McCain amendment takes a sensible approach--it does not abolish certification, but suspends it while we try to work out a more effective approach. If there is nothing better out there, certification will go back into effect. Finally, in my view, annual debates over whether to certify various foreign countries has distracted us from the more fundamental problems we face here at home. That is, enforcing the laws. Putting drug dealers in jail. Rehabilitating drug users when possible. And stopping kids from trying drugs in the first place. If we can do those things, the actions of foreign countries will still be important, but they will be secondary issues. So I think Senator Dodd and Senator McCain have a good idea. We should take a second look at a policy that doesn't work very well. We should try and find a better one if we can. And we should get back to basics and solve our problems here at home. Mr. President, I have a full statement on the underlying bill and the importance of keeping up on our commitment to Israel and the Middle East. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at this time. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, may I ask whether we are in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my outrage over an incident that occurred in my home State last May. Over the Memorial Day weekend, vandals on the Missouri River destroyed the Eye of the Needle Arch, as well as several other stone pinnacles nearby. Lewis and Clark, camping in the traditional homeland of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe, first noted these structures in their historic journal which, I might add, is replete with misspellings: ``Seens [sic] of visionary inchantment [sic]'' and ``eligant [sic] ranges of lofty freestone buildings,'' describing the Eye of the Needle Arch along the Missouri River. Former Montana Senator Lee Metcalf had the foresight to designate that stretch of the Missouri as ``wild and scenic,'' thus ensuring that generations of Montanans would marvel at these wonders. But what took Mother Nature millions of years to painstakingly carve out was destroyed probably in a matter of hours. The actions of the vandals have been decried in both local and national newspapers, and the people of Montana have been united in their condemnation of the acts. People have donated over $10,000 in reward money for information leading to the arrests of the individuals responsible. I rise today to add my voice to those who cry out for the loss of a true Montana treasure. My motivations for speaking on this subject are personal. To me, the Eye of the Needle was a symbol of what makes Montana the ``Last Best Place.'' Its improbable existence was a miracle of creation and a testimony to Montana's rugged spirit. I plan to float the Missouri this weekend. I will see firsthand what has become of this treasure. In many ways, I am not looking forward to the experience. To know that this landmark was destroyed by human hands gives me pause to think on the absolute senselessness of the act. Tearing down a marvel of nature is not a statement of defiance, not a statement of courage, or even machismo. No, it is simply an act of raw brutality, an act of utter stupidity. In every cloud, there is a silver lining, and though it is not easy to see in this case, there is a positive lesson to learn from this incident. In an ironic way, we have gained a deeper appreciation for the wonders that surround us. They are precious; they are fragile. Perhaps this incident will remind us to protect the things that are near and dear to our hearts. For all our sakes, I hope this is the lesson we learn. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the nomination of Joel Klein to be Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. And while I will vote to bring this nomination to the floor for a vote, I will outline my concerns for the Senate at this time. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have expressed their serious concern about this nominee. More importantly, they have detailed the responsibilities of this position. This position has a statutory responsibility to enforce the antitrust authority of the Department of Justice. As my colleagues have eloquently stated, this is particularly important and timely in regard to the telecommunication reform regulations which are being promulgated to enforce the reforms enacted into law last year. While these reforms should bring great benefits to consumers across the country, the Department of Justice must play an active role to protect the interests of consumers against violations of antitrust authority. This is also important in the meat packing industry. The mergers which this industry has experienced have left livestock producers at the mercy of precious few meat processors. Just five packers control this industry. Producers and consumers alike need to know that the Department of Justice is enforcing antitrust law. There have also been a number of mergers in the railroad industry which have virtually eliminated competition in this transportation sector. For a State like Montana--a captive shipper--this is a problem. Montana farmers pay freight rates that are among the highest in the Nation. It generally is cheaper to ship grain from States east of Montana to the ports of Portland or Seattle, than it is for Montana producers. Without careful attention, I worry that this discrepancy could get worse, not letter. Mr. President, I will be supporting this nomination. I have long relied on a very simple question to determine my support or opposition for a nominee for a Presidential appointment. Is the candidate qualified? In this case, I believe the President's choice is qualified and has no reason we should delay confirmation. So I will be voting for this nominee. And, when he is confirmed, I will be watching the issues under the jurisdiction of the Antitrust Division very carefully.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization measure providing for the conveyance of the Havre Air Force Station and Training Site in northcentral Montana to the Bear Paw Development Corp. These two facilities comprise over 90 acres of real property. Seventy-seven buildings are located on the property, including 45 single family homes. The U.S. Air Force deactivated these facilities in 1993 although it has maintained the facilities since that time. Members of the Bear Paw Development Corp. include Hill, Blaine, Liberty, and Chouteau Counties, the cities of Havre, Chinook, Harlem, and Fort Benton, the town of Chester and the Fort Belknap and Rocky Boy's Tribal Governments. It was officially recognized by the U.S. Economic Development Administration in 1968 and has received similar recognition from the State of Montana as well. Bear Paw Development provides a variety of community and economic development services to its members including helping local governments plan for infrastructure improvements and secure needed financing. It also provides training and technical assistance to businesses