Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Smith, to clarify a couple of points I have on the amendment allowing the transfer of Federal facilities. First, let me say that transferring Federal facilities to private parties as quickly as we can so they can be put to productive use is desirable. But we must not transfer property if doing so would compromise protection of human health and the environment. And we must ensure that when we do transfer Federal sites before they are cleaned up, we don't forget about them. We must make sure that the Federal Government cleans up these sites as quickly as it would if the Government still owned the property. At the same time, communities do not want to wait for years while interested parties study the extent of contamination and argue over remedies. So to speed up the transfer of contaminated land at these Federal sites, this amendment will allow the Federal Government to transfer property to private parties before the remedy is completed. While I support the amendment, I do so with some reservations and ask that my concerns be addressed in conference. I want to make sure that if we allow the Federal Government to transfer contaminated property before the site is cleaned up we do so with the appropriate safeguards necessary to ensure that the States and public is not saddled with the cleanup of former Federal sites. I want to make sure that allowing Federal sites to be transferred before the site is cleaned up will not affect the Federal Government's obligations to cleanup its sites. At many sites, the Federal Government has entered into triparty agreements with the States and Federal regulators. These triparty agreements should not be compromised by transfers. Is it the understanding of the Senator that tri-party agreements will not be affected by the amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. I am pleased that the intent of this language is for the cleanup to proceed according to the schedule in the deed or other agreement proposed to govern the transfer. But I am unclear who would enforce the schedule and I would hope this is clarified in conference.

Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator agree that triparty agreements are one category of contractual obligation?

Mr. BAUCUS. Second, I understand that the amendment would allow transfers of Federal facilities to occur before remedial action is in place, provided that the transfer contains several assurances. These assurances would, among other things, assure that all appropriate remedial action will be taken and that the schedules for investigation and completion of all necessary remedial actions will be identified. Is the intent of this language to ensure that the cleanup at transferred sites will proceed according to the schedule identified in a deed or other agreement proposed to govern the transfer?

Mr. BAUCUS. So it is the intent of the Senator that by using the phrase ``rights or obligations'' in clause (iv) is to cover any existing contractual obligation entered into by the Federal agency?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to talk today about a friend, Randy Bellingham, who lived life to the fullest--in his work, in his play, in his personal relationships. And because of the way he lived, the sense of loss for those who knew him, is that much greater. He was a decorated combat veteran of Vietnam. He was an avid outdoorsman. He was a superb lawyer. He was a cancer survivor. And he was a dedicated father. But to simply look at these achievements and call Randy a great man would not be doing him justice. Randy will best be remembered for what he gave to those around him. His honesty, strength, courage, and understanding are qualities that brightened the days and lives of those he worked with and loved. Though he was a busy man, he took the time to counsel those who suffered from cancer. Randy used his own experiences combatting the disease to help ease the pain of others. He changed the lives of everyone he knew. And now we are living monuments to his life. We will carry the memory of this great man with us in our hearts and in our minds always. There is no remedy for the pain we feel when we lose a friend in the prime of his life. We search for meaning in such events, and pray that God has some higher purpose. I do not claim to know the answer to such questions. But I do know that Randy made the very most of every day of his life. And to me, that is the greatest achievement one can claim. Sadly, Randy leaves behind a young family, his wife Mary Ann and his daughter Brynn. They should be very proud of the life Randy lived. He will be sorely missed. Thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, like so many Americans, I have watched with horror and anger the news accounts of the senseless act of violence in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia which has claimed the lives of 19 of our Nation's best and brightest young men and women and shattered the lives of so many others. Across the Nation and in my own State of Montana we all feel the impact of this tragedy. Great Falls, MT, is the home of Malmstrom Air Force Base and the 341st Missile Wing. Twenty-three dedicated members of the 341st Missile Wing were deployed at King Abdul Aziz Air Force Base