Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield again, please?

Mr. ROBERTS. The home health care agencies in my State, as I have indicated, also complain about their exacerbating financial problems. That is a very fancy word to say it has been made a whole lot worse by a host of the new regulatory requirements imposed by HCFA, including the implementation of another marvelous acronym called OASIS. The thought occurs to me, if there is an ``oasis'' that is proposed by HCFA--we all remember the ``Survivor'' show that was so popular--there would be no survivors in regards to this OASIS, I can tell you. OASIS stands for the new outcome and assessment information data set--new outcome and assessment information data set--new requirements for surety bonds, new requirements for sequential billing, new requirements for overpayment recoupment, new requirements on a 15- minute reporting requirement. And all of this adds up. I just concluded a 40-county tour in my State. I will go on another 65-county tour. At every stop was a hospital administrator. They said: I don't know who reads this stuff. I think they must weigh it somewhere in Kansas City--which is the regional center. I am not trying to deprive from the purpose and the intent and responsibility that HHS and HCFA and OASIS have here, but it just seems to me that just about the time you have one requirement promulgated-- there is another fancy word--then it is changed, and it is changed overnight. This is the kind of thing that a small rural hospital, or any hospital, just cannot put up with, with that very tight margin. We are down to the morrow of the bone. Naturally, we are going to put in some money in regards to Medicare reimbursement, but this regulatory overkill is something that just has to stop.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. The same complaints are made in Kansas. The same complaints are made throughout the country. The home health care agencies in my State--in fact, since January of about 2 years ago, 68 Medicare-certified agencies in Kansas have closed their doors, more than a 25-percent drop, more than a quarter drop. These were not the ``fly-by-night'' agencies that some in the Federal Government and others in regards to various inspections--and you have talked about that we have heard about so much--many of these agencies had been in existence for 20 years. The latest numbers from HCFA show that the total home health care visits are down by over 45 percent--almost half. The losers of this situation are not just numbers. It is just not accounting in regards to, say, HCFA. These are our Nation's seniors; in particular, those who are really sick. We are talking about the Medicare patients who are suffering through complex and chronic care needs who are already experiencing a lot of difficulty in the home care services they need. So the same thing is true in Kansas as the Senator has pointed out in Maine. I, obviously, think it is true in every State.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. First off, I thank the Senator so much for taking this time to draw attention to a very serious problem. I know the Senator from Maine is experiencing the same thing I am experiencing in Kansas and all Senators are experiencing when they go back home. Every hospital board--beleagured hospital boards--every hospital administrator, all of the rural health care delivery system--it is not only applicable to rural areas but all over--have been questioning me and our colleagues about when are we going to do something with regard to the Medicare reimbursement. The Senator has indicated--I underlined it in the Senator's remarks: It is also critical that Congress take action this year to address some of the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. . . . We should have done it this spring. The Senator from Maine and I talked about it. We should have done it last year. We did certainly provide that assistance. I wish we could have done that earlier. We are going to do that. Then the Senator also said: . . . [and also some problems] which have been exacerbated by a host of ill-conceived regulatory requirements imposed by the Clinton administration-- And the folks at HCFA. That is a marvelous acronym, HCFA. I will tell you what, if that is not a four-letter word in the minds and eyes of people who have to provide health care services throughout our country, I do not know what is. Asking HCFA for help, if you are a hospital board or a hospital administrator, is like asking the Boston strangler for a neck massage. It just does not work. My question is this: as I recall, there was strong bipartisan support for these provisions, but haven't they produced cuts in home health care spending far beyond what Congress ever intended? It is my understanding--and I want people to understand this--home health care spending dropped $9.7 billion in fiscal year 1999, just about half of the 1997 amount; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Maine yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we do agree. As a proposed cure for lagging judicial salaries, my colleague and friend, the vice chairman of the committee, and I believe that this is not the proper step. It would set a dangerous precedent in regards to the Congress of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, my good friend, for his very kind remarks in reference to my service on the Ethics Committee. I repeat the same basic substance of what he said on his behalf as well. It is a thankless and tireless but a very important job. I thank him for his comments. As chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, we obviously and naturally have discussed this. So I know the strength of his views on this matter as well. Not only do I think this would be a very dramatic step backwards for us in terms of the public's perception of integrity of its Government, but I think it would be terribly unfair to the most conscientious Judges and Justices. Because a Judge's income from honoraria would depend on how often appearances and speeches were made, those who dedicate the most time and attention to their job as a judge would end up benefiting the least. As I have indicated before, if we have a problem--and I think we do-- regarding salaries for Judges, we ought to address the problem in that way. I yield to my friend.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Reid and I would like to offer a few observations at this point. I thank my colleagues for allowing us to proceed before them regarding the general order. We want to offer a few observations with respect to what I understand is a proposal to remove Federal Judges and Justices from the prohibition on honoraria, a proposal that would also remove the honoraria from the limitation on outside earned income. I strongly oppose that effort. This seems manifestly a very wrong approach to what may be a very real problem. The alternative offered in this proposal of having the Nation's most esteemed jurists turn to the lecture circuit to supplement their salary, I believe, is simply unacceptable. The cost, it seems to me, would be too high. It would be measured in the further loss of confidence in the integrity of this Government's officials. Congress took an important step in trying to restore public confidence in the institutions of Government when it enacted the honoraria ban as part of the ethics reform package way back in 1989. I remember the discussion of it and the debate well in the House of Representatives, as I served in the House at that time. We should not backtrack on that effort. If our Federal Judges and Justices need a pay raise, then by all means let's provide for one, but let's not retreat to the discredited practices of the past.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on these bills at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Today, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators Graham and Thomas in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4444, the China PNTR legislation. Under the order, there are 6 hours of final debate on the China trade bill with a vote scheduled to occur at 2:15 on Tuesday. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to S. 2045, the H-1B visa bill on Friday. That cloture vote has been scheduled to occur immediately following the vote on final passage of the China PNTR legislation. Therefore, the first votes of this week will be two back- to-back votes on Tuesday, at 2:15 p.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am going to be speaking on the PNTR issue. From the time allotted, I yield myself 15 minutes. The pending business is the Byrd amendment, but I was intensely interested in the comments and remarks by my good friend and colleague, Senator Thompson. I thought now would be an appropriate time to urge my colleagues to oppose the China nonproliferation act--that is how the act is described--offered as an amendment to the legislation. But, again, I want to point out to my good friend and distinguished colleague from Tennessee that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, I speak with at least some understanding on this very serious subject of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fact is the distinguished majority leader has appointed Senator Bob Bennett to be on the task force, as well as Senator Thompson, myself, Senator Kyl, and Senator Gregg on this very issue. More especially, in regard to the threat of terrorism, which is a very serious threat, among its many duties the Emerging Threat Subcommittee is responsible for congressional oversight of programs called the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs. They annually authorize the use of Defense Department funds--the fact is we are right in the middle of the defense authorization bill--to assist with the safe and secure transportation, storage, and dismantlement of nuclear, chemical, and other weapons of the former Soviet Union. We would hope we could do similar activities with the other nations concerned more specifically mentioned by my distinguished colleague. In that enterprise, I have spent countless hours in committee methodically and hopefully meticulously debating these issues. This is a very important issue to me. As the Senator pointed out, our first obligation is our national security. Our first obligation as Senators is to do what we can to safeguard our national security. There is no question about that. As the distinguished Senator and, I guess, all of my colleagues, I have very serious concerns about China. I have no illusions about China. They are spreading, as he has indicated, weapons of mass destruction technology all around the world, more specifically to nations of concern. But I don't think this is the reason to erect what we call trade barriers, which is exactly what I think this amendment will do. Quite the opposite. It seems to me we should really reject this amendment because trade, on the other hand, has a stabilizing effect on international relations. The more that two nations trade and invest in regard to the economics of both countries and each other, the less likely it is that they will engage in any kind of military conflict. Let me spend a few moments explaining to my colleagues why I think this amendment, which requires the President to once again impose sanctions on China, would be counterproductive. First, again, I don't know how many times we have to say this on the floor. I have had the privilege of being in public service in the other body since 1980, and, as a matter of fact, I was working as a staff member 10 or 12 years prior to that time. In speech after speech after speech, primarily involved with agriculture, we have tried to point out that unilateral sanctions simply don't work as a foreign policy tool. Study after study by respected foreign policy experts and economists, academics, not to mention the farmer who has gone through this I don't know how many times, all agree that unilateral sanctions are overused; that they are ineffective and counterproductive. I know that they send a message. I know from the intervention standpoint the sanctions we have on approximately 71 countries around the world send a very strong perception. We have them on almost virtually everything that we are worried about. But unilateral sanctions do little to change the behavior of the offending country. Yet they put American businesses and American workers and farmers at a huge competitive disadvantage. I remember so well the 1980 embargo by President Carter. The Russians had invaded Afghanistan--something we all disagreed with without question and viewed as a great tragedy. I remember that the United States canceled the Olympics. At that time, President Carter said no more grain sales to Russia. Not one Russian troop left Afghanistan. And, yet, in terms of contract sanctity and our trade policy, our export policy was like shattered glass. I tell you who paid the price. It wasn't Russia. The fact is they were becoming more dependent on our food supply, and the Russian people were demanding more in that regard because of a higher protein diet. It was the Kansas wheat farmer and farmers all over this country. Our export policy suffered for years afterwards. It took us 2 years after that to get any contract sanctity. The price of wheat at the country elevator in Dodge City, KS, went from $5 down to about $2. Boy, did we feel good, except that Vietnam veteran who went out there to harvest his field and who had a good crop all of a sudden found it diminished in value and price. He was wondering and scratching his head: Wait a minute, these sanctions are not helping quite the way I thought they would. I am saying again that sanctions simply don't work as a foreign policy tool. Unilateral sanctions are often used as an easy substitute for the harder work of finding more effective and long-term responses to foreign policy problems. They create the false impression that these problems have been solved. We need to take, it seems to me, a harder look at alternatives such as multilateral pressure and more effective U.S. diplomacy. The Senator from Tennessee indicated what time we had in regard to multilateral pressure in regard to China. He makes one excellent point: We have not been successful to the degree that we should have been. More effective U.S. diplomacy. Let's see, 18 months ago, or 2 years ago, we were going ahead with this trade agreement. We worked on it for years. All of a sudden, it was pulled back. Then we got into a conflict in regard to Kosovo. We had the unfortunate incident of the Belgrade bombing. I am going to be very frank. This is after about six times of drawing lines in the sand in regard to Bosnia and Kosovo, the Balkans, and the former Yugoslavia. It seems to me that our word in regard to standing firm with what we would do in reference to foreign policy objectives would go a long way in convincing the Chinese, more especially the hard liners and the Communists in that country, that we mean what we say. It seems to me that a clear and rational and defined foreign policy of the United States where we define precisely what our U.S. vital national security interests are and make that very clear to the Chinese would go a long way to helping this matter rather than sanctions. Let me point out that unilateral economic sanctions almost never help the people we want to help and almost always fail to bring about the actions that we seek to promote. By acting alone, America only ensures that its responses are ineffective since the target country can always circumvent a U.S. unilateral sanction by working with one of our competitors. That