through the Small Business Development Center and the Montana Microbusiness Program. My amendment provides that Bear Paw will convey the single family homes as well as several other buildings to the Box Elder School District adjacent to the Rocky Boy's Reservation and the Hays/Lodgepole School District on the Fort Belknap Reservation. Both school districts will use the buildings for classrooms and school facilities. In addition the Human Resource Development Council in Havre will receive eight homes which it will use to house the homeless. The real property and remaining structures will be utilized by Bear Paw for local economic development projects. Mr. President, this conveyance results in several important benefits: Relieving the Air Force and taxpayers of the responsibility of preserving deactivated facilities, helping local school districts provide adequate and safe school facilities for their students, and promoting economic stability and growth in northcentral Montana. Truly all parties will benefit from this transfer. Thank you for your consideration. Amendment No. 814 (Purpose: To authorize the production of tritium in commercial facilities) On page 444, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in supporting an amendment to S. 936, the Defense Authorization Act. This amendment will reauthorize and improve a law commonly known as the Sikes Act. The amendment will reauthorize the law through the year 2003. The Sikes Act authorizes the Secretary of Defense to manage fish and wildlife and other natural resources on military lands. The Department of Defense controls nearly 25 million acres of land at approximately 900 military installations. These lands encompass all major land types in the United States and include habitat for threatened and endangered species, historic and archaeological sites, and other cultural and natural resources. Senator Chafee and I have been working, in consultation with the Senate Armed Services Committee, to reauthorize and amend the Sikes Act, a law within our committee's jurisdiction, for a number of years. Unfortunately, we were unable during the last Congress to draft amendments that were acceptable to the Interior Department, the Department of Defense, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I am pleased to say that this amendment has the support of all three. In addition, a nearly identical version was recently passed by the House on the House Defense Authorization bill. This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare integrated natural resources management plans for military installations, unless the Secretary determines that preparation of a plan for a particular installation is inappropriate. Plans are to be prepared, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State fish and wildlife agency, within 4 years after the date of enactment. I urge all three agencies to work closely together, taking full advantage of their respective resources and expertise, to develop mutually acceptable plans to conserve fish and wildlife and other natural resources on our Nation's military installations. Finally, the amendment establishes annual review and reporting requirements to ensure that required plans are prepared and implemented. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. It may be deserved.

Mr. BAUCUS. You too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on another matter, I wish to inform the Senate that we in the Environment and Public Works Committee are working very diligently to come up with a good solid reform of the Endangered Species Act. In this respect, I say that Senator Kempthorne, the chairman of the relevant subcommittee, is working very hard with Senator Reid, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, along with myself and Senator Chafee to reform the current Endangered Species Act, including many provisions, such as involving the States much more deeply than they are now, making sure there is peer review by scientific communities, and a host of other changes. But one change I would like to mention at the moment is an idea in the bill introduced by the Senator from Idaho which very simply states that conservation easements that protect habitat for endangered species should be tax deductible. I raised this issue in the Finance Committee markup a week ago explaining to members of the committee that this was a new idea, a good idea which would give landowners incentives so that they themselves can protect their own land in a way to avoid problems under the act. But I did not push for the amendment in committee because we were not quite ready for the provisions of the amendment and did not have an appropriate way to pay for it which is called for under the Reconciliation Act. Senator Kempthorne has introduced a statement today basically calling this matter to the attention of the full Senate, and most particularly to the attention of the conferees. I say to Senator Kempthorne and others that are interested that I will work diligently, in cooperation with the Senator from Idaho, to see if we can find a way to get that provision passed. Essentially, Mr. President, we will very soon have a bipartisan Endangered Species Act reauthorization reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think Senators will be happy in the main with the provisions of this agreement. I compliment, again, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Reid, and others who are working, on a very bipartisan basis, to reach this result. Again, I thank my colleagues for their interest in the tax incentive portion of it because I think that is an important, integral part of this solution.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the tax relief legislation before the Senate. This is a complex bill. Chairman Roth has done a superb job in working with a vast range of issues and many different groups of taxpayers to produce a generally good bill. And to explain why, I will start by putting numbers aside and reviewing the broad principles our tax policy should reflect. First, our tax policy should pay the bills. Second, it should be simple and predictable. Third, it should be fair. Fourth, it should promote growth. And fifth, it should be as low as possible. Let's begin with the first. We need to pay the bills. To take Alexander Hamilton's words from Federalist 30, government must: raise troops, build and equip fleets * * * [and pay] for support of the national civil list; for * * * debts contracted, or that may be contracted; and, in general, for all those matters which will call for disbursements out of the national treasury. These latter disbursements now include health insurance for seniors and the poor. Social Security checks. Highways, education, veterans benefits, scientific research, clean air, clean water, and more. Essential services the people want and should have. But we also need to pay for them. And in the past the government hasn't entirely paid for them. In 1992, our budget deficit stood at $290 billion. But in the past five years