Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Dorgan's effort to overturn the Federal Communication Commission's media ownership rules. I commend Senator Dorgan on his resolve to work with his colleagues in a bipartisan manner to bring forward a commonsense solution to this pressing issue.

Every 2 years the FCC is required to review its media ownership rules. This most recent decision to roll back media ownership limitations was the most sweeping in a generation. Was it in response to the American people asking for this reform? No, in fact over 2 million Americans contacted the FCC opposing the rule changes. In my office, I received over 1,000 letters from Montanans opposing the decision. It seems that the FCC turned a deaf ear to the will of the American public. I hear them loud and clear.

I support Senator Dorgan's effort for three basic reasons: diversity, localism, and economics. First, if America is to have a vibrant democracy, one where our citizens are free to express their views and have equal accessibility to the news, we as policymakers must protect that right. The FCC's decision allows large corporations that already have considerable clout over what we hear and see to further consolidate. The decision allows TV networks to own more stations reaching more Americans. Even worse, these same stations could own the local newspaper in the same market.

We as Americans must have access to diverse news and information. The FCC's decision runs contrary to this axiom and would allow a few large television stations to reach nearly one-half of the viewing public. If the UHF discount is factored, nearly 90 percent of our Nation's households could be covered by one entity. Diversity is jeopardized when one company has this much leverage over what we see and hear.

Senator Dorgan has pointed out that localism is being lost to the bottom line. I can not agree more. A generation ago, Americans sat around the radio and listened to local news. We huddled around the TV to watch our local news anchor give us the latest information about our communities. Today, news and information is being portrayed as local, when, in reality, it is being broadcast to us from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Instead of broadcasting news about our communities from our communities, media companies are broadcasting about our communities even though they are nowhere near us. This is not localism and we should not stand idle to this emerging trend.

This decision has the potential to cause job loss in Montana. In Montana we have many ``mom-and-pop'' newspapers and television stations. Typically, these companies serve the rural areas of our State and do a tremendous job reporting about local activities and news. And they are often owned and operated by local citizens living in the communities they serve. And very often they are run on a very tight budget. The FCC's ruling jeopardizes our local stations and newspapers because these new larger companies will be able to squeeze these companies out of the market through advertising revenues with sheer economic clout. With additional leverage over the media landscape, these small, rural companies will find it harder and harder to compete and keep their doors open. As Montana's senior Senator, I will fight to protect our small TV and newspaper owners.

While I disagree with a majority of the FCC's decision, I would like to point out for small market broadcasters to survive, they may need the chance to utilize duopolies and other means to stay in business. And while I am concerned about the broad sweeping changes the FCC made, I remain cognizant of the fact that small market broadcasters may potentially need to utilize the very changes we may revoke today, and I will work with my colleagues to find market relief for these small broadcasters when warranted.

Over the next several months we will continue to argue the merits of this issue. However, I will only support any legislation that protects diversity, localism, and Montana's small businesses.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the ongoing negotiations for a United States-Central America Free Trade Agreement-- also known as the ``CAFTA.''

These negotiations present a couple of unique challenges.

First, most of the CAFTA countries are less developed, both economically and politically, than Mexico, Chile, or any of our other FTA partners. This presents challenges to the abilities of the Central American countries--both to negotiate a comprehensive set of commitments and to implement them effectively.

Second, these negotiations are on an accelerated schedule. They started in January 2003 and are set to conclude by the end of this year. The limited trade negotiating capacities of the CAFTA countries makes this an ambitious goal.

Third, several of the CAFTA countries played a less than constructive role at the WTO Cancun Ministerial. Their participation in the G-21 and the role of that group in precipitating the meeting's collapse raises serious questions about their commitment to trade liberalization.

I support comprehensive free trade agreements that create sound market access rules and meaningful commercial opportunities for American farmers, workers, and businesses. And I support, in principle, the goal of reaching such an agreement with the five CAFTA countries.

But we need to be realistic. A CAFTA agreement will be politically difficult here--much more so than the recently passed free trade agreements with Singapore and Chile. The issues it raises will be challenging on both sides of the aisle.

Next year's vote on CAFTA will also set the stage for the many free trade agreements that are lining up to pass through Congress: Morocco, Australia, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, Bahrain. The list just keeps growing.

To keep our trade agenda moving forward, we need a CAFTA that can pass with a large majority. If CAFTA sours the Congress on FTAs we are in for real trouble.

With only 4 months left in the negotiations, time is running short. But there is still time enough to push the CAFTA negotiations in the right direction. We can do that by addressing three principal concerns:

First, there needs to be a clear acknowledgment by our negotiators that CAFTA presents different challenges than other agreements. These countries have different political, legal, and social structures, and different economies, than any of our existing FTA partners.

We cannot simply table the Singapore and Chile texts and say we are done. Not for market access or agriculture. Not for services and intellectual property. Not for environment or labor. One size does not fit all.

Second, we need to make sure that this agreement is comprehensive. Taken together, the CAFTA countries are about our 18th largest trading partner. They account for one percent of U.S. trade. So the commercial benefits from this agreement will be modest at best.

Absent significant commercial gains, the only way to ``sell'' the CAFTA to our farmers, workers, and businesses, is as a strong model for future agreements.

We hear from Costa Rica that they don't want a telecom chapter in the agreement. This is a bad precedent.

Similarly, we can't allow ourselves to go too far down the path of ``non-reciprocal'' market access provisions for developing countries, just to get an agreement done.

Given their reluctance to tackle hard issues in the FTA negotiations and the recent actions of some of the CAFTA countries in Cancun, I am frankly skeptical about where the CAFTA negotiations are headed. If we, and the CAFTA countries, are not prepared to conclude a comprehensive agreement, we need to ask ourselves if this agreement is worth negotiating at all.

Third, we need to do more to address legitimate concerns about environment and labor.

Any number of objective sources have pointed out deficiencies in the environmental and labor laws of the various CAFTA countries.

And there is widespread agreement including among the CAFTA governments themselves--that these countries lack the capacity to effectively enforce their own environmental and labor laws.

Yet that is just what the text tabled by USTR would require them to do. Even as the evidence mounts, our negotiators stick stubbornly to their determination not to go beyond the Chile and Singapore texts.

That won't work. For CAFTA, we need a different approach.

To date, our domestic politics on environment and labor have been polarized. The CAFTA countries see that and they use it as an excuse not to engage constructively.

I want to help break this deadlock. I want to get us all talking about constructive ways to address environment and labor.

A workable approach to environment and labor in the CAFTA will do two things. It will help the CAFTA countries overcome their capacity limitations. And it will give assurance that meaningful improvements in environmental and labor standards and enforcement in those countries are occurring.

In the next weeks, I plan to release a detailed proposal for addressing environmental issues in the CAFTA. I will give just a short preview today.

My proposal combines improvements to the Chile and Singapore environment chapter text with enhancements to the trade capacity building and environmental cooperation programs.

In the text, I propose changes that will help build an open and responsive system of environmental regulation in the CAFTA countries. For example, the citizen petition process used in the NAFTA side agreement has helped empower environmental NGOs in Mexico, with positive effects. I think that should be a model for the CAFTA.

On trade capacity building, I think we can make this process work better to achieve long-term environmental and sustainable development goals. On the U.S. side, that means creating a mechanism that assures funding for capacity building over the long term.

For the CAFTA countries, it means completing the ongoing regional process of setting environmental priorities, and establishing a monitoring system to assure that capacity building is leading to progress toward those goals.

I look forward to sharing my detailed proposal in the near future.

It does not serve America's trade interests to negotiate imperfect trade agreements simply to put another notch on our belt.

I hear people say all the time that America has fallen behind other countries in negotiating FTAs and needs to ``catch up.'' But this is not a numbers game. We must always remember that it is the quality, not the quantity, of our free trade agreements that matters.

I hope that I will be able to work with the administration to pass a good agreement with Central America. It is an important region, and this could be a significant agreement.

But the Trade Act--and specifically the provisions on labor and environment--must be adhered to. Submitting the same labor and environment text for all agreements--regardless of the situation in that country--is not, in my view, consistent with the Trade Act.

If we end up with an agreement that ignores Members' concerns on labor and the environment, I will work hard against it.

I hope it does not come to that. I hope that we can work together on an agreement that makes sense and moves the ball forward. And I stand ready to do that.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about next steps for our trade agenda after last week's collapse of the World Trade Organization Ministerial in Cancun.

Certainly, the WTO is not dead. In fact, this kind of setback is fairly common in its history. Sooner or later the negotiators pick up the pieces and get back to work. We must and we will continue to try to get the Doha round negotiations back on track. And eventually, I think we will succeed.

But it probably won't happen soon.

In the meantime, we need to learn from last week's events and adjust our national trade strategy accordingly. In my view, there are two important lessons to be learned.

First, we can't count on a sweeping WTO agreement to be an engine of economic growth for our country any time soon. The President has made the stimulative effect of a strong WTO agreement a centerpiece of his plan for economic recovery and long-term growth. If we want to stimulate the economy through trade--and I certainly support that goal--then we need a new plan.

Second, the administration needs to rethink its strategy for picking FTA partners. I have heard many times that we need FTA partners who will be allies in the WTO and help the United States move that process forward. Instead, many of the same countries who are negotiating FTAs with us joined the G-21 and helped deadlock the ministerial.

So where do we go next?

To begin, I don't think we should overreact. Punishing trading partners with whom we have differences of opinion is not likely to be productive in the long term.

That doesn't mean they get a free pass. To the contrary, the onus is very much on Costa Rica, South Africa, Guatemala, and the others to take significant, constructive steps right now to show that they take their FTA negotiations seriously and are committed to comprehensive agreements with the United States. Where they have been holding back in FTA talks, they need to start putting more on the table. And if they don't, they should realize we have other countries to look to.

At the same time, we need to think hard about how to use trade agreements to create economic alternatives to the WTO. American workers, farmers, and businesses have just suffered a

big setback. They will not see the economic benefits of the Doha round for a long time. We need to focus our negotiating resources on bilateral and regional deals that can provide real commercial opportunities in the short term. That means, in picking FTAs, we need to give less weight to foreign policy and more weight to economic policy.

Access to the large and vibrant U.S. market remains our best leverage in opening markets around the world. We must continue to use that leverage well.

I am disappointed in the outcome of Cancun. Like all disappointments, however, it offers lessons for the future. I hope we will learn those lessons and apply them to our trade agenda as we move forward.

Mr. President, two years ago today, our world changed forever. At 8:45 a.m., EST, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the first World Trade Center was attacked. Shortly thereafter I remember seeing the chaos on the streets in Washington after the Pentagon was hit. I will never forget the sights and sounds from that day.

On that day, we lost a feeling of security. And we felt a little exposed. We lost mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, grandparents and grandchildren. But as we united as a nation, we gained strength. What terrorists sought to destroy, what they thought they could topple, is the unbreakable American spirit.

``September 11'' will never again just be a date on the calendar. It is a day that marks the largest attack on American soil in our Nation's history. It was a day of confusion, a day of fear, a day of loss. But it was also a day of heroism--a day of standing together.

On the 2-year anniversary, it is important to remember the events and emotions of September 11. As Americans, we are still living in uncertain terms. As Montanans and Americans, we must continue to be determined and steadfast in our dedication to win the fight against terrorism. We must lead an unprecedented effort to eliminate the terrorist networks that threaten our Nation. We must remain committed to defending the rights and freedoms that make us proud to be Americans. From our freedom to express our thoughts and determine our religious beliefs--to our right to openly vote for and elect our political leaders.

Today we stand as one to pay respect and express our gratitude to our Nation's heroes: the countless firefighters, the policemen and women, the emergency medical technicians, doctors, nurses, as well as everyday citizens who risked their lives to save others on September 11.

I remain dedicated to working together with Congress and the administration to protect America and the principles this Nation stands for and to bring those responsible for the September 11 attacks to justice.

On the two-year anniversary of September 11, and in the weeks, months, and years that follow, I call on every Montanan to remember the lessons learned on that fateful day. Remember the solidarity. Remember the countless America flags that flew across the State and the Nation. Remember the generosity with which people donated to charities and volunteered in their communities. Remember the support we received from the international community.

While September 11 is a horrific day in our Nation's history, it taught us a tremendous amount about ourselves, as Montanans, as Americans, and as a Nation. We must never forget these lessons.

We didn't.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from California, Senator Boxer, for the statement she just made. For some, it is not easy to stand up on the floor of the Senate and oppose the nomination of a judge nominated by the President of the United States. For others, it is not quite as difficult. But for the Senator from California, I admire her for the clarity of her thinking and the position she has taken because, frankly, I agree with it.

All of us in this body took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The main framework of that Constitution is the separation of powers with its powers allocated equally among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. When our Founding Fathers wrote that Constitution, they were unsure about what to do about judges. They debated. One of their proposals was that the Congress send the names of potential judges to the President and that the President choose from among those judges which one the President wanted, and that is the one that would be named. It was a very difficult issue to resolve. Why? Because the two branches of government would be deciding which people would have lifetime appointments serving in the third branch of Government; that is, the judicial branch.

Why is this so important? It is so important because judges must be impartial, and they must be fair. They have a very difficult job of trying to interpret laws and interpreting the Constitution. We as Americans feel much safer and we feel much better the more we know that the judges in the district courts, the courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court are people of the highest caliber.

Let me tell you that one of the greatest privileges I believe we have as Members of the Senate is to recommend the names of potential judicial nominees to the President of the United States. I have been able to do that several times. It is very much a privilege to me personally. In the exercise of that privilege, this is the process I followed. I think it is one that honors the position of the judge in either district court or the United States Courts of Appeals.

I asked in each instance seven or eight people in my State of Montana--Republicans, Democrats, it didn't make any difference, some lawyers, some law professors, businesspeople, people who I respected as some of the best and smartest and most able in my State--to come up with three names, one for the district court and one for the circuit courts of appeal. I asked them to give me the three very best people in my State. I don't care whether they are Republicans, Democrats, whether they are known as conservatives, whether they are known as liberals, just give me the best. And they did. I sat down with each of the three and interviewed each of the three for several hours.

I can tell you it was a very difficult decision because they are tremendous people.

Finally, I decided after a lot of thinking about all of this to recommend to President Clinton the name of Don Malloy. Thankfully, he nominated Don Malloy to the Federal District Court in the State of Montana. He is a terrific Federal judge.

Why do I say terrific? I say terrific because both the plaintiffs bar and the defense bar think he is just super. He is tough, he is fair, he runs that court well, and he works very hard. Both plaintiffs and defense attorneys think he is very fair and a very good judge. That says a lot to me.

I did the same in the other case. When we had the opportunity to recommend to President Clinton the nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it was the same process. I asked for the best. I didn't care whether they were Republicans or Democrats. It didn't make any difference. Who were the best? The group I selected came back with three people--all just terrific people. You would be very proud of all of them, Mr. President.

Again, I had a hard time deciding which one was the best. But I made a decision. That person now serves on the Ninth Circuit. His name is Syd Thomas. He has the reputation of being one of the best judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is very important that we get the best judges. These are people who are nominated and serve for life. That is extremely important. It is important so they can maintain their independence. It is also important since once they are confirmed, they are there forever.

We self-destruct. As Senators we self-destruct every 6 years. House Members self-destruct every 2 years--some Governors 4 years and some 2--to go back and face the people, as we should go back and face reelection. Should we be continued in these offices, if we seek them, or not? It causes us to be very close to the people. In some cases, we are more attuned to the political currents that flow in our respective States. Not so judges. Judges are not to be attuned to political currents. They are to be independent, to be impartial, to go beyond politics, to do what is right according to what the law says

and what the Constitution says. That is who we want.

This is no light matter. One of the strengths of America is our independent judiciary. That is not true in most other countries. Most peoples in the world live where the continent might be under a system where the judiciary is not independent of the executive branch, not independent of the legislative branch; rather, it is under the thumb of one or the other. They are not independent.

That is one reason why this country has grown so strongly, why it has prevailed, and why we have risen so quickly and so far. It is because we have an independent judiciary, by and large, of judges who are extremely capable men and women. It engenders confidence so when people go before a judge they have the feeling this person can be fair and this person can be honest. They may not like the outcome, but at least it is a fair process. At least the President or the Governor didn't put his thumb on this judge and it wasn't a political decision. It was a decision a person made on the merits.

I say this because we as Members of the Senate have a higher obligation in passing upon judges than we do of other nominations-- certainly of other executive branch nominations. When the President nominates somebody to be Treasury Secretary or somebody to be Secretary of State, or someone to be Defense Secretary, those are important jobs, very important. But they are executive branch nominations, and they are people who will be working for the President, and by and large the President should have people with whom he can work. We should, in my judgment, not have quite the same standard for executive nominations as we do for judicial nominations.

For judicial nominations, the standards should be of the highest. What should they be, roughly? They should be people who have the highest integrity and honesty. They should be people who are extremely competent, who know the law, and people who basically don't have an ax to grind or an ideological ax to grind; that is, they are basically in the mainstream. America is a mainstream country. We are not a country, hopefully, of ideologues, of people who have axes to grind, of people who want to work with each other and who live with each other. We should have judges who reflect America and in fact set the highest standards for America.

In my opinion, it is not even a close question. It doesn't even begin to be a close question. Some of the nominees before the Senate do not rise to those standards. They don't begin to. Some do. Most do. But some don't. Where they don't, we in a sense should also forget the politics and just do what is right. Is this nominee a person so qualified that he or she should be a district court judge or a judge on one of the courts of appeal? That should be the test.

It is easy for us to decide what is best and what is not best. We should not push pell-mell to follow the political flood and rush on either side of the aisle just because the President appointed the person, or because a group came out against their nominee we should or should not confirm that person.

This is a high solemn obligation we have, Mr. President. I urge all of us to take this responsibility under the Constitution, the Constitution which we all swore to uphold, very carefully.

Mr. President, turning to another matter, I would like to speak about an amendment I intended to offer today on the Energy bill that I think promotes a good commonsense solution to an issue that I think is very important to my constituents in Montana, and that is, protecting Montana's magnificent Rocky Mountain Front.

What is the Front? The Front, as we call it back home, is one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48 States. We call it the Front because that is kind of what it is; it is a front. Anyone driving across the State of Montana, driving westward, first encounters open plains and prairies; and then, suddenly, out in the distance, the Rocky Mountains, the Continental Divide just seems to jump out of the plains--this huge mountain range--and that is what we call the Eastern Front.

That is the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains which kind of juts out from the plains. It is magnificent. It is one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48 States.

This map I have is not a good map to show the beauty of it. But, rather, this is a map that shows where the Front is with respect to the Blackfoot Indian Reservation, the oil and gas leases, and some of the wilderness areas there. But to the north of the Front is an area here. This is the Blackfoot Indian Reservation. Glacier National Park is over to the northwest on this map. The area shaded in red is called Badger- Two Medicine. It is call Badger-Two Medicine in large respect because the Blackfoot Indian Reservation has ancestral rights and claims. It is a very special area to the Blackfoot. It is also a gorgeous area. I have hiked it many times. I think it is a very special place in the United States of America. This is sacred ground, Badger-Two. It is the area on the map that is shaded red located next to Glacier Park.

In January 2002, portions of the Badger-Two area, known as the Badger-Two Medicine Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District, were declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

If you turn just south of the Badger-Two, the Front includes about a 400-square-mile strip of national forest land and about 20 square miles of BLM lands. The BLM lands are scattered in through here, as shown on this map. These include three BLM Outstanding Natural Areas. As I mentioned, they are located right through this area shown here.

Now, the Front harbors the country's largest bighorn sheep herd--the country's largest--and the second largest elk herd in the entire country. That is on the Front.

The Rocky Mountain Front supports one of the largest populations of grizzly bears south of Canada and is the only place in the lower 48 States where grizzlies still roam from the mountains to their historic range on the plains, just as they did when Lewis and Clark came across. Actually, they crossed right up through here. Marias Passway is over here. So Lewis and Clark, when they came up, saw that area. Actually, they came the south. One of the groups came across Marias Pass.

Because of this exceptional habitat, the Front offers unsurpassed hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities. Sportsmen, local landowners, local elected officials, hikers, local communities, and many other Montanans have worked for decades to protect and preserve the Front for future generations for nearly a century.

Now let me show you a couple of pictures of the Front so you get a sense of the feel for this magnificent landscape. This is a photograph of Ear Mountain. It is supposed to be shaped like an ear. If you have a good imagination, maybe you can see the ear. Frankly, a couple summers ago, I hiked up to the top of the ear with a good friend, Rick Graetz, and another friend, Jim Scott, and Jamie Williams, and it was just a gorgeous climb.

When you get to the top of the Ear--this picture, of course, was taken a little more in the wintertime, but at the top of the Ear, if you look east, you can see forever. It is wonderful.

We feel very strongly about the Front. The majority of Montanans believe very strongly, frankly, that oil and gas leases on the Front and throughout Montana's Rocky Mountain Range just don't mix. We think that because the habitat is too rich, the landscape too important to subject it to the roads and the drills and the pipelines and the industrial equipment and the chemicals and noise and human activity that come with oil and gas development.

Let me show you a couple for photos of the Front before I proceed.

This is typical--and I mean typical. I am not exaggerating. This is what Montana looks like. It is what the eastern Front looks like. It is gorgeous.

Here is another picture. This gives you a sense of the pristine nature of the area. It is special. We are known as the Big Sky State. And when you are out here, you can understand why we call Montana the Big Sky State.

Those are some of the photographs.

To give my colleagues some idea of what the area might look like if oil and gas were developed, I show you a picture of extensive oil and gas development along the Canadian Rocky Mountain Front in Alberta.

This is the Front. If you were to continue from Montana up north, this is what it would look like--with the roads and the development of the oil and gas leases.

So we believe such development is not warranted and it is not needed in Montana.

The administration recently completed an inventory of onshore oil and gas reserves on Federal lands at five basins in the interior West, including the Rocky Mountain Front, which is part of the Montana overthrust belt. The administration's study found that the overthrust belt area contains the smallest volumes of potential oil and gas resources of all five of the western inventory areas.

In addition, the administration's study concluded that in reality the vast majority of Federal lands in the interior West are available for leasing with few, if any, restrictions; that is, there are not many restrictions in the vast majority of the Federal lands of the interior West. And that is, we are not talking about the Front, we are talking the interior of the United States.

Although a large percentage of Federal lands in the Front are currently unavailable for leasing, many of those lands are unavailable in the Front because they lie under Glacier National Park, they lie under Indian lands, and already established wilderness areas. These areas comprise much of the Federal land in the Front.

As shown on the map, here is the Scapegoat Wilderness Area, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Great Bear Wilderness Area, Glacier National Park, Badger-Two, and the Blackfoot. So much of this is already restricted. So not only is the Front relatively poor in terms of oil and gas reserves, many of those reserves, by congressional mandate, Executive order or treaty, will never be available for leasing. So there is no oil or gas bonanza on the Rocky Mountain Front.

My amendment builds upon local conservation efforts in Montana that started nearly a century ago; that is, back in 1913. It also builds on previous congressional initiatives championed by former Members of the Montana congressional delegation, such as Congressman Pat Williams and the late Senator Lee Metcalf.

I ask unanimous consent that a time-line of these efforts be printed in the Record.

Most recently, in 1997, following significant public and private investment and an extensive public comment process, the Lewis and Clark National Forest decided to withdraw 356,000 acres in the Front of any new oil and gas leasing. This was a significant first step in protecting the Front from development, and I wholeheartedly supported it.

However, in many parts of the Rocky Mountain Front, oil and gas leases do exist, and they predate that 1997 decision, or they are located on BLM lands.

Many of the leases that predate the 1997 decision are located in the Badger-Two Medicine area. That is shown up here on the map, close to the Blackfoot Reservation. And that has been under an administrative lease suspension since 1996, pending review of the Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District.

This lease suspension could be lifted at any time now that the Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District has been declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

All of these existing leaseholders have invested time and resources in acquiring their leases. I understand that and am sympathetic. Several leaseholders have applied to the Federal Government for permits to drill.

In fact, the BLM and the United States Forest Service plan to begin analysis of about four leases in the Blackleaf Area of the front this fall.

These leases are subject of the study proposed in my bill.

However, history has shown that energy exploration and development in the front are likely to result in expensive and time-consuming environmental studies and litigation. It will take forever. This process rarely ends with a solution that is satisfactory to the oil and gas lessee. There are so many interests involved.

For example, in the late 1980's both Chevron and Fina applied for permits to drill in the Badger Two Medicine portion of the Front. After millions of dollars spent on studies and years of public debate, Chevron abandoned or assigned all of its lease rights, and Fina sold its lease rights back to the original owner. It was not worth it.

We should obviously be fair to those leaseholders. We want them to continue to provide for our domestic oil and gas needs, and we want to encourage them to find new domestic supplies. But they are going to have a long, difficult and expensive road if they wish to develop oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain Front.

My legislation would direct the Interior Department to evaluate for study, non-producing leases in the Rocky Mountain front and look at opportunities to cancel those leases in exchange for allowing leaseholders to explore for oil and gas somewhere else, namely in the Gulf of Mexico or in the State of Montana. In conducting this evaluation, the Secretary would have to consult with leaseholders with the State of Montana, the public and other interested parties.

When Interior concludes this study in 2 years the bill calls for the agency to make recommendations to Congress and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the advisability of pursuing lease exchanges in the front and any changes in law and regulation needed to enable the Secretary to undertake such an exchange.

Finally, Mr. President, my bill would continue the current lease suspension in the Badger-Two Medicine Area for three more years. This lease suspension would only apply to the Badger-Two Medicine Area, not the entire front.

This suspension will do two things: First, it will give the Secretary adequate time to conduct this study and

make recommendations to Congress; second, it will give the Blackfeet Tribe some breathing room to negotiate with the Interior Department about the long-term protection of Blackfeet historic and sacred sites in the Badger-Two Medicine area.

That's it. That is all my amendment would do. It doesn't predetermine any outcome. It doesn't impact any existing exploration activities or environmental review processes.

It just creates a process through which the Federal Government, the people of Montana and leaseholders can finally have a real, open and honest discussion about the best way to resolve the status of oil and gas leases along the Rocky Mountain front. My amendment is balanced and fair to all parties.

We look for ways to fairly compensate leaseholders for investments they've made in their leases if they decide to leave the front rather than waste years and millions fighting to explore for uncertain--and small--oil and gas reserves. And, a lot of Montanans, including me, just don't want to see the front developed, and they will fight to protect it.

Here is the alternative: So, developers can wait years, or decades, or most likely never, for oil and gas to flow from the front.

Or we can look at ways to encourage domestic production much sooner, in much more cost effective, appropriate and efficient ways somewhere else.

Let me quote from an editorial in the Missoulian, a Montana paper based in Missoula, MT, that emphasizes what I hope my bill will accomplish. They said:

One of the things we ought to do, as part of setting our

national energy policy, is quit squandering our own energy

fighting the same old battles that will never yield a single

BTU. Montana's Rocky Mountain Front has for too long been a

battlefield for just that sort of energy-sapping conflict. .

. There are no known reserves of oil and gas in there--just

speculation that it might, based on the fact that similar

geology north of the Canadian border has proved productive.

That editorial concluded by stating that my amendment ``acknowledges the property rights of lessees, but also the reality that they likely will be stymied indefinitely in any attempt to drill along the front. This is a proposal that protects a place Montanans so clearly desire to preserve. And it offers an opportunity to focus public and private- sector energies on actually producing useful energy.''

Montanans have spoken loudly and forcefully on this issue. We don't want any drilling in the front.

Montana is a natural resource-rich State and we are proud of our natural resource heritage. Montana has made, and continues to make, tremendous contributions to this Nation's economy through the development of its precious metals like copper, platinum, palladium and gold, through development of its coal, its oil and gas, its timber, and other natural resources. We will continue to do so because that's the right thing to do for Montana's economy and the Nation.

But the front is special to Montanans. Because we're also proud of our outdoor heritage, of preserving special places to take our kids hunting and fishing and hiking, just like we did when we were kids. We balance these two Montana priorities all the time. In this case, Montanans determined that the resources that might be under the front just don't justify endangering the front's unparalleled landscape.

That's why this amendment is so important, so we can strike the right balance in Montana on the Rocky Mountain Front. Let's listen to the locals.

I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the majority and minority leaders in putting this agreement together tonight. It sounds as if we will be able to get home for recess.

I will say a few words about the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements.

Today the Senate begins its debate on implementing the United States- Singapore and United States-Chile Free Trade Agreements.

Bringing these bills to the floor this month has been a priority for me, as I know it has been for Senator Grassley. Timely passage will allow these two important agreements to go into effect as planned on January 1, 2004. And passage will user in a new era of enhanced economic ties between the United States and two important trading partners.

These are the first bills to come before the Senate under the renewed fast-track procedures adopted last year in the Trade Act of 2002. So before I discuss the agreements and the implementing bills in detail, I want to talk about the events that have brought us here today.

One year ago, the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2002 by a vote of 64 to 34. Among other important provisions, the Trade Act gave the President fast-track trade negotiating authority for 3 years, renewable for 2 more. Fast-track--or trade promotion authority, TPA, as it is sometimes called--is a contract between Congress and the administration. It allows the President to negotiate trade agreements with foreign trading partners with a guarantee that Congress will consider the agreement as a single package. No amendments are allowed and a straight up-or-down vote is guaranteed by a date certain.

In return, the President must pursue a list of negotiating objectives set by Congress. And he must make Congress a full partner in the negotiations by consulting with Members as the talks proceed.

Last year, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I worked hard to pass the Trade Act and renew the President's fast-track trade negotiating authority.

In many cases, fast-track is an absolute necessity for completing new trade agreements. Our trading partners simply will not put their best deals on the table if they know that Congress can come back and change the agreement later.

Getting those best offers on the table is critical. It means more jobs for American workers, a level playing field, more exports for our farmers, ranchers, and companies and more choices and lower costs for consumers.

That doesn't mean our trade agenda ground to a halt without fast- track. We passed the U.S.-Jordan FTA Implementation Act in 2001 without fast-track--and by an overwhelming margin. And the Clinton Administration began negotiating the Singapore and Chile FTAs without fast-track.

I believe, frankly, that we could pass the Singapore and Chile bills without fast-track as well. But having it certainly makes the process run smoothly.

That brings me to the two free trade agreements themselves.

I have long been a supporter of trade with Singapore and Chile. In 1999, I took a delegation of Montana business people to Chile to press the case directly. I have also visited Singapore with a Montana trade delegation.

Even before we passed the Trade Act last year, I introduced legislation to grant fast-track specifically for a Singapore or Chile free-trade agreement.

Negotiating these agreements took several years of work, under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, many negotiating sessions, and hours of consultation with Congress.

I am glad that my work and that of so many others has paid off and brought these agreements before us today. Congratulations are due all around for a job well done.

These are the first agreements to be held to the new and progressive standards included in last year's Trade Act.

By and large, I think the two agreements stack up fairly well against the negotiating objectives set out by Congress. They set a new standard in many areas that is truly state-of-the-art.

I will touch on some of the highlights.

On agriculture, the Chile FTA provides for tariff-free, quota-free trade within 12 years, with more than 75 percent of U.S. farm products entering Chile tariff-free within 4 years. That's a major achievement. U.S. farmers will have access to Chile that is as good as or better than Chile gave to the European Union and Canada in existing trade agreements.

Significantly, Chile has committed to the United States to eliminate its so-called ``price bands'' on certain commodities. These price bands--or variable tariffs--are extremely harmful to our farmers. Chile agreed to eliminate them.

The main benefits to my state of Montana will be in improved market access for beef and wheat.

Senator Grassley and I worked hard to ensure that Chile will grant reciprocal recognition of U.S. meat inspections. With this important development, Montana's world-class ranchers now have the access to Chile's growing market that they deserve.

The agreement will also eliminate the 10 percent tariff that puts American wheat growers at an artificial disadvantage when competing with Canadian growers for sales in Chile. Obviously, Canadians do not pay that. We Americans do, until this agreement is put into effect.

On Market access, these two agreements enshrine the principle that all tariffs must eventually go to zero. U.S. policy of entering comprehensive free trade agreements stands in sharp contrast to the practices of some of our trading partners, who negotiate agreements that exclude agriculture or other sensitive sectors.

The Singapore and Chile agreements send the right message on market access: countries that are not ready to put everything on the table are not ready to negotiate an agreement with the United States.

On services, both agreements offer expanded market access for U.S. services providers and strong transparency rules for service regulations that exceed Chile and Singapore's WTO commitments. The agreements break new ground by using a ``negative list,'' where all services are subject to the agreements' rules unless expressly excluded.

Particular achievements include enhanced access to the Singapore market for banking and other financial services, which is important because Singapore is a regional hub for southeast Asia.

Enhanced market access for services is critical, because the service sector now provides the majority of American jobs. So expanding services trade means more job opportunities.

The agreements include intellectual property rights obligations that exceed WTO levels. They set a high standard of protection for trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets that will support innovation and our country's creative industries, and they establish a tough enforcement regime for piracy and counterfeiting.

The agreements extend free trade principles to electronic commerce-- making sure protectionism cannot take root in the new frontier of trade.

Unlike NAFTA, which dealt with labor and environment in side agreements, the Singapore and Chile agreements include core chapters dedicated to these important subjects. It is an improvement.

Both agreements incorporate the key Congressional objective that countries commit not to ``fail to effectively enforce'' their labor and environmental laws ``through a sustained or recurring

course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade.'' This commitment is enforceable through dispute settlement.

The agreements also foster cooperative projects to promote environmental protection and worker rights. For example, the United States will assist Chile in building capacity for wildlife protection and resource management and to improve public information about chemicals released by industrial facilities.

The agreements establish a secure and predictable legal framework that covers all forms of investment, and investor rights are backed up with dispute settlement procedures.

All core obligations of the agreements, including environmental and labor provisions, are subject to enforcement through dispute settlement. Panel proceedings must be open and transparent--that is totally new--including public hearings, public release of legal submissions, and the right of third parties to submit views.

For the first time in a U.S. free trade agreement, panels will be able to impose monetary penalties in the first instance. If those monetary penalties are not paid, trade sanctions will be available as a back up--even in environment and labor cases.

There are those who see this use of fines as a step back. In my view, it is something worth trying, to see how well it works.

The fine mechanism should allow for a greater focus on cooperative problem-solving in resolving disputes. If it doesn't trade sanctions are still available.

Only experience can tell us how well this system will work. Based on that experience, we can reconsider a fines-based system in future agreements if we need to.

Finally, a word about trade laws. Last year's Trade Act instructed the administration to ``avoid agreements that lessen the effectiveness'' of U.S. trade laws.

These agreements reflect that instruction. There are no provisions weakening our antidumping or countervailing duty laws.

As in NAFTA, the President may exclude Singapore from a global safeguard remedy in certain circumstances. This exception does not apply to Chile.

At the same time, both agreements strengthen the ability of American producers to obtain safeguard relief--if needed--by creating new bilateral safeguards, new textile and apparel safeguards, and a tariff snap-back safeguard for sensitive agricultural products from Chile.

Overall--these agreements cover a lot of ground, and they do it well.

Does that mean that we now have the perfect text for every future agreement? Of course not. There is always room for improvement in trade agreements.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution--whether you are talking about agriculture, intellectual property, environmental standards, or services.

That is why I feel strongly that every new free-trade agreement needs to be adapted to the particular circumstances of the partner country involved. Some of the approaches taken in the Singapore and Chile agreements--in environment, labor, and agriculture, for example--simply may not work for countries at different levels of development or with different political and social structure.

To some extent, these are issues for another day. But I raise them today as fair warning.

I think the consultation process worked well for the Singapore and Chile agreements, but we will need to do even better on the CAFTA, Australia, and other potentially controversial agreements. Otherwise, I believe both the ambitious negotiating schedules and the chances of Congressional approval for future agreements are at serious risk.

Now I want to turn to the implementing bills themselves.

These bills were prepared by the administration in consultation with Finance Committee members and staff. We have followed the sample cooperative drafting procedures that were used for the NAFTA, the Uruguay Round, and other trade agreements considered under fast-track.

I am satisfied with the results of this process.

The two bills before us today are very similar to each other and to the Implementation Acts for NAFTA and the U.S.-Jordan Agreement. They are narrowly tailored to include only what is necessary or appropriate to implement the agreements. Where there are differences between the two bills, they reflect different negotiated outcomes in the two agreements.

I have worked hard to make sure these draft bills meet two criteria. First, the bills must accurately reflect the agreements. Second, the bills must preserve the prerogatives of Congress over trade policy.

One of my main concerns in the Singapore bill has been implementation of the Integrated Sourcing Initiative, or ISI. I have worked to make sure the bill narrowly reflects the purpose of the ISI and does not provide unintended benefits to third countries.

The bill achieves that goal by assuring that Congress will have a vote before the list of ISI products can be expanded. I want to thank USTR and Chairman Grassley for working with me to come up with language that does the job.

I also had some concerns about whether the ISI could create a loophole in our economic sanctions and global safeguard laws. I appreciate the Administration's willingness to think creatively and come up with language in the Statement of Administrative Action that will help avoid potential problems.

Another concern--in both bills--has been the role of Customs. A few months ago, Chairman Grassley and I came to a temporary agreement with the Administration on how to divide authority over Customs between the Departments of Treasury and Homeland Security.

A process is in place to review the initial division of labor in the coming year. So it is critical that nothing in these bills changes the current division or supersedes the review process. Again--I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Grassley and the Administration to work with me on this issue.

Mr. President, the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements are solid agreements that will create economic opportunities for Americans.

With the WTO talks in a stalemate and FTAA talks bogging down, we need to pursue bilateral and regional options to expand trade and grow our economy. These agreements help achieve that goal.

A strong vote in favor of these agreements will send all the right messages--to American workers, farmers and businesses and also to our trading partners--that the United States still stands for trade liberalization. That our trade agenda is on track. And that the right kind of agreements will receive broad Congressional support.

Mr. President 1 year ago this week, the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2002.

This was landmark legislation. It was hard fought--it took the better part of 18 months to write and pass. It was far-reaching--touching on many aspects of our trade agenda. And it had support across the political spectrum--especially in the Senate.

Among its many provisions, the Trade Act improved and expanded the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for farmers and ranchers; renewed the President's Fast-Track trade negotiating authority; and renewed and expanded the Andean Trade Preference Act.

On august 6, we reach the 1-year mark for all these changes. So now is a good time to take stock of what has been accomplished so far.

Have the provisions of the Trade Act been implemented in a timely fashion? Are they working as Congress intended? And what remains to be done?

In sum, what I am here to provide today is a report card on the first year of the Trade Act of 2002.

I am proud of all the work that went into the Trade Act. But the part I am most proud of is the historic improvement and expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

We all know that expanding trade is good for the economy as a whole. It creates new export opportunities for farmers and businesses. It generates employment. It gives consumers more choices and saves them money.

But trade liberalization is not always good for individual workers. Inevitably, some will lose their jobs.

Trade adjustment assistance is the result of a promise first made to American workers by President Kennedy. He

promised workers that when our Government's trade policy results in the loss of jobs, we will help dislocated workers retrain, retool, and learn the new skills that they need to return to the workforce. That promise has been consistently renewed by Congress ever since.

Last year's Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act grew out of 40 years of experience with the TAA program. Many of the bill's key reforms were suggested in comprehensive studies of the program's strengths and weaknesses done by the GAO and the Trade Deficit Review Commission.

What those reports told us was that there were some ways to make TAA work better. That meant expanding eligibility to cover more workers affected by trade. It meant expanding benefits to assure a more useful retraining experience. and it also meant tightening up the rules in some places to make sure that the program is operating responsibly.

The improved TAA program went into effect last November.

Primary workers who lose their jobs due to import competition continue to be eligible for assistance. But the new, expanded eligibility rules also make assistance available to secondary workers whose companies lose business supplying inputs to primary firms; and workers who lose their jobs when their companies shift production overseas.

Secondary workers are only secondary in the minds of academics who made up the term. The fact is that they suffer the same job loss for the same reason as primary workers. They deserve the same chance to retrain. Now, that is what they get.

In another improvement, workers can now get training and income support for up to 2 years. this is a key change from the old program, where income support ran out before training benefits.

That led many workers to drop out of training before they were done. Dropping out of training defeats the whole purpose of TAA, so this was a critical fix.

Another key fix was the addition of a health care benefit. One of the things that has kept workers out of TAA retraining in the past was their inability to maintain affordable health insurance for their families. Now TAA enrollees are entitled to a 65 percent tax credit toward qualified health insurance expenses while in training.

Workers are also benefitting from a streamlined application process. The Trade Act combined the old TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs into one--so workers no longer have to apply twice under different rules.

Since last November, the Department of Labor has certified 1,242 TAA petitions, making 133,848 workers eligible to apply for TAA benefits.

That includes workers from Stimson Lumber in Libby, MT, and Trout Creek Lumber in Trout Creek, MT. Our lumber industry in Montana has been hard hit by unfairly subsidized Canadian lumber. I hope there will be a long-term solution to this intractable problem that will stop the job losses. I know that getting TAA assistance is not the first choice for any of these workers. But at least it is something--and something much more useful now than it was before.

Most of last year's reforms to TAA have been fully implemented and are working well. I want to thank Secretary Chao, Assistant Secretary DeRocco, and the team at the Education and Training Administration for making this priority. Thanks to their planning and hard work, the Department of Labor has done an exemplary job getting the improved program off the ground.

Still, the work of implementing TAA reform is not done. There are at least four areas where more work lies ahead.

First, the Trade Act required the Department of Labor to process petitions faster--in 40 days rather than 60. Slow petition approvals are a problem that has dogged the TAA program for years. Workers can't get program benefits until their petitions are approved.

I am glad to see that processing times are picking up. But they are not down to 40 days yet. I know the Labor Department appreciates the importance of speeding up processing time--and I certainly urge them to redouble their efforts in that regard.

Second, the Trade Act created a new Alternative TAA program-- sometimes called ``wage insurance''--aimed at older workers. Instead of enrolling in traditional TAA, these workers can choose to take a lower- paying job and receive a wage supplement from the government for up to 2 years. The goal of Alternative TAA is to encourage on-the-job training--which is usually the best training--and get workers back in jobs faster by making up some of the temporary income loss they may suffer by changing careers.

Alternative TAA is scheduled to go into effect on August 6 of this year. I am increasingly concerned that this deadline will not be met. Labor Department officials have assured me that they fully intended to launch this program on time. I don't doubt their sincerity or resolve.

So far, however, no draft regulations or program details have been made available. That means the public has not been able to comment on how the program might work. Outreach to potential enrollees cannot begin. And time is growing awfully short to get the States involved, even though they are on the front lines in running this program.

Alternative TAA is one of the most important innovations in the Trade Act. If it works, it could provide a whole new model for assisting displaced workers in this country.

One year seems like plenty of time to get this program running. I certainly hope it will be up and running by the deadline set by Congress.

A third outstanding item is the health care tax credit. A refundable credit was available starting last December. Congress set this August as the deadline for making the credit advanceable. For most people, that is the key to affordability.

The tax credit has been off to a somewhat shaky start. That is understandable, given that we are trying something completely new here.

In order for the tax credit to work, each state has to provide at least one group coverage option for eligible workers who do not have COBRA coverage.

As of now, it appears that about 22 states will have their coverage options up and running by August. That means that in more than half the states, some qualified workers will not be able to use their tax credits to by health insurance--unless they have COBRA.

That's not something the Federal Government can ultimately control. It is up to the States to provide retraining workers with qualified options. But I certainly encourage Treasury, HHS, and DOL to redouble their outreach efforts to get the slower States to pick up the pace.

The Trade Act of 2002 for the first time created a TAA program especially for farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers are affected by trade a little differently from manufacturing workers. They don't tend to lose their jobs and go on unemployment insurance. Instead, they can face sudden sharp falls in commodity prices due to trade. These price drops affect their income, but not necessarily their employment status.

TAA for farmers has been a long time in coming. After several failed attempts, history has shown that trying to shoe-horn farmers and ranchers into a TAA program designed for manufacturing workers doesn't work. So Congress created a TAA program that better fits their needs. The eligibility trigger is different--it is based on the effect of trade on commodity prices. But the purpose is the same--give farmers a chance to retool, retrain, and adapt to import competition.

I am very proud of this program. It has the potential to do some real good in Montana and other States where farmers work hard to make it in a global economy. And it can help bolster support for trade liberalization in the agricultural community.

USDA has done some solid thinking on how to put this program together. I commend them on their outreach to Congress and to the private sector during the planning stages.

But the effort got off to a very slow start. Even though things are back on track now, they are running way behind schedule. Congress set aside $90 million for this program in fiscal year 2003 and told USDA to get the program operational by March of this year. That didn't happen.

I know that USDA is close to finalizing the regulations so they can get

TAA for Farmers up and running. I urge Secretary Veneman to do everything in her power to make sure that the program gets started in time to use the funds that Congress intended for our farmers in this fiscal year.

What happens next?

The first step is getting all the changes to TAA up and running. I hope that we are in the home stretch on that.

Then we need to start tracking results. Seeing how well the new, improved program is working. To that end, Senator Grassley and I have jointly asked the GAO to do an assessment of how well TAA has been working in the first year under the new law. We have to wait long enough for meaningful data to be collected. So that report is due out next summer, and I am looking forward to the results.

In the meantime, I will be keeping my eye on TAA. A few important issues to watch will be training funds: Was the increase in the Trade Act enough to meet increased enrollment?, and performance evaluation: Are DOL and the states cooperating to generate good data for tracking program participation and outcomes?

One last item for future action is TAA for Firms. This program, which operates out of the Department of Commerce, provides technical assistance to small and medium-sized companies that face layoffs due to import competition. The companies themselves chip in half the money to fund their adjustment plans. And they pay back the Federal share in tax revenues and foregone unemployment services when they succeed.

For many years, TAA for Firms has been chronically underfunded. A backlog of approved but unfunded adjustment proposals is building up in every State.

In order to begin reducing this backlog, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress reauthorized TAA for Firms at an increased funding level of $16 million annually. The President's budget for fiscal year 2004, however, proposes funding at only $13 million.

This is not enough, and I view it as unacceptable backsliding by the administration. I encourage our appropriators to fund this program fully at the authorized level of $16 million.

Aside from funding, I think the biggest threat to the effective operation of the TAA for Firms program is a pending proposal to change its management structure. This program works well under a small centralized management in Washington, supplemented by the excellent work of 12 regional Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers.

The program is not broken and does not need to be fixed. That is why I oppose the department's plans to break the Washington office up into seven separate offices scattered around the country. It seems like an inefficient use of government resources that will only complicate oversight and jeopardize consistent decision-making. This is not a partisan issue--it's just good government.

That is why I have introduced S. 1120--a bill to move the FAA for Firms program to a different part of the Commerce Department, where it can continue to be centrally managed. The bill currently has 12 co- sponsors, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

In addition to TAA, there were, of course, several other very important provisions in the Trade Act of 2002. Most significantly-- Trade Promotion Authority.

After a lapse of 8 years, we were able to renew the fast-track procedures that allow the President to submit trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote with no amendments. It is these very procedures that bring us to the floor today to debate, and ultimately vote on, the Singapore and Chile FTAs.

Some people say our trade agenda was stalled--or even dead--before we passed TPA. I strongly disagree.

We completed China and Taiwan's WTO accessions. We passed AGOA, the Jordan FTA and the Vietnam trade agreement. We know from experience that good, strong trade bills with bipartisan support can pass the Congress even without fast-track.

But fast-track makes this more likely. And--particularly when we are negotiating complex agreements with large groups of countries in the WTO or FTAA--there is just no other way to get our trading partners to put their best deals on the table. They won't show their bottom line if they think Congress can come back and renegotiate the deal.

So getting fast-track renewed is an important accomplishment. It lasts for 3 years--extendable to 5. I hope we use it well.

I want to see us use fast track to negotiate trade agreements that serve the commercial objectives of our farmers and businesses. Agreements that will create jobs for our workers and real value for consumers.

These are the kinds of agreements that will build domestic support for our trade agenda. With that support, our progress on trade will become self-reinforcing--and we will not need to worry about another lengthy lapse in fast-track.

For the last few months I have been working--together with Congressman Dooley and others--to reach out to business and agriculture groups and others interested in trade to hear their priorities for commercially meaningful trade agreements. I plan to continue this process and to consult closely with the administration on what I learn.

That leads me to just a few comments on consultation. The bills before us today are the first to be considered under the fast-track procedures approved last year. And one of the key refinements in the bill was to beef up the consultation process between the administration and Congress.

I want to thank Ambassador Zoellick and his staff for the efforts they have put into these consultations. Given the nature and pace of negotiations, there is always a balance to be struck between timely and meaningful consultation with Congress and quick turnaround by our negotiators. I hope they will continue their efforts to improve Congressional access to draft negotiating documents and keep the lines of communication open even when the pace of negotiations gets frantic.

I also want to commend both USTR and Senator Grassley and his staff for the drafting process for the Singapore and Chile bills. It was very cooperative. This is the way the informal drafting process is supposed to work under fast-track. I think it sets a good precedent as new agreements come down the road.

Finally, I want to turn to another part of the Trade Act--the renewal and expansion of the Andean Trade Preferences Act.

Early reports slow rising exports from ATPA countries to the U.S. in some of the new categories to receive benefits. Reports from USTR and the ITC indicate that ATPA continues to play a critical role in economic diversification and drug eradication efforts in the Andean region.

As always, that doesn't mean our trade relationship with the region is trouble-free. For one thing, U.S. companies have a number of unresolved investment disputes with Andean countries. Even with the pressure USTR could bring to bear prior to ATPA renewal, we were not able to resolve them all. For example, Ecuador continues to deny VAT payment credits that it owes to American companies--despite continued promises at the highest levels of government.

Advancing the trade agenda through new agreements is important--but so is making sure that our trading partners are living up to the commitments they have already made. Congress will be looking at ATPA again in a few years, and we need to keep our eyes on the region.

The Trade Act of 2002 was the most significant and far-reaching piece of trade legislation to come through the Congress in 14 years. I am proud to have played a central role in shaping it. Overall, my report card on implementation is pretty positive.

