Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I would concur. This language should not be interpreted as pre-empting the authority of Congress to approve or disapprove an interstate compact, international agreement, or other such mechanisms of implementation which properly fall under congressional authority. it is simply the intent of the conferees to encourage the States to promptly take such actions to implement these standards as fall within their authority for management of the water resources of their respective states and within the authority vested in them by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for making decisions regarding diversions of Great Lakes water.

Mr. BAUCUS. I concur with this interpretation.

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate your concern about flooding in the Saint Frances River Basin and your frustration with efforts to address this situation. Many communities across the nation simply do not have the financial ability to provide the cost share for Corps studies and projects. Because of this, Congress added an ``Ability to Pay'' provision to the Water Resources Development Act in 1986. This provision, which establishes procedures for reducing the non-federal share of water resource development project costs for distressed communities, has been amended several times subsequently. These procedures, which are set by the Corps through regulation, take into consideration local economic and financial conditions. This year, the administration's Water Resources Development Act legislative proposal contained an update to the Ability to Pay provision which included expanding its applicability to feasibility studies and additional project types. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee further expanded the project types eligible and this amendment to the Ability to Pay provision is contained in the Conference Report. Our intention is that these changes will result in the Ability to Pay provision being used more frequently by the Corps and providing greater relief to communities that cannot meet ``standard'' Corps cost-share requirements. While I am not familiar enough with specifics of the Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou project to judge the application of the Ability to Pay provision, I would encourage the Corps to pay particular attention to the applicability of the provision to this flood control project.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. president, I would be pleased to offer information about this provision to my colleagues.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend from Minnesota.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations Conference report's recommendation which provides $500,000 for the congressional-executive commission on China. This noteworthy commission was established in Title III of the China/PNTR bill, which the Senate passed with a strong majority and the President signed into law just two weeks ago. It is my understanding that the Commission would normally require a funding level of at least $1.3 million. However, this year the conferees allocated a lesser amount based on the fact that the Commission will operate for less than a full year in FY2001. Without a doubt, we should fully support the Commission at its requested level of $1.3 million in FY2002 and subsequent years once members have been appointed, staff hired and the operation is fully functional for an entire fiscal year. While the initial request of $500,000 is sufficient for the start-up operation of the Commission, it falls far short of the amount required by its enabling legislation and our congressional intent. Passage of PNTR for China is one of the most significant pieces of legislation this Congress has passed in this decade. The Commission will play an essential role in the oversight of its implementation and China's adherence to its international obligations. Again, Mr. President, I support funding accorded by the CJS Appropriations bill for FY2001 and will further support increased funding of at least $1.3 million in the next and following fiscal years.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very simply put, we have a tax bill before us which includes some provisions that are unbalanced. That is unfair. There has not been anything that would approximate consultation between the majority and minority, including the White House. It is going to pass with a majority vote. It is going to be vetoed by the President, as it should. Frankly, I know the majority party will vote for this bill very quickly when we get back together, and we will pass a balanced bill in consultation with both parties and with the White House. After all, that is by and large what the American people want. They want us to work together. They want us to pass legislation that is balanced. Unfortunately, the bill before us is not balanced. It is very lopsided and very much toward upper income levels. Also, it does not include provisions to help lower middle income Americans, which I will outline a little bit later. In addition, the bill before us is one that was crafted by the majority leadership, despite what has been said on the floor here, without consultation that in any way is adequate with either the White House or with the Democratic Party. That is unfortunate. I say that also because the Senate Finance Committee not too long ago passed out of the committee, on a unanimous vote, a balanced bill that addresses the tax provisions in this bill. What do I mean? First of all, the bill that passed the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis, with a unanimous vote, had one-third of the tax cuts directed to lower and moderate-income taxpayers to help them also save for good times. It is true the bill also raised contribution limits for people in moderate and upper income levels, as it should. My point is not that those should not be raised. My point is there are no provisions in the current bill which also give the incentives to moderate- and low-income people. In addition, it is important for us to reflect for a moment about the importance of retirement income. Sixteen percent of today's retirees depend exclusively and entirely on Social Security for their entire income. Two-thirds of American seniors depend upon