we've done much better. This year, the deficit will be under $65 billion--a fall of nearly 80 percent. And this bill will take us the rest of the way. By the year 2002, it will balance the federal budget. It will pay the bills. Second, it will help make our Tax Code fairer. One very important example is our large cut in the estate and gift tax. This tax is one of the prime causes of misery for farmers and small businesses today. These businesses hold small Montana towns and rural counties together across the generations. And by imposing very high-tax rates and equating land or asset values with large cash inheritances, the estate and gift tax often force families to sell them when an owner dies. To cite one particular example, let me quote from a letter I received just last week from a veterinarian who runs a small clinic in Kalispell. He fears that: if I grow my business any more my heirs will have to sell it to pay estate taxes. That fear runs from Kalispell clinics to ranches in the Judith Basin to small businesses in every Montana town. And it extends much further. When small businesses, farms, and ranches leave the family, their entire neighborhoods lose something very special. It is not right, and it is not fair. And this bill will help us put a stop to it. It will let Montana's family-owned farms and businesses exclude up to $1 million in farm and business assets from the estate tax, allow 20-year installment payments for businesses with majority family ownership, and make other reforms that help make sure that young men and women can keep their family businesses in the family. Third, with respect to simplicity, this bill will mean a much improved Tax Code in one very important area. That is international taxation. Today, businesses are international. Agriculture is international. Companies in air services, entertainment, high technology and basic manufacturing are international. They comply with Tax Codes in other countries. They hire people all over the world. They work with suppliers and customers in different countries. And our international tax laws, mostly drafted in the 1970's, don't recognize this. At that time, trade made up only about 12 percent of the American economy. Today it is over 30 percent and growing all the time. And tax provisions which assume that international businesses are a rarity don't make sense any longer. They often make American companies less competitive, and sometimes even create perverse incentives that push firms to avoid hiring American citizens in foreign operations. This bill will help bring our Tax Code into the 21st century. Not all the way, but part of the way. It changes the passive foreign investment company provisions to eliminate overlaps with other tax provisions. And it ensures that Foreign Sales Corporation treatment applies to software as well as other copyright works. But I must say with some regret that on the general principle of simplicity, this bill is not an advance. Our Tax Code today relies on several dozen different income taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, Federal Reserve deposit interest receipts, tariffs and Customs fees, corporate taxes and user fees to make up its $1.5 trillion in revenue. That is confusing and complicated enough. Then add in the 135 major tax credits, deductions, exemptions, exclusions and deferrals, totaling over $500 billion in tax expenditures last year. And it gets even worse. And this bill will not improve the situation. In fact, in some respects it will worsen the problem by adding to the diversity of tax provisions. That's a drawback--not serious enough to devalue the bill as a whole--but one we must frankly admit and return to in coming years. Fourth, the bill will help promote growth. How can we do that? First, by promoting investment for the future. Helping companies create new technologies, new products and new manufacturing processes. Providing some incentives to start firms and create jobs. And improving our basic infrastructure. With this legislation, we do all those things. We extend the research and development tax credit for two and a half years. We use targeted capital gains tax cuts as an incentive for investment in small businesses--the sector which presents the greatest risks and rewards, and which creates the most new jobs. And we will directly increase our essential public investment in infrastructure by moving the 4.3 cents per gallon in Federal gas tax revenues from general revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. And most important of all, we will help educate our children. Give them the chance for college. Help them work with new technologies. Make sure the next generation of Americans has the highest level of skills and education in the world. With this bill, we create a $20 billion HOPE scholarship. We create a new deduction for interest paid on student loans. Promote life-time learning by making the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance permanent. Our legislation is not perfect on education. I believe we can and should go further on college opportunity. But it is much better than the status quo. And let me make a related point. That is, with this bill we help make sure children are ready to learn. We do this by providing $24 billion in this bill and the accompanying entitlement bill for children's health. Today in Montana, about 27,000 have no health insurance at all. Millions more around the country. That is a moral scandal and a threat to our future. Today in Montana, a typical health insurance plan for a family of four, with a $500 deductible and a partial dental benefit--costs $5,580 a year. That is simply out of reach for many working families. And we have put together a package with a lot of money for States to insure more kids. Through Medicaid, through assistance for private insurance, or other options that fit a State's circumstances. This is will make our country stronger and healthier in the future, and it is the right thing to do for our kids today. Finally, the last principle. Taxes should be low. And this bill will make taxes lower. Over the next 5 years, it will reduce overall taxes by $85 billion. Small businesses will get some more capital to help them invest and grow. Farmers and ranchers will find it easier to pass their land on to their sons and daughters. Families with young children will have some more money to spend at the movies, or in bookstores, or in contributing to charities. Parents will find it a bit easier to send the kids to college. That's a good thing for everyone. In conclusion, Mr. President, this bill lives up to the principles we should expect of our tax policy. It will pay the bills and balance the budget. It will make taxation fairer. In some ways, although it could be better, it will make taxation simpler. It will promote growth. And it will make taxes lower. On the whole, it is a solid, careful, bipartisan bill. And we should be proud of it. I congratulate the chairman for his work, and I hope this bill will get the Senate's support.