As implementation on TAA moves forward, I intend to continue monitoring the administration's efforts and the impact that the program has on eligible workers. I also plan to continue working on trade legislation that advances our agenda of job creation and economic growth. There will be plenty of opportunities ahead.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on the comprehensive Energy legislation. While the Senate has debated numerous aspects of this legislation, there has been a little discussion--not very much, I might add--

of the tax provisions in this bill. Yesterday, Senator Grassley, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici and I filed the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003 as an amendment to S. 14.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a revenue table and the committee report at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, this amendment reflects the energy tax incentives reported out by the Finance Committee in April. The incentives in this amendment enjoy broad support, across the political spectrum.

These tax incentives are also very similar to those in last year's energy tax bill. In April of last year, they won overwhelming support on the Senate floor.

I was disappointed that the conferees did not reach an agreement on the larger energy package last year. I am hopeful that this year, we will see these provisions signed into law.

Before explaining the specific incentives proposed in this amendment, let me first take a few moments to address the nature of the energy challenge facing the nation.

The last few years have seen energy crises, characterized by energy supply shortages and price spikes. We saw rolling blackouts in the State of California. Energy price jolts affected nearly all Americans. Energy-related disruptions were widespread and severe.

Folks back in my home state of Montana have been particularly hard hit. Many people in Montana have to drive great distances just to get to work. And high gas and energy prices raise the costs of doing business for small businesses, farmers, and ranchers, alike.

Today, we face continued uncertainty in world energy markets. Earlier this year, energy prices soared to record levels. This was due, in part, to uncertainty over the war in Iraq. And it was also due, in part, to the colder-than-average winter.

Natural gas markets raise growing concerns. This May, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan predicted that growing demand for natural gas and limited supplies would continue to raise natural gas prices. Chairman Greenspan warned that this situation could put American companies at a disadvantage relative to their overseas competitors.

Since then, natural gas prices have continued to climb. Today, natural gas prices are nearly double last year's levels. A year ago, natural gas prices across the nation averaged about $3 per thousand cubic feet. This year, during the last three days of June, trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange pushed prices up to an average of $5.98 per thousand cubic feet.

Natural gas is a key input and cost of doing business in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing is very energy-intensive. Manufacturers use energy to heat factories, to heat boilers to make steam and produce electricity to run machines. Manufacturing accounts for nearly one-half of the nation's natural gas use.

Higher gas prices place additional competitive pressures on these businesses. The National Association of Manufacturers reports that rising energy costs are causing many companies to close their operations.

Slowing in the manufacturing sector accounts for much of the current weakening in our economy. And this means that hard-working Americans are losing jobs--high-paying jobs--jobs that often move overseas.

Rising natural gas prices also affect American consumers. The Department of Energy predicts that household bills will be about 20 percent higher this winter than last year.

Gasoline prices have also raised concerns. Last year at this time, the national average retail price for regular gasoline was about $1.40 per gallon. Earlier this year, prices peaked at almost $1.70 per gallon. Last week's average price was $1.52 per gallon. The Department of Energy expects prices to remain at this higher level throughout the year. This volatility in U.S. gas prices has a sharp economic effect, disrupting businesses and lives.

The average U.S. household uses about 1,100 gallons of gasoline a year in their cars. Thus the increase in gas prices over last year means that an average household is paying $132 more a year just for their car's gasoline. And because gas prices peaked at almost $1.70 per gallon earlier this year, the actual increase in household spending on gasoline was much greater.

Such a cost difference can have severe effects on businesses. Consider a business that relies primarily on trucking services for shipping its products. For these companies, even modest price volatility can break the business.

The outlook for both the gasoline and natural gas markets is not promising. The Department of Energy projects that during the next 20 years, world oil demand will increase by more than 50 percent, from 76 million barrels per day in 2000 to nearly 120 million barrels per day in 2020.

The more reliant we are on petroleum products, the more that oil price fluctuations will affect us. And continued political uncertainly and the treat of terrorism will worsen this vulnerability.

To address these energy challenges, the Energy Committee has designed the underlying bill. And to contribute to these efforts, earlier this year, the Finance Committee marked up a bill providing tax incentives to support these broader energy policy objectives. Those incentives are reflected in the pending amendment.

The Finance Committee amendment consists of a balanced package of targeted incentives directed to alternative energy, traditional energy production, and energy efficiency.

The amendment would accomplish its goals in three main ways:

First, it would encourage new energy production, especially production from renewable sources.

Second, it would encourage the development of new technology.

And third, it would encourage energy conservation.

Production, technology, and conservation. Let me explain each in turn.

First, new production is critical. The level of U.S. energy production directly affects our dependence on foreign sources of energy. If we can increase U.S. energy production faster than demand, we can become less reliant on foreign energy. The opposite, however, is taking place.

As this chart shows, through 2020, America's energy use is increasing more rapidly than domestic energy production. As a result, our reliance on foreign sources of energy is increasing.

Here is how we address the problem: Through targeted incentives, this amendment would encourage the development of both traditional and alternative sources of production, thereby boosting our overall energy resources. This will help promote American energy independence, which will contribute to both greater economic growth and national security.

The use of tax incentives to promote energy development stretches back to the enactment of the income tax in 1916, with tax incentives for the production of oil and gas. And in 1978, we created tax incentives for renewable fuels and for conservation.

This amendment would provide tax incentives for the development of renewable resources and alternative fuels. Renewables provide cleaner, safer alternatives to more drilling and more nuclear facilities.

This amendment would extend the wind and biomass credit for an additional 5 years. And the amendment would qualify many more sources-- geothermal, solar, plant life, and others--as renewable fuel sources.

At the same time, we recognize that the U.S. will continue to rely on oil, gas, and coal production. To further boost production, the amendment would create a new credit for oil and gas production from marginal wells. And the amendment would simplify cost recovery of geological and geophysical expenditures. The amendment would also include several tax incentives to help the oil and gas industry to bring supply to market.

While this amendment would thus support exploration and production of more traditional resources, it would also encourage cleaner use of these fuels.

For example, the amendment includes several incentives to encourage electric utilities to invest in technologies that will make their coal- fired power plants cleaner-burning and more efficient. This will help make coal a more environmentally-friendly energy source into the future, even as we look for alternatives.

Energy sector activities are often front and center in environmental debates. Congress needs to consider environmental concerns when crafting its energy legislation. By carefully targeting our tax incentives, we can encourage more environmentally-friendly activities, such as the use of renewable resources and the transition towards cleaner, more-efficient technologies.

Let me turn to the second key element of the amendment: new technology.

New technology can be the cornerstone of energy independence and cleaner energy. In the future, electricity, new and alternative fuels, and fuel cells will power our cars.

But to get there, we will need substantial investments to create the building blocks for future technologies. Why? Because today's transportation sector is 97 percent reliant on petroleum based fuel. That's right. 97 percent.

We need a lot of change to make the transportation sector cleaner and more fuel-efficient. We need to make significant investments to bring about this change.

In addition, we need to promote the use of cleaner, more-efficient technologies throughout the energy sector. Such state-of-the-art technologies are often more expensive than more-traditional technologies. Tax incentives help to bridge the gap in cost between these cleaner technologies and traditional technologies.

Here is what we do.

We create tax credits for the purchase of new technology vehicles. These vehicles of the future will be powered by alternative fuels, fuel cells, and by electric batteries.

We also provide tax credits for the purchase of hybrid vehicles, which run partly on electricity and partly on gasoline.

What is so great about these vehicles? Well for starters, fuel cell and electric vehicles are zero-emissions vehicles. And hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles can speed us toward the development of these zero-emissions vehicles.

And each of these vehicle types can significantly improve fuel economy and energy independence. To make sure, we provide certain tax credits only if the vehicle achieves large improvements in fuel economy.

Many new vehicle technologies require new fuels and infrastructure to deliver those fuels. Therefore, the amendment provides tax incentives for the installation of new-technology refueling stations and for the purchase of alternative fuels.

We also have developed a number of incentives to promote the use of cleaner-burning, state-of-the-art technologies throughout the energy sector.

We create incentives for clean coal. Under the amendment, if you retrofit to use currently available clean coal technology, you are eligible for a production tax credit. If you use advanced technology, you are eligible for both an investment credit and a production credit.

Investing in these cleaner-burning technologies in the coal and transportation sectors will have positive long-term environmental effects, particularly for air quality.

Other incentives will promote the development of renewable energy technology. These and other tax incentives will help advance further technological development. This will have a long-term stimulative effect on America's economy.

The third key element of the amendment is conservation. Just as much as new production, conservation promotes energy independence. It also helps reduce pollution and thereby improve our health and the environment in the longer term.

In crafting these incentives, we have struck a balance between production and conservation. Increasing conservation--reducing energy consumption--will help reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy.

And tax incentives can be effective means of encouraging conservation. A couple of years back, Economist Kevin Hassett told the Committee that ``a 10 percentage point credit would likely increase the probability of investing--in conservation--by about 24 percent.''

The amendment includes several incentives to encourage businesses and homeowners to use energy-efficient equipment, building materials, and appliances. These tax incentives can make the difference, as such products tend to be more expensive than more-traditional products and materials.

As Energy Secretary Abraham said during a tour of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, earlier this month: Americans can help mitigate an expected natural-gas shortage during the coming year by reducing energy use and adopting efficiency measures for heating and cooling homes and offices.

The amendment would give a tax credit to reduce the cost of the energy-efficient technology, enabling individuals to purchase energy- efficient refrigerators and other appliances.

The amendment would also empower individuals with more complete energy consumption information by encouraging metering devices. These types of metering devices allow people to make more-informed decisions about the use of energy and thereby save energy in their homes.

Over time, the benefits of tax investments in energy conservation will reduce monthly energy bills. These cost savings can have the same economic effect as a tax cut--more dollars in the hands of American families.

Those are the three key elements of the amendment. New production, new technology, and conservation.

The amendment includes other important provisions. One in particular is electric utility restructuring. This is important for investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, and cooperatives, like those back in Montana.

Other provisions address nuclear decommissioning funds and the treatment of cooperatives.

Finally, these tax provisions address market inefficiencies by providing a real economic benefit for engaging in more environmentally- sensitive activities. In short, this amendment is good environmental policy and good energy policy.

This is a good amendment. It is a package of tax incentives that are important in their own right and that will complement the broader energy bill. It will provide a key component of our emerging environmental and energy policies.

I support Chairman Grassley's position that this amendment generally should represent the position of the Finance Committee and the Senate during conference negotiations of the Energy Bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Energy Tax Incentives Act provides an incentive for new business installations of qualified fuel cells. For those in the future who might be interested in ascertaining the intent of the authors of this provision, the Finance Committee in drafting this language did so with the knowledge that there are various types of fuel cells that convert the chemical energy in fuels, such as hydrogen or methanol, into electrical energy by means of electrochemical reactions. Rechargeable fuel cells can convert electricity into chemical energy that can be stored, and then reconvert that chemical energy into electrical energy when it is needed. Rechargeable fuel cells can provide the capability for storing electricity during periods of low demand and releasing it at periods of high demand. This feature can help stabilize the output from renewable resources, including wind generation, electricity generated from swine and bovine waste nutrients, geothermal power, solar power, and biomass facilities. This language is intended to encourage the provision of electricity through non-polluting means, and to assist in the development of alternate, renewable resources. Our policy is to help develop these and other alternative, renewable resources.

As the chairman of the Finance Committee who has worked diligently to develop appropriate incentives for renewable resources, is it also your view that the proposed credit for qualified fuel cells should include rechargeable fuel cells, such as those that store electricity generated from these renewable resources?

I thank my friend from Iowa for his cooperation on this issue, and I look forward to continue our efforts to enact this important energy security legislation.

nuclear waste

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute and express my deepest appreciation for a member of my staff who has served the U.S. Senate, me personally, and the State of Montana admirably.

Today is my State director Sharon Peterson's last day. She retires today after more than 22 year of service in the Senate.

Sharon's career in public service is the culmination of a lifetime of hard work.

Sharon became interested in public service after seeing the late Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield speak in Lewistown. He inspired her to give back to Montana. Which she's been doing ever since.

As a Fergus County rancher, along with her husband Garde, she has always been interested in the policies that affect Montana agriculture. And she's considered an expert in the field.

Sharon helped organize Montana Women Involved in Farm Economics--or WIFE--in 1975. This led to an appointment from President Jimmy

Carter to the U.S. Commission on Alcohol Fuels, where she served from 1979 to 1981.

I remember vividly Sharon bending my ear on ethanol. She once traveled to Washington--before she was on my staff--to advocate for increased ethanol production. I remember being late for a Capitol Hill press conference and Sharon literally dragging me by my shirtsleeves to make it on time. She was just like that--always on the move, always aggressive.

A former State Chair for the Montana Democratic Party, Sharon was very politically active. And she was a familiar face in Helena during many state legislative sessions.

Sharon joined my staff in Billings in 1981. Back then, we didn't have c-span, no e-mail, no Blackberry on Palm Pilots. We didn't even have computers in my State offices when Sharon first started. Only an old roll-paper fax or two. This made it challenging for our State operation. But they worked hard to stay in touch with Washington.

Sharon served as my scheduler for 10 years. And she was tenacious in making sure I was on time, which is, as we all here in the Senate know, not an easy task--especially back then.

I once did a work day--I work alongside Montanans at least one day a month--at the Stillwater Mine in Columbus. I was having so much fun working in the mine, I didn't want to leave. Sharon, afraid of nothing and against the caution of mine workers, came down into the mine shaft to get me to my next meeting.

She once called the kitchen of a restaurant in Choteau and told the dishwasher to get me moving.

Sharon helped organize the 1989 Montana Cattle Drive celebrating Montana's bicentennial. Again, I was having so much fun I stayed out on the drive for several days longer than I was supposed to. Sharon drove out to camp and took me to a pay phone to call my Washington staff.

Sharon helped on my first Senate campaign, in 1978. She helped deliver Fergus County, which she later realized was a lot harder than one might think.

I appointed her my State director 1993. In this role, she was a key advisor to me. She was a strong voice for Montana on agriculture, transportation, rural health and education, trade and natural resources. She fought for rural communities and Main Street businesses.

She was a tireless advocate for farmers and ranchers, helping to pass numerous farm bills and helping producers through the drought of the 1980s.

Whe organized the first of many trade trips to foreign countries.

As State Director, Sharon took great pride in making sure our State operation ran smoothly and served Montanans well. She answered my toll free line for 22 years. That's the 800 number Montanans use to get in touch with me. She was dedicated to case work. She personally helped thousands of Montanans.

For many years I have counted on Sharon to educate us on the realities of living in rural areas. She insisted we apply good Montana common sense to everything we do. She believes strongly in protecting the Montana values of doing what's right, common sense, faith, hard work, a strong connection to the land, and community.

Her Montana roots run deep. Long ago, we tried to get Sharon to move to Washington. She stayed for two weeks and went home. Montana is her home. She loves our State. I doubt she'll ever leave. Sharon's a rancher. She's a salt-of-the earth Montanan.

When I asked Sharon what the best part of the job was she said: ``The ability to help people and make Montana an even better place.''

She did both.

I'll miss her. My staff will miss her. The Senate will miss her. And most importantly the State of Montana will miss her.

She truly made ``The Last Best Place'' even better. For that, we are eternally grateful. And we wish her and Garde all the best.

Mr. President, this year will mark the 7th year of drought for some parts of Montana

The current drought has been disastrous, not only to agriculture producers, but also to the surrounding rural communities. When producers are hurting, everyone in that region huts. Main streets, die, schools close, and rural towns dry up.

The economic costs are immeasurable, but the social costs are also substantial. Domestic abuse increases; suicide rates rise; People's lives are turned upside down. Drought is not something we can ignore.

In Montana, agriculture accounts for over half of our economy. It's our backbone--both economically and socially. We can not ignore the drought.

According to the National Drought Monitor, nearly one-third of the United States is currently experiencing ``moderate'' to ``exceptional' drought. Nearly one-third of the United States is experiencing the devastating effects of drought.

Yet despite the colossal economic and social costs of drought, we do not have a national drought policy.

The last prolonged drought of substantial magnitude in the United States was during the 1930s. While not all of us were around during this time, we have all heard about the dust bowl years. The drought coincided with an economic downturn and rural areas were devastated. Banks closed, schools closed, main streets disappeared. Millions of people migrated to urban areas.

The effects of the current drought are frighteningly similar. We are experiencing an economic downturn, schools are closing, main streets are disappearing.

Following the dustbowl years, the Federal Government enacted the first proactive response to drought with the creation of the Soil Conservation Service--now the Natural Resources Conservation Service-- to stress soil conservation measures. It's time to expand this proactive approach and create a national drought policy.

We need a national drought policy and we need it now.

I am pleased to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act with my colleague Senator Domenici of New Mexico.

The National Drought Preparedness Act accomplishes four main objectives. This bill: (1) creates a national policy for drought, (2) improves the delivery of Federal drought programs, (3) provides new tools for drought preparedness planning, and (4) improves drought forecasting and monitoring.

We have waited too long for this bill. Drought is occurring now and it will occur again. It's time to create a proactive, preparedness approach to drought and this bill will do just that.

Mr. President, this year will mark the 7th year of drought for some parts of Montana

The current drought has been disastrous, not only to agriculture producers, but also to the surrounding rural communities. When producers are hurting, everyone in that region huts. Main streets, die, schools close, and rural towns dry up.

The economic costs are immeasurable, but the social costs are also substantial. Domestic abuse increases; suicide rates rise; People's lives are turned upside down. Drought is not something we can ignore.

In Montana, agriculture accounts for over half of our economy. It's our backbone--both economically and socially. We can not ignore the drought.

According to the National Drought Monitor, nearly one-third of the United States is currently experiencing ``moderate'' to ``exceptional' drought. Nearly one-third of the United States is experiencing the devastating effects of drought.

Yet despite the colossal economic and social costs of drought, we do not have a national drought policy.

The last prolonged drought of substantial magnitude in the United States was during the 1930s. While not all of us were around during this time, we have all heard about the dust bowl years. The drought coincided with an economic downturn and rural areas were devastated. Banks closed, schools closed, main streets disappeared. Millions of people migrated to urban areas.

The effects of the current drought are frighteningly similar. We are experiencing an economic downturn, schools are closing, main streets are disappearing.

Following the dustbowl years, the Federal Government enacted the first proactive response to drought with the creation of the Soil Conservation Service--now the Natural Resources Conservation Service-- to stress soil conservation measures. It's time to expand this proactive approach and create a national drought policy.

We need a national drought policy and we need it now.

I am pleased to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act with my colleague Senator Domenici of New Mexico.

The National Drought Preparedness Act accomplishes four main objectives. This bill: (1) creates a national policy for drought, (2) improves the delivery of Federal drought programs, (3) provides new tools for drought preparedness planning, and (4) improves drought forecasting and monitoring.

We have waited too long for this bill. Drought is occurring now and it will occur again. It's time to create a proactive, preparedness approach to drought and this bill will do just that.

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

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

Mr. President, it has been 48 days since the Senate passed the Lincoln-Snowe bill to provide child tax credit to the families of 12 million children. Twelve million, Mr. President, is not a small number of children in America. The House then passed a different child tax credit bill.

Thirty-five days ago, the Senate appointed conferees to work out the differences between the two bills--35 days--and the conference has yet to hold its first meeting.

On July 25, just 2 business days from today, many families will begin receiving checks for the increased child tax credit, but millions of families will find their mailboxes empty. Why? Millions who hoped for such a credit will not receive it. Why? Because the conference has not met and the House has not agreed to the Senate provision. The Lincoln- Snowe bill, however, would ensure that these families are not left behind. In 2 working days, the House plans to adjourn for the remainder of the summer, not addressing this important question. We must, rather, send a bill to the President before that time so that millions of children can receive the benefit.

Just a few years ago, in 2001, the President brought a tax reduction proposal to Congress. The proposal was based upon the premise that taxpayers across the board were paying too much of their income in taxes. The President included the working poor, citing extremely high marginal rates. At the

time, the working poor faced marginal rates above 50 percent, among the highest marginal rates faced by any taxpayer.

What does that really mean? That means that for the working poor, with their marginal rates above 50 percent, for every extra dollar that a person in that category earned, more than half of that would be taxed, and less than half would then be kept by the taxpayer. That is the effect of the high marginal rate of the working poor.

The President's economic advisers called this an ``egregious problem'' in our Tax Code. On the campaign trail, candidate George Bush pledged that, ``lowering these barriers to the middle class'' was one of his top priorities.