the night of the bombing and 5 soldiers were injured in the blast. Fortunately, we have now learned that their injuries are not serious. I know all Montanans join me in offering our best wishes for a full recovery to Capt. Stephen Goff, A1c Daniel D. Hazell, AB Christopher T. Wagar, A1c Dennis A. Kuritz, and A1c Roger K. Kaalekahi IV. T.Sgt. James Rangitsch, originally of Billings, MT, was also injured in the blast and our best wishes go out to him and his family as well as his mother Dorothy Rangitsch, also of Billings. We have all felt the pain of this horrible tragedy. The thoughts and prayers of all Montanans and all Americans are with the families of those who have lost their lives and those who are now burdened by injury. For those young men and women who have been taken from us too soon, we must resolve that these senseless acts of terror will not go unpunished and the perpetrators of the bombing in Dhahran will be brought to justice.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the important campaign finance reform legislation that is before us today. I support this legislation because I believe it represents the right kind of change. While not a perfect solution, it will help put our political process back where it belongs: with the people. And it will take power away from the wealthy special interests that all too often call the shots in our political system. Yet, ironically, by failing to act; by failing to pass this legislation; we will also be opening the door to change--the wrong kind of change. Our political system will continue to drift in the dangerous direction of special interest. Over the years since 1971, when Congress last enacted campaign finance reform, special interest groups supporting both political parties have found creative new ways, some of questionable legality, to get around the intent of our campaign finance laws. Things like soft money, independent expenditures, and political action committees all came about as a consequence of very well-intended attempts at campaign finance reform. Need for Reform This is an arcane subject, but it hits home. One of the benefits to walking across Montana, in addition to the beautiful scenery, is that I hear what real people in Montana think. Average folks who do not get paid to fly to Washington and tell elected officials what they think. Folks who work hard, play by the rules, and are still struggling to get by. People are becoming more and more cynical about government. Over and over, people tell me they think that Congress cares more about fat cat special interests in Washington than the concerns of middle class families like theirs, or that Congress is corrupt. Effect on the Middle Class Middle-class families are working longer and harder for less. They have seen jobs go overseas. Health care expenses rise. The possibility of a college education for their kids diminished. Their hope for a secure retirement evaporate. Today, many believe that to make the American dream a reality, you have to be born rich or win the lottery. Part of restoring that dream is restoring confidence that the political system works on their behalf, not just on behalf of wealthy special interests. I believe that this Congress has taken some small but important steps in that direction: First, we passed a tough, fair gift ban to ensure that special interests are not out wining and dining Members of Congress and executive branch officials. Helping to reassure folks that individuals in Government, whether you agree with their policies or not, are acting in what they sincerely believe is the country's best interest. I am proud to say that my office has taken this one step further--and instituted a tougher than required gift ban--months before the Congress voted. Second, we passed a comprehensive lobbying disclosure bill-- eliminating the cloak of secrecy which lobbyists once operated under, by requiring greater disclosure of lobbying activities by both the individuals conducting and contracting the lobbying. Now it is time for us to take the real step to win-back the public trust--it is time for us to pass a tough, fair, and comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. That bill must accomplish three things. First, it must be strong enough to encourage the majority if not all candidates for Federal office to participate. Second, it must contain the spiraling cost of campaign spending in this country. Finally, and most importantly, it must control the increasing amounts of undisclosed and unreported soft-money that is polluting our electoral system.