Social Security as their primary source of retirement income. That is basically because Social Security benefits only replace about 40 percent of the income earned during retirement. Who are those retirees who depend primarily on Social Security? They are people who spend their entire working lives making minimum wage and who earn just enough to make ends meet but not enough to save for retirement. Only one-third of American families with incomes under $25,000 are saving for retirement either through a pension plan or through an IRA. That compares with 85 percent of American families with incomes over $50,000. Eighty-five percent of American families with incomes of $50,000 or over are saving either through a pension plan or IRA. That is why the bill that passed the Finance Committee--again, unanimously--attempted to address that disparity by including a tax credit for families with less than $50,000 in income to help them also save for retirement. The credit was really one of two items in the bill that helped provide that balance. It also made the bill more progressive. The unanimously passed, bipartisan Finance Committee bill had a couple other incentives to help small businesses establish pensions for their workers. These were very important provisions to help balance the bill and raise limits for upper income Americans and also help provide incentives for lower and moderate-income Americans. You won't find these provisions in the bill before us today. You won't find the provisions that passed the Finance Committee unanimously, on a bipartisan basis, to help middle and lower income Americans as well as upper income Americans. That pattern is repeated. Measures that the Finance Committee, again, on a bipartisan basis, passed to help balance the legislation before us are not included in this, I might say, closed-door bill that we have before us today. For example, the section on health care spends $88 billion, with $56 billion of that going to basically HMOs that subsidize people who already have health insurance. I ask: Where are the provisions designed to help the uninsured in America? They are not there. There is no provision, for example, to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program as part of the compromise. You won't find other efforts to help encourage people who are uninsured to get insurance. As I mentioned and as many other speakers have mentioned, this bill was slapped together in the last couple of days. There are parts of it that almost no one saw before yesterday morning. We have no idea what special interest provisions are in here, and we do not know what mistakes are in it. There are probably going to be a few--again, because it was not written in the sunshine. I am even told there is a section here that may have accidentally repealed the minimum wage altogether for 6 months. I don't know. It is possible. Again, good law is not made behind closed doors by a small number of people. It is made by all of us here in the full light of sunshine. I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. But, more importantly, when the President vetoes it, let's get together and do something that is balanced for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to urge that Congress enact the Retirement Security and Savings Act, which has passed the House and been reported unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee. This is a balanced, bipartisan bill. It will encourage people to set their own money aside for retirement, by reforming the private pension rules and increasing the amount that people can put in an individual retirement account. It also will create two important new savings incentives. One is a tax credit for small businesses that set up pension programs for their employees. The other is a tax credit for low and middle income people who save for their own retirement. If, before adjourning, we can find a way to enact this bill, it will be a significant addition to the record of the 106th Congress. Let me explain why. The American people have many wonderful qualities. But, these days, unfortunately, thrift is not one of them. During the last 20 years, personal savings rates have consistently declined, from 9 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 1 percent now. In fact, the preliminary net personal savings rate for August is the lowest rate since the Commerce Department began keeping records in 1959. So what? Why does this matter? In the first place, a low savings rate means that less capital is available for new investments. Perhaps that is not a pressing issue right now, with a booming economy. But it should be. Over the long run, a low cost of capital is essential to our international competitiveness. On top of that, a low savings rate means that people aren't putting their own money away for retirement. That makes them more dependent on Social Security. In fact, 16 percent of today's retirees depend exclusively on Social Security for their retirement income, and two-thirds depend on it as their primary source of retirement income. We need to protect Social Security. But that is not enough. After all, Social Security only replaces about 40 percent of the income earned during our working years. If retirees continue to rely so heavily on Social Security, there will still be far too many Americans spending their retirement years one step away from poverty. We need to supplement Social Security, by encouraging more Americans to save for their retirement. And we can start by passing the Retirement Security and Savings Act, as reported by the Senate Finance Committee. As a threshold matter, the bill does two important things. First, it reforms the tax rules for pension plans. It makes pensions more portable. It strengthens pension security and enforcement. It expands coverage for small businesses. It enhances pension fairness for women. And it encourages retirement education. Second, the bill increases the contribution limits for individual retirement accounts. IRAs have proven to be a very popular way for millions of workers to save for retirement, particularly for those who do not have pension plans available through their employers. The IRA limits have not been increased since they were created almost two decades ago. An increase is long overdue. These are positive changes. However, by and large, they reinforce the conventional approach to retirement incentives. That approach can best be described as a ``top down'' approach. We create incentives for people with higher incomes, hoping that the so-called nondiscrimination rules will give the higher paid folks an incentive to encourage more participation by others, such as through employer matching programs. I do not have a problem with this approach, as far as it goes. But it does not do enough to reach out to middle and lower income workers. That is why I am particularly pleased that the bill goes further, by creating two new savings incentives. One creates a new incentive to encourage small businesses to establish pension plans for their employees. The other creates a new matching program to help workers save their own money for retirement. Let me discuss each in turn. First, the incentives for small businesses. Unlike larger companies, most small business owners do not offer pension plans. While three out of every four workers at large companies are participating in some form of pension plan, only one out of every three employees of small businesses have pensions. This leaves over 30 million workers without a pension plan. It is not that small businesses do not want to provide pension plans. They simply cannot afford to. Record-keeping requirements are too complex and expensive. The bill addresses this, by creating two new tax credits. The first is a tax credit of up to $500 to help defray the administrative costs of starting a new plan. The second is a tax credit to help employers contribute to a new plan on behalf of their lower paid employees. In effect, it is a match of amounts employers in small firms put into new retirement plans for their employees--up to a limit of 3 percent of the salaries of these workers. Taken together, these new incentives will make it easier for small businesses to reach out to their employees and provide them with a pension. In addition, the bill creates a new tax credit that is aimed primarily at workers who do not have a pension plan available to them, to encourage them to save for themselves. Only one-third of families with incomes under $25,000 are saving for retirement either through a pension plan or in an IRA. This compares with 85 percent of families with incomes over $50,000 who are saving for retirement. We clearly need to provide an incentive for those families who are not saving right now, and the individual savings credit included in the Finance Committee bill will provide that incentive. Here is how it works. A couple with a joint income of $20,000 is eligible for a 50 percent tax credit for the amount that they save each year, for savings of up to $2,000. People with higher incomes get a smaller match, up to a joint income of $50,000. According to the Joint Tax Committee, almost 10 million families will be eligible for the individual savings credit. This will provide a strong incentive for these families to begin setting aside money for their retirement. That, in a nutshell, is how the credits work. Let me respond to the common criticisms of the proposal. One is that the tax credit for low and moderate income workers is not refundable and therefore will not benefit lower income families that have no tax liability. All that I can say, in response, is that I am a realist. I agree that the credit should be refundable. But, this year, a refundable credit is not in the cards, because it generates strong opposition from the majority. Another criticism, from a different direction, is that the credit is targeted to a specific income class, and provides taxpayers in that income class with too much of a benefit. I disagree. This is not a novel approach. Many provisions of the tax code are phased out at higher income levels, as a way of targeting benefits and reducing the revenue loss. Another thing. By targeting lower and moderate income workers, the credit provides balance. The benefits of the other provisions of the bill go primarily to higher-paid workers. After all, if we increase the amount that can be deferred in a 401(k) plan more from $10,000 to $15,000 a year, we are only benefiting folks who can afford to make that much of a contribution. So a credit targeted to low and moderate income workers provides the overall bill with balance. In conclusion, I urge the leadership, on the tax-writing committees, in the Senate, in the House, and in the administration, to work together to secure passage of this important legislation. We continue to have a rip-roaring national economy. But many people have been left behind, good people, who are working hard to make ends meet. Let us reach out to them. Let us make an effort to give every working person in this country a real stake in the American dream. Maybe some young worker will see this tax credit and start to put away a little money that he or she otherwise would have spent. That money will compound, and so will the virtue of thrift. And that, Mr. President, will be good for all of us.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I extend my deepest personal sympathies to Mel Carnahan's family. He was tragically killed in a plane crash last night. All Members want to serve our country as well as we possibly can. We go the extra mile to serve our people. We all know the dangers inherent with flying in small aircraft to try to attend political events and try to make meetings on schedules that are very uncertain. All in the Senate are particularly grieved in this tragedy. We extend our most heartfelt sympathies to the Governor's wife, his family, to his campaign team, and all who were involved. It is difficult to explain how deeply we feel about this. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, when we finally vote on the Agriculture appropriations conference report, I intend to vote for it essentially because the bill provides so much that helps so many people, many of whom are in dire straits. I am referring specifically to a lot of the people living and working in farm communities in my State of Montana and throughout the Nation. I am especially pleased the bill provides $3.6 billion for weather- related disasters. The droughts and fires in my State, as well as other parts of the Nation, have been quite severe and, in many areas, devastating. This bill will help our citizens get through the most difficult times. I commend the Senator from Mississippi and others who have worked to help pass this bill. I want to mention a couple of points of this bill which I think are erroneous. I object strenuously to the provisions in the bill with respect to restrictions on food and medicine sales to Cuba and restrictions on the right of American citizens to travel to Cuba. Last July, I flew to Havana, along with my colleagues, Senator Roberts and Senator Akaka. It was a brief trip, but I returned from Havana more convinced than ever that it was time to end our outdated cold war policy toward Cuba. For example, I believe we should have normal trade relations with Cuba. We do not. The President just a day ago signed permanent normal trade relations with China, a Communist country which certainly presents more of a national security threat to the United States than Cuba, but yet we do not have normal trade relations with Cuba. It makes no sense. As a consequence, we Americans, the Congress, and the Federal Government, prevent our farmers and ranchers from exporting their products to Cuba. But our Japanese, European, and Canadian competitors have no constraints. They fill the gap. The result, obviously, is it helps those countries, it helps the Cubans, but it hurts Americans. Also, our policy has no impact on those Cuban policies that we would like to see changed--none whatsoever. Most Members in the Senate and House have also recognized the absurdity of this policy. Earlier this year, the Senate and the House agreed to end the ban on food and medicine sales to Cuba. We had overwhelming majorities in the Senate and the House. Those votes expressed the will of the Congress. The votes clearly reflected the will of the American people. Yet the Republican conferees simply overturned those House and Senate votes. The Republican conferees thwarted the will of the American people. The result is that there will be restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. These restrictions guarantee that there will be few such sales, and those few that do occur will be done only by major companies, shutting out the small farmer. That is not the way law is supposed to be made in a democracy. To rub salt in the wounds, the Republican conferees agreed to codify in law the current administrative restrictions on travel to Cuba. That action removed the flexibility of this President and future Presidents to liberalize or not to liberalize, depending upon what seems to make the most sense. The result is a further infringement on the right of Americans to travel freely. It also diminishes the right of Cuban Americans to visit family members in Cuba. An overwhelming majority of the Congress recognizes we must end the anachronistic cold war policy toward Cuba. That policy harms the average Cuban. Clearly, it harms the average American. The current policy against Castro is a foil. It helps prop him up. Were we to lift the bans that would take away that foil, it would make it more difficult for him to stay in power. It is amazing how foolhardy our policy is. It is also a policy that hurts the American public. It is a great danger. Once the resistance of the Castro regime begins--think of that for a minute. We have to think very carefully about how to help manage the transition that occurs in Cuba from the current-Castro regime to the post-Castro regime. Of course, the Cubans must make that decision. The nature of that transition has a very direct bearing upon this country. We have to be very careful. Clearly, if we were to open up now, we could help influence a transition that is more in America's national interest. Current policy also clearly abridges the freedoms of Americans to travel. If we had to vote separately on these Cuban provisions, I would work hard to defeat them, but the other provisions in the bill are so overwhelming important for the health and prosperity of Americans that I will vote in favor of the Agriculture appropriations bill. But I repeat, the Cuba provisions are a serious step backward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as you know H.R. 3671 establishes a new Multi-State Conservation Grant program. This program requires the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, representing State fish and wildlife agencies, to submit a list to the Secretary of the Interior of recommendation projects eligible for funding under this program prior to October 1 of each year. It is my understanding that the International submitted a list to the Secretary of the Interior prior to October 1 of this year for consideration. Senator Smith, is it your understanding that the list should be considered submitted in accordance with the provisions of this bill?

Mr. BAUCUS. The multi-state grant program also requires the International to consult with the various non-governmental organizations and interests involved in this program in preparing this list. It is my understanding that this provision should ensure that these groups are involved both in preparing the request for grant proposals and in evaluating them. Is this also the view of the Chairman?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support H.R. 3671, the Wildlife Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000, and the substitute amendment proposed by the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith. The Federal aid program, embodied in the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Wallop-Breaux Act, uses the revenue derived from the excise taxes on firearms and fishing equipment to support state efforts to promote wildlife conservation, sport fish conservation, hunter education, and related activities. It's a good program. It has provided more than $7 billion to support state wildlife conservation and sport fish projects. To give you a more specific idea about the benefits of the program, in 1999 Montana received almost $5 million dollars under these programs, for activities ranging from our hunter education program, to improving habitat for white tail deer, waterfowl, and upland birds, to acquisition of access rights to private land, to our program to reduce conflicts between grizzly bears and people. A few years ago, the program helped us complete the Gallatin land exchange. