Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a much-needed clarification of current trade law. Misinterpretation of the current law hurts hundreds of American companies and thousands of American workers.

It is a misinterpretation that results in the understatement both of the degree of foreign unfair trade and the amount of duties necessary to offset it.

The legislation Senator Craig and I are proposing would clarify that, in an antidumping proceeding, countervailing duties paid by a foreign seller should be deducted from the U.S. price.

This legislation would rectify the current understatement of unfair trade and ensure that the true expenses of selling in the United States are recognized in the calculation of duties.

Now, I am here today because this issue is of particular importance to Montana's softwood lumber industry. For more than 20 years, I have stood beside our lumber industry as they have fought massive illegal subsidies by the Canadian government.

All they are asking for is a level playing field.

Unfortunately for everyone, this process has been stuck in an endless cycle of litigation. I hope we can end that, and get to a place where there is real market-based competition. But until we do, we must ensure that our fair trade laws are as strong as possible.

We have countervailing duty laws that offset unfair foreign subsidies. We also have antidumping laws that help ensure that foreign products are sold for a ``fair price'' in the United States,

a price that is comparable to the foreign price, and that reasonably reflects the cost of production.

But we can't make a fair comparison unless we factor in the cost of countervailing duties. It's that simple. We are letting unfair traders off the hook.

And we're doing so simply because of a misinterpretation of current law by the Department of Commerce. There is no sensible policy or legal rationale for this practice.

And I would note here that adopting this legislation would make our practice consistent with the practices of Canada and the European Union. For the life of me, I can't understand we wouldn't give our companies and workers trade laws that are as strong as those in the countries we compete against. That is just common sense.

I would also emphasize that Commerce itself could fix this problem if it were so inclined. Commerce could, for example, announce in an ongoing administrative review its intention to reconsider treatment of countervailing duties as a cost. The Department has often used such cases as a means to review policy.

The current policy makes no sense. It violates the statute. It fails to redress continued dumping. And it effectively discourages negotiations to end unfair trade.

Most importantly, correcting the current policy would force Canadian mills to make a clear choice, negotiate a long-term resolution or face higher duties.

In the absence of a voluntary change in policy by Commerce, I offer this legislation to clarify the statute.

This will ensure a fair comparison of prices and a more accurate measurement of the amount of dumping. It is just the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the most dedicated public servants and loyal staff members I have had the privilege to work with. Mike Evans has served me with deliberation, dedication, and distinction for 18 years and I, the people of Montana, the United States Senate, and our Nation are the better for it.

Mike began his career as my legislative assistant for tax policy in 1983. As many in this Chamber will recall, that was a time of great debate in the Finance Committee. We had passed a major tax cut in 1981. The following year, a soaring budget deficit was demanding attention. By the time Mike came on board, not only was the Finance Committee dealing with ``revenue raisers,'' to use the language of the day, but tax simplification was the hottest topic on the Finance Committee's agenda. Mike guided me through the controversies with his usual enthusiasm and attention to detail. In fact, he was so impressive that he soon became my legislative director, and expanded his responsibilities to include overseeing my work on the Agriculture and Environment and Public Works Committees.

Perhaps his most significant accomplishment during his time with the EPW Committee was seeing the Clean Air Act of 1990 through the legislative process and into law. I was chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee then and Mike was my right arm--and sometimes my eyes and ears, too!

Getting that bill through the EPW Committee, the Senate floor, and then conference with the House was an arduous task. But Mike was there all the way. Through the seemingly endless markups, through the backroom negotiations off the Senate floor, and through the midnight conferences with the House, Mike was always ready with the right arguments, the necessary supporting materials, and, most important, his sage advice. That bill was a significant advance in the protection of public health and the cleanup of our environment. Mike's contributions to the bill will be long remembered.

In 1991, the lure of the Preston Gates law firm proved too much and he returned to the firm from whence he came. But when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 1993, I succeeded in luring him back into public service. Mike became my general counsel on the EPW Committee, integrally involved with the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, the Superfund law, and the Endangered Species Act. We weren't always successful, but Mike provided the legal underpinnings of our efforts.