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend to the Senate some valiant individuals who demonstrated courage, patience, and understanding while working to end the standoff between the Government and the so-called Freemen. We in Montana are not accustomed to the national spotlight. We are content to mind our own business. But we have received a great deal of publicity the last 2\1/2\ months for the standoff of the so-called Freemen. The standoff took a long time, and was never without a serious threat of danger. Everyone involved with bringing these fugitives to justice deserves our respect. First off, I would like to applaud two individuals who dealt with the situation years before the national media took an interest in the Freemen. Charles Phipps, Garfield County sheriff, and Nick Murnion, Garfield County attorney, had to endure death threats, imminent peril and, finally, intense media scrutiny. Through it all, they handled themselves and their jobs with calm rational professionalism and great courage. I would also like to thank several Federal officials who were instrumental in bringing this confrontation to a peaceful resolution. Sherry Matteucci, U.S. attorney and Jim Seykora, assistant U.S. attorney. And working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation were: Weldon Kennedy, Robert Bryant, Robert Blitzer, Thomas Kubic, Robin Montgomery, James Cleaver and Thomas Canady. These people's dedicated service can best be seen in the final peaceful resolution of the conflict. Their work on this case is a textbook example of how to get the job done right. I salute these individuals who gave and risked a lot to see that the Freemen were brought to justice without the loss of life. And finally, I would like to thank the people who have been patient for over 2 years. They have exhibited a shining example to the rest of the country, and they welcomed the influx of law enforcement officials with open arms. These people are the residents of Jordan, MT, and the surrounding area. They are regular Montanans. I had the chance to visit with many of them. They were not particularly happy about all the fuss they were getting, but they knew that it would eventually pass. Without their patience and resolve, we could not be enjoying the results that we do today. Now that the standoff is over, life in eastern Montana will return pretty much to normal. Folks can go back to the lives they have come to miss over the past few months. But as we do so, it is important that we learn from this experience. And due to the efforts of the individuals I named, my State, our country, is a little better and a little wiser.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my very good friend. We simply have heard no good reason why Don Molloy should not be on the calendar. It is with great reluctance that I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, with some bemusement, I listen to my good friend from Mississippi. When a vacancy occurred in Montana for a Federal district court judge, I saw this as an opportunity to find the best person in the State of Montana for this position. This is one power, one thing that a U.S. Senator can do--that is, to recommend to the President of the United States who the President might, in turn, nominate to a Federal district court judgeship. I took this very, very seriously. I sat down and surveyed the State of Montana to determine who I regarded as the best, the brightest, the most thoughtful persons--Republicans and Democrats, just good thoughtful people--and put together a nominee commission. I called each of them up personally--six, seven, or eight of the best Montana minds and the most thoughtful persons in the State of Montana, Republicans and Democrats--and asked if they would serve. They all said they would love to. I said to each of them, ``I would like you to nominate or recommend to me the best people in our State.'' I said precisely, ``I am not carrying water for any Republicans, any Democrats, liberals or conservatives; it makes no difference. I want the best.'' My commission, my group, then nominated three different people whom they regarded as the best people in Montana to serve in this position as a Federal district court judge. I then sat down with each of the three, interviewed each of the three for hours. I then called my group again and asked their opinions. I talked to all the Federal judges in Montana, all the State district court judges in Montana, and I asked their views. I can tell you that Don Molloy is the top choice in the State of Montana for this position--by Republicans and by Democrats. There is just no denying that. I say, in addition, to my good friend from Mississippi, that they need to have this position filled. That is because there is going to be a backlog in our State in the Federal district courts. Why? Basically, because of the unfortunate problems with the alleged Unabomber in Montana, and the Freemen are causing all kinds of problems in our State, which is putting an additional pressure on the law enforcement personnel in our State. Many of those actions will be in Federal district court. So I ask my good friend from Mississippi why Don Molloy's name cannot be added to the list of four. I am personally not pleading for all 17 on the calendar. But I make a very reasonable suggestion to add one more to the list of four--that is, Don Molloy. I have heard no substantive objection. I have heard no objection to him. He passed the committee. I believe that these nominees, to avoid this deadlock, probably should be brought up on the floor one by one and let Senators speak in favor or against the nominees. Let them stand up and say what they think. Let them vote the way they want to vote. I might say to my very good friend from Mississippi that my colleague, Senator Burns, a Republican from the State of Montana, supports this nominee. He supports this nominee. If you have bipartisan support for our nominee, Don Molloy, I see no reason why he should not be added to that list of four.