certainly will be the case and would be the case with regard to China. Unilateral sanctions should be one of the last tools out of America's foreign policy toolbox--not the first. Second, the China nonproliferation act requires the mandatory--I have it in caps, in a higher type case here, to underline it--imposition of sanctions rather than allowing the President the discretion in determining whether sanctions or some other response will promote our U.S. goal. The measure requires the imposition of the full complement of U.S. sanctions for even minor infractions instead of mandating a predetermined one-size-fits-all response. It seems to me that history and prudence tells us that the President's hands should not be tied. Flexibility is a must when dealing with sensitive foreign policy issues. The thought occurs to me that if we are unhappy about the President not using all the venues, all of the opportunities, and all of the various means at his disposal to send strong messages to China in regard to this specific issue, we might want to quarrel with the policies and the recommendations and the actions of the President--not impose more unilateral mandatory sanctions that, quite frankly, might be followed up by more wrong-headed policy decisions, say, by the Executive. First, this amendment is redundant. A substantial body of law already exists in regard to governing the real proliferation of weapons. The President already has authority to adequately respond and report to the Congress on this issue, on this concern, which is real, about China and other nations. Examples include the Arms Export Control Act. I know the criticism will be; we haven't done that. Let's get back to the people who are implementing the policy. It is certainly not the alternative that is there. Second, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Third, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. All those are on the books. Fourth, the Export Administration Act. Fifth, the Export-Import Bank Act. And many others too numerous to list. You can go on and on. Let's utilize and enforce the laws already on the books instead of hastily creating new statutes without properly studying the issue in the committee process, although, the Senator from Tennessee has spent many long hours on this subject area. I truly appreciate that. Finally, it seems to me we must defeat this amendment because of the obvious: Its success will kill the effort to achieve trade concessions with China. It will kill the PNTR. My former House colleagues have assured me. I know it is easy to say let's pass it and see. In my view, in talking with people on both sides of the aisle on this issue, from the Speaker to the rank-and-file Members of the House, this is a killer amendment. I also know the Senator from Tennessee has tried for a free-standing amendment. I understand that. That is a different matter. But tied to this particular effort, it represents the death of I don't know how many years of work in regard to PNTR. I think Senators must understand a vote for this amendment, or any amendment, serves ultimately as a vote against PNTR. It will be a tough vote for many of my colleagues simply because, as the Senator has pointed out, that is our first obligation. That is why we are here. It is such a serious issue. I am much more discouraged by the thought of explaining to the American people why we failed to rise to the occasion and remain economically and diplomatically engaged with one-fifth of the world's population. I think that course of action would help us in regard to our national security. I took some notes while I had the privilege of being the acting Presiding Officer, and perhaps this will be a little redundant. Hopefully, it will be helpful. Senator Thompson said the reason he has introduced the amendment, he has told all of us--especially those privileged to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senate Armed Services Committee, bipartisan commission, and virtually all Members of the intelligence community--that we have a problem here in regard to the real, certain spread of weapons of mass destruction and selling these weapons to rogue nations. We don't call them rogue nations anymore; we call them nations of concern. I am not too sure what the difference is. We all know who they are. The Senator from Tennessee is exactly right. He says the problem is getting worse. He refers to Pakistan and says, What do we do about it? Then he says the Chinese have violated virtually all the agreements we have entered into with them prior to this date. I am not sure they have violated each and every one, but obviously we have not reached the progress we would like to reach with the Chinese. He says, How on Earth can we claim the need for a national missile defense when these adversaries are causing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Excellent point. Then he indicated that he could read a considerable amount of the intelligence reports--the itemized situation there in regard to the nations of concern and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. That is true. But my question is, How can killing trade answer that challenge? How can killing this bill answer that challenge from a practical standpoint? With our competitors all over the world and the concessions we have arranged for in this trade bill, how can taking those sales away from American businesses, American farmers, and American ranchers help this situation? I don't understand that. I understand the means, but I don't understand the end. If nothing else happens, China will become a member of the WTO and one- fifth of the world's population will be a market to all the rest of the population, except the United States, and our competitors will take those markets. Kansas sales will not go to China; they will go to our competitors. I don't understand how that affects the Chinese decision in regard to these matters of grave national concern. Will the Chinese change their military policy? I doubt it. I have no illusions. I share the Senator's concerns about Taiwan. I have been to Taiwan several times. I share the concern in regard to human rights. I share the concern, as I have indicated, about the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I sit on those subcommittees. I am worried about the espionage. I worried a great deal 2 years ago when the distinguished Senator from Tennessee led the effort to have a little transparency, to shine the light of truth into darkness in regard to the campaign contribution violations involving China. He was stymied in that effort--we won't go into that--and tried very hard to reach a logical conclusion. The Senator mentioned it is our primary obligation in regard to national security. I agree. But it seems to me, again, a partial answer is a clear foreign policy. I am very hopeful with a change of administration we can achieve that, so that the Chinese fully understand what is acceptable and what isn't in regard to our national interests. It is not only China; it is all nations of concern. As a matter of fact, this administration has already announced we have exempted food and medicine sanctions in reference to all these nations of concern. They have not gone ahead and said that we can compete with our competitors and use our export credit programs, which is another step. Right now, with Iran we are trying to work this out as best we can. Obviously, we have a lot of concerns about the nation of Iran. So it involves all of the nations. The same thing with Cuba. You can make the same argument with Cuba, except obviously Cuba today does not pose a national security threat. We hear the same arguments with regard to sanctions. Trade is not a productive way to achieve foreign and military policy goals. I mentioned the Carter embargo. I will not go back over