It is as a lawyer that Mike's true talents show through. He not only masters the statutory construction and case law on any point with ease--or at least so it seems to me--but he is renowned among the staff for his ability to footnote material. I recall on several occasions getting memos from him where there was not a word of the memo on a page. Rather, the page was filled with footnotes. I told him that I appreciated a good footnote or two as much as the next lawyer, but next time he should save them for our opponents.

Mike is respected and admired by his colleagues. He was always willing to spend time with other staff to review legal arguments, provide advice and direction, and sometimes just be a sounding board. I was told that Mike's stature among his peers increased beyond measure when he revealed to the other staff that when reading bill language, subclause two is pronounced ``subclause two'' and not, as was the apparent custom, ``two little eye.''

Mike's attention to detail was perhaps most apparent when it came to the rules. First, he updated the EPW Committee rules and religiously filed

away each application so that the Committee would have a file of precedents on which to refer.

It was in the defense of those EPW Committee rules that Mike became a small legend. In particular, he staunchly defended the Committee rule that prohibited the naming of public buildings for any living individual under the age of 70. But, lest you think Mike is perfect, even his best oratorical skills and most reasoned argument in defense of the rule were never a match for the political imperative involved in a naming bill. Mike lost every single one of those arguments.

When I took over as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2001, Mike moved over as the Deputy Chief of Staff and General Counsel. Once again, Mike took responsibility for updating the Committee rules and establishing a record of precedents.

Mike not only mastered committee rules, he mastered the Senate rules. On his last day in the Senate, the Senate Parliamentarian noted that Mike was always prepared when he made a parliamentary inquiry. And, for the record, I have to warn the Senate Parliamentarian that Mike prepared comprehensive, annotated references for the Finance Committee staff and provided what is now affectionately known as ``The Mike Evans' Procedure Seminar.''

Ironically, despite his respect of the rules, last year he was thrown off the Senate floor with a bipartisan gaggle of Finance Committee staff for being too noisy. I believe Senator Dayton presided over the ouster.

I have always respected a person who can manage both the demanding responsibilities of Senate staff while also caring for a growing family. And Mike has certainly done both. We were fortunate to be part of Mike's life as his family expanded from two--he and his wife Maureen--to six, with the addition of their four beautiful children: Sean, Christopher, Aselefech and Adanech. We have watched their children grow up and every step has been a reflection of their incredible parents.

Mike also found time to be one of the best read staffers I have ever known. I have no doubt that his counsel has been greatly strengthened by his acquaintanceship with thoughts and history beyond the reach of a single individual. And his literary interests are not limited to reading. He is a most prolific author. As with most staff, he has done more than his share of floor statements. And as a lawyer, he has drafted the occasional law review article. But his talents also extend to poetry, including the occasional rhyming remembrance of triumphs and things best left unsaid when a staff member departs.

Suffice it to say, Mike fancies himself a music impresario. He feels it is his duty to bring music to ``the people.'' Some of that music is even good. Mike has been known to wear Bob Marley T-shirts in the office over the weekend and sing Bruce Springstein lyrics at the drop of a hat. In fact, when he discovered that one of the Finance Committee interns house-sat for Bob Dylan, the intern was suddenly spending more time in intense discussions with Mike.

Mike truly believes in the dignity and responsibilities of public service. He understands that when it comes to working in the Senate, as Bruce Springstein would say, ``the door's open but the ride ain't free.'' So, while he leaves the Senate staff to return to private practice at Preston Gates, I know that he will retain his commitment to service, to his family, to his colleagues, and to his country.

Every President, every member of Congress, every staff person in the United States Congress must first swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office. Mike Evans lived by this oath every day of his public service in the Senate.

Mike follows the rules: The Senate rules. The Committee rules. And the rules by which he lives his life--loyalty, diversity, fairness, honesty, and compassion, coupled with an unexpected, yet sharp sense of humor.

I thank Mike for his dedication and the nearly two decades for which I have been fortunate enough to benefit his counsel and friendship. May we all follow his example, to have the wit to discover what is true and the fortitude to practice what is good.

Madam President, I hope my colleagues listen to what I have to say. We all are talking about the need for disaster assistance. That is undisputed. There are provisions in the Cochran amendment which do partially address natural disaster, particularly drought disaster, in our country. I say partially. That is wonderful. That is fine.

I am quite confident the provisions that have helped Texas producers are needed. I also understand in some parts of the country a natural disaster occurred, say, in 2002--not 2001. And the amendment before the Senate, the Cochran amendment, provides 1 year, for 2002. I can understand why some of my colleagues are in favor of the Cochran amendment because it helps them, it helps their producers.

Madam President, I can understand why there are tobacco provisions in the Cochran amendment. I am sure the producers in North Carolina and South Carolina will get significant benefit from the tobacco provisions. For all I know, it is well intended and deserved and they should have it.

We are talking here about a natural disaster. Mother Nature does not pick and choose years--2001 or 2002. Mother Nature does not choose which parts of the country it will affect or not affect. Mother Nature does not choose which farms in a certain county will be hit by disaster and which farms in the county are not hit.

I start with the good news. Fortunately, the Cochran amendment provides assistance to those parts of America that have experienced natural disasters. That is good.

Unfortunately, the Cochran amendment does not provide assistance to those other farmers who have experienced disaster in a different way, those who got hit by disaster in 2001. Nebraska is 2002. Kansas is 2002. My State of Montana is 2002, but it is also 2001. There are several years of disaster.

The amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota is designed to help fairly producers across the country who have experienced natural disasters, irrespective of where they are, irrespective of whether they are in a certain county which on average may have 35-percent loss or not.

The Cochran amendment is unfair. It helps some producers who have not experienced disasters. That is wrong. The Daschle amendment helps producers who have experienced disasters. That is fair. That is right.

I only wish the Senators from Mississippi, North Carolina, and other Senators would come to the high plain States and see what a disaster we have. It is sad. It is stunning. It is despairing. It is so sad, looking in people's eyes. Thousands are leaving their places; they are drying up. It is worse this year even than last year, thus far. It may rain some more; we do not know.

We, across America, have a big heart. We help Americans who need help. We have helped those who have experienced hurricane losses. We helped those with earthquake damage, say, in California or New York in the Trade Towers. We knew intuitively that is what you do.

I say to my colleagues and all those who are helped, remember those who are not sufficiently helped.

To sum up in one sentence, we are talking about a few billion. That does not affect the outyear budget deficit. We can always make adjustments. We are all concerned about the deficit. Help our people who need help. In many parts of our country we need help desperately. I urge colleagues to put aside the partisanship and do what is right for America and vote for farmers who need the help, help offered in the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, last week, I saw that $3.1 billion was included for drought assistance in the omnibus funding bill. It was a good way to start the day, until I started to dig deeper. Montana producers will not receive meaningful relief from these funds.

I am fighting today for full funding for both 2001 and 2002 for the crop disaster program, livestock assistance program, and the American Indian livestock feed program that 79 Members of the Senate agreed to on September 10, 2002.

I have spent a lot of time visiting producers on their farms and ranches in Montana. And each time I am stunned by the desperation in their voices and in their eyes, stunned by the way the winds are blowing away their topsoil and their herds are getting smaller and smaller.

I cannot stress how important it is that we quickly pass meaningful drought disaster assistance. The unrelenting drought in Montana has brought economic hardship to our agriculture producers and our rural communities.

The same way we use emergency funds to rebuild communities hurt by tornadoes and hurricanes, we should use emergency funds to rebuild our communities hurt by drought. There is no reason that a double standard should apply to agriculture.

And the situation has become even more devastating, since many of these regions are suffering their third, fourth, or fifth year of consecutive drought conditions.

According to the New York Times on May 3, 2002, ``In eastern Montana, more than a thousand wheat farmers have called it quits rather than trying to coax another crop out of the ground that has received less rain over the last 12 months than many deserts get in a year.''

It is anticipated that another 1,300 Montana wheat producers will call it quits if disaster assistance is not provided.

The effects of the drought have gone beyond our farmers and ranchers. Businesses are closing their doors, employees are being laid off, and main streets are literally drying up.

According to Dale Schuler, past president of Montana Grain Growers and a farmer in Choteau County, MT, nearly 2,000 square miles of crop in his area of central Montana have gone unharvested. That is an area the size of Delaware. ``Farmers and our families have not had the means to repay our operating loans, let alone buy inputs to plant the crop for the coming year.''

Dale added, ``Chouteau County is the largest farming county in Montana, and yet our last farm equipment dealer had no choice but to close his doors, our local co-op closed its tire shop, one farm fuel supplier quit, and the fertilizer dealers and grain elevators are laying off workers. I believe that we are set to see a mass exodus from Montana that has not been seen since the Great Depression of the 1930's.

On September 3, 2002, the Wall Street Journal printed an article that stated that, ``the U.S. may be looking at the most expensive drought in its history, inflicting economic damage far beyond the Farm Belt.''

Loans have been made with the understanding that Congress was going to provide disaster assistance because as a country and a Government that is what we as Americans do. We rush to provide assistance to victims of hurricanes and tornadoes. As we all know, that is not what has occurred with the drought.

Now we have bankers who are desperately trying to not call loans due and producers who are desperately trying to scrape enough together to make the bank hold on just a little longer.

Producers are considering selling parcels of land or pieces of equipment that they have considered vital to their operation. They will do it if it means that they can keep the farm or ranch that their family has been working for generations. Scraping that money together has never been more difficult as most of the potential buyers are in similar financial straits.

The devastation of this drought does not end at the front door of our rural homes. The enormous economic toll of this relentless drought on our communities will take years to recover.

However, the toll on our rural families is irreparable. Incidents of domestic abuse, suicides, and alcoholism have increased significantly in the past 2 years. We must not continue to let our inability to uphold our responsibilities cripple rural communities any longer.

We cannot and must not continue to ignore the impacts of drought and the effect it has on our agricultural producers and our rural communities. Agricultural producers are every bit as

deserving of assistance for their suffering from the drought as the small business owner in Louisiana suffering from a hurricane.

I cannot urge more strongly my colleagues in the House and Senate to work together to pass full funding for natural disaster assistance for both 2001 and 2002. I, again, ask the President to live up to the words he spoke almost a year ago when he said that the agriculture economy is vital to the national economy. It is vital that we pass agriculture disaster assistance immediately to help our producers, to help our economy, and to help our Nation.

Mr. President, this is the same issue which the Senator from Arizona raised not too long ago. It has serious deficiencies: No. 1, that it only applies, as I understand it, to one carrier and not to other carriers, which on its face raises many serious questions.

No. 2, I said to the Senator from Pennsylvania at that time, if I were in the position to influence whether we would have hearings on this subject in the near future, I would certainly do so. Time has passed. We have a new chairman of the Finance Committee. But I still hold the same view; namely, that we should have a good opportunity to address this issue more broadly and more fairly and deal with other airlines that face, to some degree, the same issues; otherwise, this is a single-shot amendment. It is unfair to other airlines. We should have more time to consider the right way to deal with this issue.

I respectfully urge Senators not to adopt this amendment so we can more appropriately deal with the matter at an appropriate time.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point about the public policy argument?

Will the Senator agree, strong public policy, which this body has adopted, is that a company does not borrow from their pension funds for their own corporate purposes? That is a strong public policy point.