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I ask the acting leader about another nominee that was considered before the Senate Judiciary Committee, reported out favorably, I believe the date was April 25, and has been on the calendar for some time now, and who is strongly supported by the people of Montana and for whom I have heard no objection, no substantive objection whatever. His name is Don Molloy. Might I ask if Don Molloy might be added to that list and included in the acting leader's request? I say that in part, Mr. President, because there have been no judges confirmed in this session of Congress--none. I might say that many judges were referred by a Democratic-controlled Senate in years when there were Republican Presidents. I might say, for example, in 1992, this Senate confirmed 66 district and circuit court judges. I might add, none has been brought up or passed by this body in this session of this Congress. In 1988, the Senate confirmed 42 district circuit judges for President Reagan. I could go on down the list. I will not take the Senate's time. As the Senator from Mississippi said, there are now 17 judges on the calendar, far short of the 66 and 42 that were passed in previous years. This is already June. I do not know how many more days this Senate will be in session this year. I ask, basically, why not all the 17 that are on the calendar? There is no reason why they should not be added. Specifically, I inquire about Don Molloy, who has been nominated by the President and has been reported out favorably by the Judiciary Committee, has been on the calendar, for, gosh, over a month, why his name cannot also be added to that list.

Mr. BAUCUS. I can help the Senator move one more right now. That is my suggestion. That is helping the leader. He can move one more.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Senators Roth, Moynihan, and Chafee and I will soon introduce a bill to solve a small but serious problem that has plagued our trade policy for years--the fact that most favored nation or MFN status does not mean what it says. Let me offer an analogy that may illuminate the difficulties this creates. In Greek myth, the gods punish King Sisyphus of Corinth, for various sins and repeated attempts to cheat death, by making him push a heavy stone up a hill for eternity. Each time he gets to the top, it rolls back down and he has to start again. Our experience with MFN tariff status is somewhat similar. Each year, we have to convince the public that MFN status does not really mean ``most favored nation'' status, but simply the same tariff rate that applies to most countries. This year is a good example. We will soon debate the President's decision to renew MFN status for China. We will soon, I hope, pass bills to grant Bulgaria and Cambodia permanent MFN status. And we may also take up a bill to grant permanent MFN status to Romania. Obviously, logic tells us that these countries cannot all be America's favorite country at one time. And sound diplomatic practice would avoid ranking any single country as our favorite. Yet we can excuse the millions of Americans who do not follow the arcana of trade laws and agreements if they conclude that, somehow, Congress is attempting to anoint Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, and Romania as our favorite country all in the very same year. The truth is, of course, that we are attempting no such thing. MFN is the normal tariff status we in the United States apply to most of our trading partners. Under the Uruguay Round, it is a tariff level averaging around 4.5 percent. Often, in fact, tariffs fall well below this MFN rate because of free trade agreements and special arrangements with developing countries. So MFN is not even the best available tariff rate. It has nothing to do with favoritism. Yet to this day, many people oppose MFN status for China because they believe it is a kind of special favor. The term is simply misleading and wrong. And it is extremely frustrating to explain it each year, only to have to start explaining it again a few months later. It is a longstanding, needless complication in our trade policy. This year, we could push the metaphorical MFN stone up the hill once again and hope that, this time, it stays at the top. But unlike Sisyphus, we have another choice. We can just push the stone into a lake and get rid of the problem for good. That is what our bill will do. It will delete the term ``most favored nation status'' from our trade laws, and replace it with ``normal trade relations.'' That will not change our tariff and trade policies in any way. But it will bring our terminology in line with reality. Thus, it will make our policies more comphensive to the public and avoid needless arguments. It is good common sense, and I hope it will get the Senate's support.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the question of most- favored-nation tariff status for China. Our goals in China policy over the next 10 years are more important than our goals for the next 2 months. But we must begin with the next 2 months and MFN status, because we can not do much at all unless we avoid disaster in the short term. We Americans should begin by understanding what MFN status is, and what it is not. MFN is not a special favor and it does not mean ``best country.'' It traditionally meant that we would give a country the same tariff rates everyone else got. But today, MFN is closer to ``Least'' than ``Most'' favored nation. Only seven countries--Afghanistan, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia lack MFN status. And the House, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, has already passed a bill to get Cambodia off that list. By contrast, 31 countries get tariffs below MFN through the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the Andean Trade Preference Act, the NAFTA, and the United States-Israel Free-Trade Agreement. And when we renew the Generalized System of Preferences, the total will rise to 151 countries and territories with tariffs below MFN. So giving China MFN status is nothing special. Now look at revoking MFN. It raises tariffs from Uruguay Round to Smoot-Hawley rates. That brings our average tariff on Chinese goods from 4.6 to 40 percent. To choose some of China's largest exports, Smoot-Hawley tariffs raise the duty on silk blouses tenfold, from 6.5 to 65 percent. On radio-tape players, from 1 to 35 percent. On toys and stuffed animals, zero to 70 percent. This would make trade with China impossible. China would lose about $44 billion of exports, nearly a third of its total sales to the world. China's inevitable retaliation would cost us $14 billion in direct exports, plus much of our $17 billion in exports to Hong Kong. The consequences would be staggering. China would suffer a humanitarian crisis, as millions of workers in coastal export factories lose their jobs overnight. That is why the dissident Wei Jingsheng hopes we will not revoke MFN status, and says that ``the direct victims of such measures are the already poverty-stricken Chinese people.'' They would not be the only victims. The damage to Hong Kong would be tremendous. The United States would lose hundreds of thousands of export jobs. Retailers and the millions of people they employ would suffer a massive disruption of toy and apparel imports just as they are buying stocks for the Christmas season. And although MFN is a trade policy, the malign effect of revoking it would go far beyond trade and jobs. It is hard to see how we could continue working with China in areas of mutual interest. And the consequences in politics and security--from our ability to manage the nuclear aspirations of North Korea, to preventing weapons proliferation in the Middle East, to the U.N. Security Council and beyond--would be immense. That brings us to the larger and more important question--what we hope to achieve in China policy generally. And again, start with the facts. China is the world's most populous country. It has nuclear weapons and the world's largest army. It is a major industrial contributor to global climate change and pollution of the oceans. And it is the world's fastest growing major economy. So in the coming decades, China will have significant effect, for good or for ill, on economic, environmental and political developments in Asia and around the world. If China is hostile--or, short of outright hostility, refuses to recognize the standards of behavior most countries accept, and approaches the world with an angry nationalism--hopes for peace and prosperity recede. And as the first half of this century showed, a weak, poor, and fragmented China is equally dangerous. It becomes a source of revolution. It sends refugees across the world. And it attracts the greed and aggression of its neighbors, as it did Bolshevik Russia and Imperial Japan. So we should do what we can to avoid either extreme. That is a difficult foreign policy problem which requires patient, continuous engagement. We should work with China wherever possible. And issues from environmental protection, to adoption of Chinese orphans, to security in Korea show that it is often possible. We also have disputes with China, on intellectual property protection, treatment of dissidents, and weapons sales. And we must address these disputes in a calm but serious way. The U.S.TR's announcement of sanctions for violations of the 1995 Intellectual Property Agreement today is a good example. But whether we are talking about mutual interests, or disputes, there is really only one way to succeed. That is by staying engaged and remembering our long-term goal of a world a bit more peaceful and more prosperous. Barring a cataclysmic event that makes engagement impossible--an unprovoked attack on Taiwan, for example--revoking or conditioning MFN will not help achieve that goal. Rather the reverse, to put it mildly. And if such an event were to occur, a policy based on MFN would be far too weak. In fact, there is no situation to which revoking MFN status would be the appropriate response. And thus, after 6 years, it is time to end the debate. It has become simply an artificial, annual crisis at a time when we have all too many real ones. So this year, the administration should show strength and confidence in its basically sound policy. We should not revoke MFN status. We should not try a split-the-baby half measure like revoking MFN for state-owned industry or bringing China back to Tokyo round tariffs. Nor should we use new conditions to postpone the decision a few months or a year. We should just leave MFN alone. And next year, we should move on. It is time to bring China out of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, extend MFN permanently, and close this debate for good.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Presiding Officer, my colleague from Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. It has come to my attention that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been instructed to achieve close to $1 billion in savings that are not highlighted as part of the mandatory assumptions section of the environment and natural resources function of the committee report on the budget resolution. Can the Senator from Nebraska confirm that this is true?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Sense of the Senate amendment of my colleague from Arizona notes that the current tax system is overly complex and burdensome and that action must be taken to produce a tax system that is fairer, flatter and simpler. I couldn't agree more and I look forward to working with him and the rest of my colleagues to reform a tax system that is badly in need of repair. I was unable however, Mr. President, to vote for Senator Kyl's amendment because of the provision requiring a supermajority vote to raise taxes. Ironically, I believe this proposal could impeded meaningful tax reform. It could have the effect of locking in existing loopholes unless those of us who want real tax reform could muster a supermajority. Congress may ultimately determine that in fact more than a simple majority of its members should be required to increase taxes. However, a number of questions need to be addressed before we take such action. What is a supermajority? Two thirds of the members, or perhaps three- fourths? Can the supermajority requirement be waived in the event of a national emergency? How would we define a national emergency? And how do we define what it means to ``raise'' taxes? Does closing a corporate loophole--which would increase the taxes paid by the companies benefitting from the loophole--require a supermajority? If it does, Congress will be hard pressed to close corporate loopholes. I do agree with the language in my distinguished colleague's amendment calling for tax reform, and I may agree in time with the need for a ``supermajority'' before taxes can be ``raised,'' but cannot at this time vote for his amendment calling for that supermajority.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I voted for the amendment of my colleague from Minnesota because I support providing a tax deduction to parents to help defray the costs of a higher education for their kids. Senator Wellstone's amendment would also permit taxpayers who pursue additional education to deduct all or a portion of the related costs. This is important for taxpayers who lose their job and need additional skills to get reemployed or who want to advance to a higher paying job. In fact, Mr. President, I introduced S. 1312 earlier this year to provide a $5,000 deduction for higher education costs. I do have one concern with Senator Wellstone's amendment. The only tax cuts permitted under its language are a child tax credit and the deduction for higher education costs. There are a number of other tax cuts that merit consideration Mr. President, and I hope we can get to them this year. For example, an increase in section 179 expensing for small businesses, expansion of IRA's to encourage savings, and estate and gift tax relief for family-owned businesses. I look forward to working with my distinguished colleague from Minnesota on the child tax credit and the higher education deduction as well as a number of other tax cuts that will benefit taxpayers in Minnesota and Montana as well as the entire Nation. kyl amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes

Mr. BAUCUS. Since this is indeed the case, I wonder why our friends on the Republican side were not willing to highlight their proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge as the leading assumption in their report, given the fact that it accounts for 75 percent of the savings for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of Senator Exon, is it fair for me to assume that in order for the Energy and Natural Resource Committee to meet its reconciliation instructions this year, the Republican majority is planning to include drilling in ANWR?

Mr. BAUCUS. It also has come to my attention that the latest CBO savings estimate for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] for oil drilling is just under $1 billion. Does the Senator from Nebraska find it odd that there is no mention of ANWR in this year's budget resolution?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the Budget Committee on the issue of ANWR?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware. As my colleagues will recall, I offered a similar amendment last year on the budget resolution. Unfortunately, we lost by one vote. I have been pressing the concept of a dedicated revenue source for Amtrak for quite some time now and I welcome the opportunity to voice this support again. Mr. President, the resolution before us is a sense of the Senate resolution that Congress should provide Amtrak with the revenue from one-half penny of the Federal gas tax that is now directed to mass transit. This revenue will provide Amtrak with a steady, dedicated revenue source. This is very important if Amtrak is to be able to make long- term planning decisions that will enable it to become financially viable in the future. Amtrak is a key component of this Nation's transportation system. In my home State of Montana, many residents rely on Amtrak's service to travel to and from the State. Amtrak means jobs. It means increased tourism. And it means increased access and mobility for Montanans. And for any of you who have ever traveled on the Empire Builder through the northern tier of my State, you know the tremendous beauty along the Montana hi-line. Some will argue that redirecting the one-half penny from mass transit to Amtrak will adversely affect mass transit programs. That is simply not true. There is an over $5.4 billion cash surplus in excess of obligations in the mass transit account. That is more than enough to fund mass transit programs for the foreseeable future. Mr. President, rural transportation programs seem to be constantly under attack. Rural areas are struggling. We continue to see a decline in rural transportation options--funding for rural air service, rural transit and highway programs is declining. This amendment is one small step forward in turning back this trend.