that. The issue is in regard to all of the reports. Send strong signals. We should be willing to take a strong stand. We should be able to draw a line in the sand and have reasonable policy discussions with the Chinese. If we don't have that kind of engagement with the current leadership in regard to trade, to whom does it turn over the decisionmaking? Who gains ascendancy if we kill PNTR? I will tell you who it is: It is the two generals who wrote the book on how they can gain supremacy with the United States by the year 2020. I haven't read all the book, but I read a portion of it. It is a chilling book. Equal superpower status with the United States. I think they probably wrote the last chapter after we were involved in the bombing of the embassy in Belgrade because they worry about NATO going outside of its boundaries and taking action like this. I think that crosses the T's and dots the I's. I am not saying that was a one-for-one cause, but I think that certainly was the case. If we don't remain engaged with trade, it will turn that decisionmaking over to those very people. Let's say we pass the Thompson amendment, the House doesn't take the bill up, and PNTR is dead. We sure showed them. We showed them. Basically, the Chinese hardliners will gain ascendancy, the Chinese will buy some Ericsson cell phones, and the Chinese will buy French wheat and the Airbus aircraft. The President will still have the options he should be using right now to convince the Chinese we ought to be making progress on this, but we won't be trading with Chinese. It seems to me that is the question. I thank Senator Thompson for making this such an issue of concern and having what I think has been excellent dialog and debate. I share his concern about the national security risk this poses. I do think this is the wrong way to get it done. I think this is a killer amendment. It is as simple as that. We have come far too far in our efforts to engage the Chinese with trade and, yes, with a serious national policy dialog with regard to our national security, to go down this road. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on the China PNTR legislation. Under the order, Senator Byrd will debate his amendment in regard to subsidies for 1 hour. Following the debate on the Byrd amendment, Senator Thompson will be recognized to offer his China nonproliferation amendment. Further amendments may be offered during today's session, however, any votes during today's session ordered with respect to those amendments will be scheduled to occur at 9:30 in the morning on Tuesday. It is hoped that the Senate can complete action on this important trade bill as early as possible so that the Senate may begin consideration of those appropriations bills still available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. President, I understand the pending amendment is that of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. My remarks are not to that amendment, or at least the first part of my remarks, but more general in nature on the entire debate in reference to PNTR. I believe that the issue before us--whether or not to improve what is called the permanent normal trade relations with China--is the Senate's first critical--very critical--foreign policy test of the 21st century. It seems to me that we are poised at a crossroads. Our future depends on the right decision. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for a very comprehensive review of the issues that will affect our daily lives and pocketbooks, both in China and the United States--more particularly the United States. I associate myself with his remarks. Do we approve PNTR and demonstrate to China, and just as importantly, if not more, to the world, that diplomacy through commerce is a formula for stability and progress or do we vote PNTR down and miss the opportunity to become linked with one-fifth of the world's population? I, for one, hope we summon the wisdom and the courage to remain engaged by appropriately approving the legislation that is before us without amendments. To do otherwise would be a very serious mistake. I strongly support this legislation. However, some of my colleagues have argued, and will continue to argue, that America should refuse to do business with China. They cite the possibility of job loss, trade deficits, international disputes, and human rights, not to mention national security concerns, as reasons to isolate and to ostracize China. On the contrary, it seems to me that approving PNTR and validating the trade agreement--which requires China to drastically reduce its tariffs, eliminate trade barriers, and remove restrictions on foreign investment and trading and distribution rights--will benefit American workers and farmers and businesses. These new market opportunities will support U.S. jobs and U.S. economic expansion into the new century, not to mention assisting the Chinese to become more familiar with and ascribe to the rule of law. This issue cuts across all areas of America. To illustrate the broad importance of China trade, let me use some examples from my home State of Kansas. Boeing is the world's largest aircraft exporter. It employs 18,000 people in Kansas, with a payroll of $1 billion, where 80 percent of that production--80 percent of that $1 billion that accrues to Kansas--is export related. In 1994, Boeing exported 25 percent of all Kansas production to China. In the future, China plans to buy large numbers of regional aircraft which are made at the Boeing plant in Wichita. But if the Senate should fail to approve this bill--amendment free--Boeing will suffer a huge competitive disadvantage in the huge Chinese market, and these valuable contracts will go to a European competitor, not to mention the loss of jobs in Wichita. Likewise, PNTR will have a similar impact on agriculture, an industry where one-third of all goods are bound for export markets. In 1998, Kansas farms exported $58 million worth of goods to China. This agreement increases the market access and grants distribution rights for corn, beans, wheat, beef, pork, and fertilizer--all of the agricultural products so vital to us in regards to our balance of payments as well. China soon may be able to purchase the entire annual wheat crop of Kansas. I certainly hope that would be the case, more especially with the price today at the country elevator. My good friend and Kansas native, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, estimates that passing PNTR will mean an additional $2 billion per year in total U.S. farm exports to China in just several years. Engaging China will benefit our other Kansas businesses. Let me go back and reflect a minute before I get into the other jobs that are directly affected in other industries. We had quite a discussion, it seems to me, before we broke for the August recess about the appropriations and the authorization for agriculture. I think it was reflective of the $5.5 billion in emergency lost income payments, $7.5 billion, as I recall, for the new crop insurance reform, some emergency assistance because of hard-hit areas of the United States, where farmers and ranchers are going through a difficult time. People totaled up last year's expenditures and this year's expenditures. The difference this time around is that we budgeted this money. It does not come out of emergency funds. There was a real concern expressed by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle about these expenditures, and saying: My goodness, we are spending a record amount for agriculture. I didn't hear too much debate in that arena as to the cause, as to why we are going through a world price decline, not only the United States but farmers everywhere, all around the world. There have been 3 record years of crops worldwide, sanctions on 71 countries, not using all the export programs, the value of the dollar hindering our exports, the Asian market in real decline, and the same thing for South America. The list goes on and on. Not too much debate with regard to the cause, what is happening to worldwide agriculture prices, and why this outflow of expenditures, yes, to subsidize American agriculture at record levels, and a lot of concern about, wait a minute, we are not going to have one more nickel go to agriculture that is first not authorized and appropriated. I agree with that; I think that is the way it ought to be. We have done some very good things in this session in behalf of agriculture. My point is, if we do not pass this trade bill, if we do not have an aggressive and consistent agricultural policy with regard to exports, we really should not be hearing too much criticism about one nickel more going to agriculture--if we shut down these markets and say we are not going to trade with one-fifth of the world's population. That is one of the things we should consider as the law of unintended effects. If in fact this bill does not pass, it is going to cause a trade disruption such that one could hardly imagine. We will be going into the next century with our trade policy in real tatters. Engaging China will benefit our other Kansas businesses--I am trying to point out the effect of this bill in a macro way in Kansas, micro in terms of the Nation--large and small businesses. Let's try Payless Shoe Source, Inc., 2,000 Kansas employees; Black & Veatch production is export related, a major international engineering firm with offices in the Kansas City area; a business called Superior Boiler Works of Hutchinson, KS, which provides industrial boilers for building projects in China--you might not think Hutchinson, KS, is where we are providing most of the boiler projects for that huge nation, but that is the case--several ventures in China by Koch Industries of Wichita. Clearly, the stakes are high, thousands of jobs. One out of four jobs in Kansas depends on trade. I use the Kansas example only for illustration. All 50 States will certainly benefit as well. I don't think we need to be misled by charges that a vote against PNTR is a vote to protect American jobs. I just don't think that is correct. There are winners and losers in regard to all trade agreements. As a matter of fact, I think in some ways, when we talk about this issue or any trade pact, they are sometimes oversold. They are not a panacea. There are winners and there are some losers. A trade agreement is nothing more than, nothing less than, a working agreement to try to settle the differences you are going to have with your trading partners and competitors anyway. At least you have some structure there and a rule of law where you can reach a logical conclusion and strike an agreement to have much better trade relations. I know they are overcriticized. If I say they are oversold, they probably are. They are certainly overcriticized. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently pointed out: It is difficult to find credible evidence that trade has impacted the level of total employment over the long run. Indeed we are currently experiencing the widest trade deficit in history with a level of unemployment close to record lows. Trade-related jobs pay Americans 15 percent more than the average national wage. Free trade with China will provide unrestricted access to a wider variety of goods and services at lower prices and better quality. The distinguished Senator from Texas certainly gave that example in his remarks. In short, international trade raises real wages with virtually no downside risk to job security. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, I have very serious concerns about China emerging as a more significant military threat, especially in the area of thermonuclear weapons and the proliferation of that weaponry. I know it is a problem. It is a very serious problem. It is a national security concern. However, it seems to me that is not a reason to erect a trade barrier, nor is it an excuse to add what I would consider to be an amendment conceived with good intentions but a counterproductive and redundant amendment. I know the distinguished Senator from Tennessee should be on the floor shortly to offer an amendment or a freestanding bill, or whatever he so chooses, to address the proliferation issue. I share his concern. I share his sense of frustration. Secretary Albright, Secretary of Defense Cohen, and a panel of experts went to China over the break and did not achieve the progress we all wanted to see with regard to their talks with the Chinese, more especially with the Chinese concern over national missile defense. That is a real challenge. That is a problem. That is a national security challenge. It seems to me we don't solve it by putting an amendment on a trade bill. Quite the opposite. Trade has a stabilizing effect on international relations. The more the two nations trade and invest economically in each other, the less likely they are to engage in military conflict. If we don't trade, if we isolate China, it isn't a question of whether or not they will join the WTO. We will turn a lot of the decisionmaking over to the two military general authors who say by 2020 they hope China will be a superpower equal to that of the United States. I know that is where they want to go. If we are able to establish a better trading relationship and engagement, all those decisions will not then be turned over to the nationalists, the hardliners, and all of the military generals. Since the Thompson amendment seems to enjoy more than nominal support--and why shouldn't it? The Senator has worked very hard on this particular issue; he is modifying it almost each day to try get more support. I understand the concern and frustration on the part of many Members who want to send a signal to the Chinese. At that point, it seems to me there is some growing support for the amendment. But I would like to highlight the importance of passing H.R. 4444 without amendments. No matter how politically tempting or national security tempting a particular amendment may be, a vote for an amendment serves ultimately as a vote against PNTR. We have other avenues by which we can safeguard our national security interests. They are well known to all Members of the Senate. I will not go into that. To attach an amendment to this bill would be a grave mistake. I think Senators should consider that accordingly. My former House colleagues have assured me they will not take another vote on PNTR. I know that assurance or that talk is not taken seriously by some in this body. I can't tell the Senate how serious it really is, but it seems to me when they look me in the eye and say: Senator Roberts, if we do this, there will not be a vote in the House, then we will have a trade disaster on our hands. That will be our responsibility. In short, it is now or never for PNTR. And never is not an alternative. In addition to the proliferation concerns, I also find China's record on human rights and its religious oppression unacceptable. However, history proves the best manner to inspire change is through engagement and trade, not isolation, turning the decisionmaking, again, over to those who are now in favor of the oppression. When Deng Xiaoping took power in 1978, 2 years after Mao's death, he opened China to trade and foreign investment. And the change in the economy and the human condition in China was dramatic--outstandingly dramatic. China's gross domestic product grew at an average of 9.7 percent a year for almost two decades. That is an incredible growth. Its share of world GDP rose from 5 percent in 1978 to 11.8 percent by 1998, only 2 years ago. Its income per person rose six times as fast as the world average when they opened it up to trade. So you can see what