Mr. President, I cosponsored your amendment because I agree that inclusion of a tax provision in this bill is inappropriate. In 1983, under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the excise tax collections on imported rum are transferred or rebated to the treasuries of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The tax code provides a rebate of $13.25 of the $13.50 excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for the excise tax collected on rum imported into the United States (without regard to the country of origin). The amount of the rebate is scheduled to decrease to the 1983 level of $10.50 after December 31st, unless Congress extends the current $13.25 rebate.

Perhaps the expiration of the increased amount transferred provides time for resolution of the dispute?

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and fellow Montanan, Senator Burns, in introducing the Broadband Expensing Act. Montana has led the way in the innovation of a tax incentive to promote broadband deployment to rural and underserved areas. And today, Senator Burns and I are continuing to work together to provide Montana and the Nation with the tools it needs to stay on the cutting edge of communication technology.

My top goal for my State and the country is to help boost our economy and create more good paying jobs. This bill will help to do that.

The Broadband Expensing Act will allow businesses to depreciate their capital investment quicker, allowing them to deploy next generation networks at a faster pace. In short, the benefits are two-fold: businesses will benefit by receiving an incentive to roll out their network into rural areas. And customers will benefit by being able to send and receive massive amounts of data much faster than before.

The ability to communicate clearly, quickly and effectively is vital to a healthy economy. The Internet has been an incredible innovation, but its abilities are limited by an outdated infrastructure. Much of the network still relies on the same copper wire that Alexander Graham Bell used when he first designed our telephone system.

It is time to update that infrastructure to soup up the copper wire, to soup up coaxial cable, to move to optical technologies, and to develop new wireless products.

As many in the industry have told me, our communications network is slowly being upgraded all across the country--but often not in rural America. The main reason is cost. Companies are in business to make money, and if their costs are too high, they are reluctant to make the investment. But rural Americans deserve the same kind of high-speed service that urban Americans have access to.

Long ago we determined that rural Americans deserved the same basic services electricity, telephone and transportation--and we found creative ways to provide them with those services. Now it is time to ensure they have access to broadband as well.

In addition to helping us bring ``current generation'' broadband to rural and underserved areas, this bill that Senator Burns and I have introduced will help us move to the ``next generation'' of broadband state-of-the-art systems that carry much greater amounts of data than copper wire and coaxial cable.

It is fitting that we introduce this bill today, as we are beginning discussions about an economic stimulus package. Boosting broadband service across the country is one more way to boost the economy and bring more jobs to our rural areas. Broadband will help ensure that our productivity remains high and that our citizens receive the best services modern telecommunications have to offer.

The potentials of broadband are limitless. From telemedicine to distance learning to video conferencing. In rural areas, we will find even more ways to use broadband, such as tele-veterinary services, remote monitoring of crops or on-line livestock auctions.

And I want to echo Senator Burns concerns about international competitiveness. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that the United States is now sixth in the world in broadband penetration. Two years ago, we were third. Last year, we were fourth. Now we are sixth, behind South Korea, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium.

We need to move back up the ladder. The United States invented the Internet. We invented the computer. We invented optical fiber. We invented many of the devices upon which the Internet depends. So we can't allow ourselves to fall behind in high-speed Internet service.

I also want to thank my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, for his important work on the broadband tax credit legislation. I look forward to his reintroduction of that important bill and working together to provide Americans with broadband incentives.

Let me conclude by asking my Senate colleagues for their support of this bill that will stimulate broadband investment around the country. Every single American, urban or rural, rich or poor, young or old, deserve access to this new and exciting technology. I look forward to working with Senator Burns and others to get this legislation enacted this year.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will object, I deeply appreciate the concerns of both Senators from Pennsylvania, the senior Senator and junior Senator, who spoke eloquently about the problems facing those particular airlines, and I understand that. I think every Member of this body does. The fact of the matter is, there are other airlines, too, facing very difficult financial problems these days. It is unfortunate but that is the fact.

I must say, too, as has the chairman of the Finance Committee, I have not seen that proposal. All I know is what I hear on the floor now. I think it would be inappropriate for the Senate to unanimously pass a change in the pension laws which have not been reviewed by other Senators, certainly not by Members of the Finance Committee.