I worked with the President in 2001 to reduce the marginal rates for working Americans. I think he was right. The bill we enacted included marginal rate cuts for taxpayers across the board. It also included two provisions specifically targeted at reducing the marginal rate for low- income workers. First, it reduced the lowest marginal rate; that is, the tax paid on the first dollar of taxable income from 15 percent to 10 percent. Second, it made the child tax credit partially refundable for working families. Currently, the child credit is refundable up to 10 percent for a family's income above $10,500. In 2005, this amount is set to increase to 15 percent, up from 10 percent.

The marginal rates for working taxpayers are less than they were before the 2001 bill was passed, and they will be less in 2005. I believe, frankly, we should do more.

Under current law, taxpayers in the lower income brackets face marginal rates as high as 46 percent, as represented by this chart. That is, under current law taxpayers in the lower income brackets face marginal rates as high as 46 percent. This chart shows that for a married couple with two children, with an income of $27,000, the marginal rate is 46 percent. Compare that with the marginal rate of higher income Americans. For a family with two children, a family of four, with $100,000 of income, the marginal rate is only 28 percent. That is, the Government takes 28 cents of the next dollar earned by a family in the $100,000 income bracket.

Correspondingly, it rises as the income rises but not much, and still not nearly as high as a working family with $27,000 total income. Their marginal rate is 46 percent. It is much higher than the marginal rate is for higher income Americans.

So let's take an example. A family of four making $27,000, that is about 150 percent of poverty. What happens to that family? If they earn an additional dollar of income, they lose 21 cents of the earned-income tax credit they receive. They lose it because of the phaseout of the earned-income tax credit. They pay payroll taxes of 15 cents if we include both shares of the payroll taxes, as most economists do. And they pay 10 cents in Federal income tax. This adds up to a marginal rate of 46 percent for a family of four earning $27,000. This is how it is broken down: Income tax, 10 percent; payroll tax, 15 percent; and because of the way the Tax Code works, and the earned-income tax credit phases out, that amounts to a 21-percent marginal rate that taxpayer has to pay. So for every additional dollar this family makes, they keep only 54 cents. Forty-six cents on every additional dollar made goes to the Federal Government. We are not even talking about State taxes. We are just talking about Federal taxes. So State taxes could be a lot more.

How does this compare with other taxpayers? This family making $27,000 faces a higher marginal rate today than a similar family making $100,000, $150,000, or $200,000 as shown by the same chart shown earlier. It is very clear that lower income persons pay higher marginal tax rates. In fact, this family has a marginal rate that is higher than the wealthiest taxpayers in America, if my colleagues can believe that.

If we are supposed to be encouraging people to work, logically lower income Americans would have a lower marginal rate because we want to encourage people, particularly in that category, to earn an extra dollar. But our Tax Code is so perverse it causes the reverse result. It is far higher than the corporate rate of 35 percent.

Just think of that. I do not think many people know that. That is, lower income working families, families with a $27,000 income, pay a higher marginal rate than corporations do. I do not think most Americans know that, and if most Americans did, they would think that is not right. Hence, many of us are today urging the Congress, urging the other side of the aisle in particular, to work with the House and pass a child tax credit in the remaining 2 days before the House adjourns for the summer recess.

Senators Lincoln and Snowe deserve a lot of credit. They have led the effort to reduce the marginal rates for working families. They began in 2001 when they fought to ensure that low-income working families would be able to receive a refundable child credit, and they are now fighting to ensure that these families receive the full child tax credit today.

I will explain how the refundable child credit reduces the marginal rate for working families. Let's take a family of four making $22,000. Without the refundable child credit, their marginal rate would be 36 percent. The current credit, which is 10 percent refundable, brings their marginal rate down to 26 percent. In 2005, the refundability of the child credit will increase to 15 percent. This family's marginal rate will then go down to 21 percent, from 26 percent.

We have all heard the argument for immediate tax relief: If tax relief is good enough in a few years, it is good enough today. We have heard it constantly. It is a constant refrain in this body. This was the theory behind President Bush's jobs and growth package, which accelerated marginal rate reductions for millions of taxpayers, including those making $100,000, $200,000, or even $1 million. For a family making $100,000, the marginal income and payroll tax rate was reduced in that package from 30 percent to 28 percent. For the family making $200,000, the rate was reduced again from 38 percent to 36 percent, and for millionaires the rate was reduced from almost 42 percent to 38 percent.

The provision that would have reduced the marginal rate for low- income working families, that is the increase in child tax credit refundability, was specifically excluded from the final bill. If marginal rate reductions are good enough for the wealthy today, are they not good enough for the working poor? The answer from the Senate was a resounding yes. The Lincoln-Snowe bill to reduce marginal rates for the working poor immediately passed the Senate almost unanimously.

The marginal rates for the low-income working families are still too high. Passing the Lincoln-Snowe bill is an improvement. This improvement will provide additional incentives to work and earn the extra dollar, which is basically what tax reduction is all about, and it would shrink what the President has called barriers to the middle class.

We have 2 working days left, 2 days to convene this conference, work out our differences, send this bill to the President; 2 days to ensure that low-income working families receive the same tax relief that is promised to the rest of America's families, and 2 days remaining to ensure we fix this problem. Even President Bush agrees this is an egregious problem in the Tax Code. I strenuously urge us to put politics aside and do what is right and convene this conference committee. Let's get this passed in the next 2 days before the House adjourns for the summer.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided on both sides.

How much time would the Senator like?

Reserving the right to object, would the Chair inform the Senate of the present parliamentary situation?

I ask if the Senator could perhaps yield until after we complete morning business. It is possible others may want to speak on the subject set aside for this morning during morning business.

Mr. President, I am awaiting the arrival of my colleague from New York to offer the amendment. It is his amendment and I am a cosponsor. Pending his arrival, I will make a couple of statements. I do not have the amendment with me.

I am pleased to join with the Senator from New York, essentially offering an amendment that provides additional funds to increase the number of border personnel protecting the more than 5,000 miles of border we share with Canada.

It goes without saying that protecting this great Nation is the most important responsibility facing the Congress and the administration. Certainly enhancing border security is critically important in the wake of September 11, 2001. The need for increased security against threats from outside and within our country is evident.

Over the years our borders have seen a rise in the number of illegal aliens trying to gain entry into our country.

These individuals are using whatever means possible to get into this country, some to seek a better life, others to traffic in illegal and harmful activities, and some with even more nefarious goals.

Clearly, we must do more to control and prevent illegal entry into the United States. How do we do that? What is the best way? One, clearly, is to invest in advanced surveillance technology and communication systems that allow enforcement personnel to monitor the flow of individuals entering this country. All personnel involved with border security and law enforcement need to be able to communicate with each other effectively. Currently, it is very difficult for them to do so.

Illegal entry is usually gained somewhere along the vast 5,000-mile border between border stations. Sometimes it is at the border stations, but often it is in between them, in the mountains, in the plains, and the unobserved areas. In the mountains of northern Montana, for example, electronic sensors have recently picked up 1,000 crossings between Canada and the United States. Not one arrest was made from any of those sensor signals. What were those crossings? Who were they? What were they? Could it be wild animals, backpackers, illegal aliens? No one knows. Why? Because of the lack of personnel and proper equipment, we can only guess. We do not know what type of activity the sensors are picking up and what is crossing our borders.

The security of our Nation affects everyone. My example points out that the State of Montana faces unique issues regarding homeland security. Montana has the longest border with Canada in the lower 48 States. We border three Canadian provinces with a northern border of roughly 600 miles. Controlling the traffic of people coming in and out of the country through Montana is difficult, to say the least. People working at the border stations or near the border stations are extremely frustrated because of inadequate personnel, because of the inability of personnel to communicate with each other--regardless of what agency it might be. It might be DEA; it might be Immigration; it might be Customs. There are lots of agencies and each has different communications facilities. They have a hard time talking with each other.

In addition, there are very few personnel along that entire border.

Along with the sheer length of the border, the topography of the region makes patrolling it a terrific challenge. A lot of my colleagues have spoken to me and said how much they like visiting Montana because of the beauty of the State, particularly Glacier Park. It takes a lot of work to hike over those mountains and it is very difficult to protect that border with Canada. Then in eastern Montana, as far as the eye can see, are vast plains and it is very easy to cross the border from the United States through Montana.

Glacier National Park is located in the northwestern corner of our State. It crosses over to the Province of Alberta and the Province of British Columbia. It has sharp mountains and rugged peaks; it is wilderness but also an area that requires increased resources to monitor because it is so difficult to monitor that part of the border.

The U.S. Park Service is responsible for the security of our national parks. The National Park Rangers patrol the 40 miles of the international border that lies within Glacier Park with little increases in funding for park security.

Park services are already strained, our national parks are already strained for resources, and we need a vast increase in them, in my judgment. With the additional terrorism threat that faces our country, we have additional pressure for more resources to protect our borders.

I believe homeland security is of the utmost importance and our border agencies, law enforcement, and the National Park Service need a lot of help. If we do not increase the technology, if we do not increase the personnel needed for border security, we will certainly continue to see more individuals who will enter our country through the remote areas of the border, particularly in my State of Montana. We don't like it. We are very concerned.

There are also drugs coming down because of the inadequate number of personnel and inadequate equipment the current personnel have. Our country must do more to increase the number of border personnel to prevent this unwanted traffic.

Finally, we need to continue working with our neighbor to the north, continue working with Canada to secure our Nation's northern border, their southern border. We can do this with coordinated law enforcement operations, through intelligence sharing and infrastructure improvements but, again, this cannot be done just on the basis of words. It can only be done with effective manpower, with proper technology, and with good communication systems. It is clearly inadequate today.

I am pleased today to join with Senator Schumer to offer an amendment that will provide an additional $200 million to increase the number of border personnel. This will enhance our ability to conduct inspections of people and goods entering our country. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

This is not an idle statement; this is very important. If the Presiding Officer, who comes from a State which also borders with Canada, were joined with me in explaining to our colleagues just how important it is to protect that border and how easy it is to cross that border undetected--I am certain in the home State of the Presiding Officer it is almost as easy as in my State of Montana let alone other Western States.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I guess it will be opposed, but, frankly, $200 million for additional border security I think is an investment very well worth it. It is an investment we must make.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, this is a great amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Klein and Matt Linstroth of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the day.