kind of economic opportunity, what kind of economic wherewithal, and what kind of improvement there was in the daily lives and the pocketbooks of each Chinese individual. You can see what happened. More importantly, 20 percent of the population--200 million people-- were lifted above the subsistence line. The most dramatic increase in the standard of living in the history of the world gave the Chinese people the ability to purchase televisions, washing machines and, increasingly, computers and mobile phones with Internet access, to become members of a modern global society, in terms of information and transparency in regard to freedom and economic opportunity. Above all, the economic changes are quickly and dramatically improving personal freedom for the average Chinese citizen. Despite the Communist Government, millions of Chinese now have access to foreign magazines and newspapers, copiers, satellite TV dishes, and the Internet, where they can learn about capitalism, freedom, and democracy, and it is catching. Internet access, which American companies are quite willing to provide, will only accelerate this process. Finally, it should be stressed that congressional approval of PNTR for China is not a decision on whether China becomes a member of the World Trade Organization. That is not the case. That is not the issue. China will become a member of that world trade group, hopefully, later this year, regardless of our decision. It means we will be locked out of the trade benefits, the agreements that have been so long pursued. It means the PNTR vote will determine how the United States deals with this huge nation as it becomes a WTO member. That is exceedingly important. Approval gives Americans entry to Chinese markets and provides an avenue for influence. Disapproval ensures we are shut out while China does business with the rest of the world. With that in mind, I strongly urge my Senate colleagues to lead America down the engagement path toward prosperity and peace by promptly approving the PNTR legislation, amendment free. I will repeat the one thing I underscored when I started my remarks. It is basically a test to demonstrate to the rest of the world and to China that diplomacy through commerce is a formula for stability. I believe that. That is what this vote is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health Care in the 21st Century Act of 2000. This legislation will improve access to technology necessary to improve rural health care and expand access to quality health care in rural areas. The future of health care in this country is being challenged by a variety of factors. The growing pains associated with managed care, an increasing elderly population and the drive to ensure the solvency of the federal Medicare Trust Fund are just a few of the factors placing pressure on health care facilities and health care providers across the country. Small, rural hospitals that provide services to a relatively low volume of patients are faced with even greater challenges in this environment. The bill I am introducing today takes critical steps to improve access to high technology in rural areas and establishes a new high technology acquisition grant and loan program to improve patient safety and outcomes. At the same time hospitals need to update equipment, comply with new regulatory requirements and join the effort to reduce medical errors, many hospitals are finding it difficult to access the financial backing necessary to acquire the telecommunications equipment necessary to develop innovative solutions. This bill establishes a 5- year grant program through the Office of Rural Health Policy that allows hospitals, health care centers and related organizations to apply for matching grants or loans up to $100,000 to purchase the advanced technologies necessary to improve patient safety and keep pace with the changing records management requirements of the 21st Century. This bill also increases Disproportionate Share Hospitals payments to rural hospitals. The Medicare DSH adjustment is based on a complex formula and the hospital's percentage of low-income patients. This percentage of low-income patients is different for each hospital, depending on where the hospital is located and the number of beds in the hospital. This bill establishes one formula to distribute payments to all hospitals covered by the inpatient PPS. This will give rural hospitals an equal opportunity to qualify for the DSH adjustment. Twenty-five percent of our nation's senior citizens live in rural areas where access to modern health care services is often lacking. Telehealth technologies have evolved significantly and can serve to connect rural patients to the health care providers that they need. This bill includes provisions of S. 2505, a telehealth bill introduced by my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. These provisions address eight areas of Medicare reimbursement policy that need improvement. It eliminates requirements for fee-sharing between providers and provides a standard professional fee to the health care provider who delivers the care. The site where the patient is presented is made eligible for a standard facility fee. The requirement for a telepresenter is eliminated and the codes that can be billed for are expanded to reflect current practice. All rural counties and urban HPSAs are covered by this legislation and demonstration projects are established to access reimbursement for store and forward activities. Also, the law is clarified to allow for home health agencies to incorporate telehomecare into their care plans where appropriate. The Health Care Financing Administration is currently administering five telemedicine demonstration projects. This provision extends these projects an additional two years to give the projects adequate time to produce useful data. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 allows rural hospitals to be reclassified as limited service facilities, known as Critical Access Hospitals. Critical Access Hospitals are important components of the rural health care infrastructure. They are working to provide quality health care services in sparsely populated areas of the country. However, they are restricted by burdensome regulations and inadequate Medicare payments. In addition to reduced staffing requirements, Congress intended to reimburse CAH inpatient and outpatient hospital services on the basis of reasonable costs. This legislation exempts Medicare swing beds in CAHs for the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Prospective Payment System (PPS) and reimburses based on reasonable costs, and provides reasonable cost payment for ambulance services and home health services in CAHs. In addition, this legislation directs the Secretary of HHS to establish a procedure to ensure that a single FI will provide services to all CAHs and allows CAHs to choose between two options for payment for outpatient services: (1) reasonable costs for facility services, or (2) an all-inclusive rate which combines facility and professional services. This bill permanently guarantees pre-Balanced Budget Act payment levels for outpatient services provided by rural hospitals with under 100 beds, modifies the 50 bed exemption language and for Rural Health Clinics allows RHCs to qualify as long as their average daily patient census does not exceed 50, allows Physician Assistant-owned RHCs that lose their clinic status to maintain Medicare Part B payments, and clarifies that when services already excluded from the PPS system are delivered to Skilled Nursing Facility patients by practitioners employed by the RHCs, those visits are also excluded from the PPS payment system. In addition, this bill increases payments under the Medicare home health PPS for beneficiaries who reside in rural areas by increasing the standardized payment per 60-day episode by 10 percent. Current law allows states the option to reimburse hospitals for Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) services attributable to deductibles and coinsurance amounts. However, many state Medicaid programs have chosen not to pay these costs, leaving rural hospitals with a significant portion of unpaid bad debt expenses. This is especially burdensome since federal law prohibits hospitals from seeking payment for the cost-sharing amounts from QMB patients. This legislation provides additional relief to rural hospitals by restoring 100% Medicare bad debt reimbursement for QMBs. Although, as a general rule, scholarships are excluded from income, the Internal Revenue Service has taken the position that National Health Service Corp scholarships are included in income. Imposing taxes on the scholarships could have disastrous effects on a program that for over 20 years has helped funnel doctors, nurse-practitioners, physician assistants, and other health professionals into medically underserved communities. This provision excludes from gross income of certain scholarships any amounts received under the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program. Finally, this bill includes important technical corrections to the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. This bill extends the option to rebase target amounts to all Sole Community Hospitals and allows Critical Access Hospitals to receive reimbursement for lab services on a reasonable cost basis. Exciting changes are taking place in rural America. This legislation will enable small rural hospitals to take advantage of the latest technology and improve health care for rural residents across the country. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in support of this endeavor. I am unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Congressional Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Health Care in the 21st Century Act of 2000. This legislation will improve access to technology necessary to improve rural health care and expand access to quality health care in rural areas. The future of health care in this country is being challenged by a variety of factors. The growing pains associated with managed care, an increasing elderly population and the drive to ensure the solvency of the federal Medicare Trust Fund are just a few of the factors placing pressure on health care facilities and health care providers across the country. Small, rural hospitals that provide services to a relatively low volume of patients are faced with even greater challenges in this environment. The bill I am introducing today takes critical steps to improve access to high technology in rural areas and establishes a new high technology acquisition grant and loan program to improve patient safety and outcomes. At the same time hospitals need to update equipment, comply with new regulatory requirements and join the effort to reduce medical errors, many hospitals are finding it difficult to access the financial backing necessary to acquire the telecommunications equipment necessary to develop innovative solutions. This bill establishes a 5- year grant program through the Office of Rural Health Policy that allows hospitals, health care centers and related organizations to apply for matching grants or loans up to $100,000 to purchase the advanced technologies necessary to improve patient safety and keep pace with the changing records management requirements of the 21st Century. This bill also increases Disproportionate Share Hospitals payments to rural hospitals. The Medicare DSH adjustment is based on a complex formula and the hospital's percentage of low-income patients. This percentage of low-income patients is different for each hospital, depending on where the hospital is located and the number of beds in the hospital. This bill establishes one formula to distribute payments to all hospitals covered by the inpatient PPS. This will give rural hospitals an equal opportunity to qualify for the DSH adjustment. Twenty-five percent of our nation's senior citizens live in rural areas where access to modern health care services is often lacking. Telehealth technologies have evolved significantly and can serve to connect rural patients to the health care providers that they need. This bill includes provisions of S. 2505, a telehealth bill introduced by my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. These provisions address eight areas of Medicare reimbursement policy that need improvement. It eliminates requirements for fee-sharing between providers and provides a standard professional fee to the health care provider who delivers the care. The site where the patient is presented is made eligible for a standard facility fee. The requirement for a telepresenter is eliminated and the codes that can be billed for are expanded to reflect current practice. All rural counties and urban HPSAs are covered by this legislation and demonstration projects are established to access reimbursement for store and forward activities. Also, the law is clarified to allow for home health agencies to incorporate telehomecare into their care plans where appropriate. The Health Care Financing Administration is currently administering five telemedicine demonstration projects. This provision extends these projects an additional two years to give the projects adequate time to produce useful data. The Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 allows rural hospitals to be reclassified as limited service facilities, known as Critical Access Hospitals. Critical Access Hospitals are important components of the rural health care infrastructure. They are working to provide quality health care services in sparsely populated areas of the country. However, they are restricted by burdensome regulations and inadequate Medicare payments. In addition to reduced staffing requirements, Congress intended to reimburse CAH inpatient and outpatient hospital services on the basis of reasonable costs. This legislation exempts Medicare swing beds in CAHs for the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Prospective Payment System (PPS) and reimburses based on reasonable costs, and provides reasonable cost payment for ambulance services and home health services in CAHs. In addition, this legislation directs the Secretary of HHS to establish a procedure to ensure that a single FI will provide services to all CAHs and allows CAHs to choose between two options for payment for outpatient services: (1) reasonable costs for facility services, or (2) an all-inclusive rate which combines facility and professional services. This bill permanently guarantees pre-Balanced Budget Act payment levels for outpatient services provided by rural hospitals with under 100 beds, modifies the 50 bed exemption language and for Rural Health Clinics allows RHCs to qualify as long as their average daily patient census does not exceed 50, allows Physician Assistant-owned RHCs that lose their clinic status to maintain Medicare Part B payments, and clarifies that when services already excluded from the PPS system are delivered to Skilled Nursing Facility patients by practitioners employed by the RHCs, those visits are also excluded from the PPS payment system. In addition, this bill increases payments under the Medicare home health PPS for beneficiaries who reside in rural areas by increasing the standardized payment per 60-day episode by 10 percent. Current law allows states the option to reimburse hospitals for Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) services attributable to deductibles and coinsurance amounts. However, many state Medicaid programs have chosen not to pay these costs, leaving rural hospitals with a significant portion of unpaid bad debt expenses. This is especially burdensome since federal law prohibits hospitals from seeking payment for the cost-sharing amounts from QMB patients. This legislation provides additional relief to rural hospitals by restoring 100% Medicare bad debt reimbursement for QMBs. Although, as a general rule, scholarships are excluded from income, the Internal Revenue Service has taken the position that National Health Service Corp scholarships are included in income. Imposing taxes on the scholarships could have disastrous effects on a program that for over 20 years has helped funnel doctors, nurse-practitioners, physician assistants, and other health professionals into medically underserved communities. This provision excludes from gross income of certain scholarships any amounts received under the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program. Finally, this bill includes important technical corrections to the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. This bill extends the option to rebase target amounts to all Sole Community Hospitals and allows Critical Access Hospitals to receive reimbursement for lab services on a reasonable cost basis. Exciting changes are taking place in rural America. This legislation will enable small rural hospitals to take advantage of the latest technology and improve health care for rural residents across the country. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in support of this endeavor. I am unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Congressional Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4461, the FY2001 Agriculture appropriations bill. I commend Senator Cochran for bringing forward what I believe is a solid bill to fund those programs of greatest importance to production agriculture and rural America. The task to complete this legislation is never easy, but the Senator from Mississippi has again worked to craft a bill that serves the states of all members of the Senate. In this era of tight budget caps, crafting this legislation becomes more difficult each year. Despite these difficulties, the chairman has still found a way to provide increases in funding for several vital programs, including: Farm Service Agency Staffing +$20 million from FY00; Conservation Programs +$63.4 million; Food Safety Inspection Service +$29 million; and Agricultural Research +60.4 million. Mr. President, I know that many Senators and our constituents are often upset to see increases in funding for federal staffing. But, I must tell you that this increase in funding for FSA staffing is essential. The Farm Service Agency is responsible for distributing all AMTA, LDP, and market loss payments and programs to our producers. With the low prices of the past two years, these staff have faced a tremendous workload. These programs are essential to our producers and without proper staffing the delivery of these programs will be delayed. This is funding that will benefit our producers. The productivity of today's U.S. agricultural machine is a modern day miracle that is a model for the rest of the world. We grow more food, for more people, on less land each year. Much of this productivity is a direct result of the commitment Congress has provided to agricultural research in the past. Additional research and productivity will be essential, as the world's population continues to grow in the next fifty years. The U.S. must be a leader in this area, and I thank the chairman for his commitment to research funding in this legislation. In addition, I want to thank the chairman for the additional funding provided for the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). Kansas is the largest beef packing state in the country and beef accounts for nearly \1/2\ the farm income in my state each year. We have many small plants and lockers located throughout the state, and we have the ``Big 4'' packers located within a 100-mile radius of each other in the southwestern part of the state. These plants have experienced inspector shortages at several points during the past year. These shortages result in reduced production chain speeds, which results in lost income for the processors, and fewer cattle being slaughtered which directly affects the pocketbooks of my cowboys and cattle ranchers, I am hopeful FSIS will use this money to hire inspectors and locate them in those areas where they are most needed. I think it is also important to point out the significantly larger amount of funding for USDA agricultural export programs in the Senate bill compared to the House Agricultural Appropriations bill. We need full funding of these programs if our producers are to continue gaining additional world market shares, and I am hopeful the Senate position will prevail in conference with the House. Finally, I thank the chairman for the funding he has provided for continued wheat and grain sorghum research in the State of Kansas through the Agricultural Research Service and Kansas State University. Kansas is the No. 1 producer of both wheat and grain sorghum in the U.S. Thus, the two crops play a vital role in our state's agricultural economy. This funding will allow us to continue research that allows us to combat emerging diseases in these crops and to find better ways to market them as well. Again, I thank the Chairman for his efforts on this legislation. As always, he and staff--Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, Les Spivey, and Hunt Shipman--have taken very difficult budget numbers and have gone out of their way to address the needs of the constituents of all members of the Senate. They should be applauded for their work, and I urge my colleagues to support quick passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I agree with the intentions of the amendment by my distinguished friend and colleague from California.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bond second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by my colleague from California. I agree with the intentions of the amendment offered by the Senator from California. All of us want to protect the health of our children. However, I do not believe her amendment does this. In fact, I believe it could actually harm the health of children. In 1996, Congress approved, nearly unanimously, the Food Quality and Protection Act. The FQPA was intended to reform pesticide tolerance and review processes dating from as far back as the 1950s. Quite simply, prior to the passage of the FQPA the standards being used to evaluate pesticides and chemicals was not in step with today's science. Under the FQPA we tightened the review standards. Their are specific guidelines for pesticide and tolerance review by EPA. And, EPA has tightened the requirements regarding the effects of the pesticides on children. If EPA believes a chemical or pesticide could be harmful to children, it can pull, or request that a product, be pulled from the market. In fact, this has happened in several instances. EPA should and will pull a chemical when children's and the public's health are at risk. At the same time, I want my colleagues to understand that without these pesticides we may be submitting our children to health risks associated with roaches, brown recluse spiders, ticks, mosquitoes, and other pests. By passing the Senator from California's amendment, we may actually be tying the hands of our federal officials and keep them from protecting children from these pests. The Bond amendment recognizes that we already have a review and approval process in place. It says that if a chemical has not been deemed safe to use around children it cannot be used by the federal agencies funded under this act. Congress has put a product review process in place. It should be followed. The Bond amendment stays the course and I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.