My good friend, Senator Grassley, soon to be chairman of the Finance Committee, makes a very good point. Even if it were passed here, we would have to wait until some other measure passed in the body so it could be amended and have it considered. There are a lot of reasons-- although I certainly appreciate the argument by the Senators--this is not the appropriate time nor the appropriate way to take up this measure.

I ask my good colleagues to work with the committee and to work with Senator Grassley and myself over the next several days or next week-- and also with other airlines because other airlines, frankly, are hurt by their request. I was contacted a couple hours ago by airlines that said: Wait a minute. It may be good for them, but it is not good for us.

We have to make sure that all airlines are treated fairly.

I very much look forward to working with my good friends from Pennsylvania, and all Senators. But I just think because of propriety and doing it the right way to make sure this is the right solution that we should not take it up at this time. There may be amendments and modifications to the provision being requested that could be quite helpful to meet some of the objections some others might have. This is the first time we have heard of it. I haven't seen the language. It did not come before our committee.

I must respectfully object to the request.

Mr. President, I might say to my good friends that I think that is a good idea. The Senator has my assurance--and I know the assurance of my colleague from Iowa--that we will look into the matter tomorrow, say, and determine if a hearing makes sense. It could well be a very good idea. Maybe it can be resolved in some other way without a hearing.

But I would like to look at the issue and expeditiously, see if there is a way to resolve this matter. It could well be that we could have a hearing this week or sometime this month. It could be a very good idea. We could well do that.

But I could really answer that question a little more after I look at the issue more and know what is involved.

That is a very fair representation.

That is a yes.

I yield to my friend from Oklahoma.

Go ahead.

Mr. President, what is the present business? Is the request by the Senator from Tennessee the pending business?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a couple of points. One, the Senator from Pennsylvania says, ``what's changed?'' A lot has changed. The unemployment rate is higher than it was last March. That is a significant change. Second, the nature of unemployment in America regrettably is becoming more long term. Economists debate why that is happening; nevertheless, it is a fact. It is becoming more long term. Some of it is Rust Belt jobs not being replaced. A lot of it is in the service industries, whether in technology and financial; but it is becoming more long term.

These people are having a hard time with the change in the nature of our economy and finding jobs. I think, frankly, the request by the Senator from New York is more than reasonable, that at least we should have an opportunity to vote on that; or we can take up the suggestion by the Senator from South Dakota, that we have two different options.

I might also add that this is stimulative. The Senator from Washington pointed out, quite correctly, that economists say for every dollar spent on unemployment, $2.15 is recirculated into the economy. Essentially, a lot of the discussion at the beginning of this year is stimulus--how are we going to

stimulate the economy? I think that at least helping people who don't have jobs gain a little bit of benefits is a good idea because it stimulates the economy. I further add that there will be a lot of discussion over the next weeks and months about the President's stimulus plan, which includes tremendous tax breaks, whether it is dividends or income-tax breaks for these people who have jobs and income.

What about the people who don't have jobs, the people who don't have income? If we are going to ``stimulate'' the economy by giving tax breaks, the very least we can do is help people who are unemployed in an economy whose very nature means there is longer unemployment.

People who do not have income don't pay income tax. I suggest that we find a way to have a vote on the amendment of the Senator from New York. Senators can vote against it. If Senators do not want to be ``dictated'' to by the House, they can vote their conscience and do what they think is right. If Senators believe the House trumps this body, they can vote against the amendment. They have that option. But at the very least, I believe that we, as responsible Senators--I heard a couple of great speeches not long ago about defending the Constitution of the United States and doing what is right. Clearly, doing what is right is helping people who need some help. That is what is right. That is why we are here.

I understand it is a little inconvenient, and I don't denigrate that because of the receptions and the parties that are going on here. I don't think the Constitution had that in mind when the Framers wrote the provisions in that document, the oath of office which we took to support and defend our country.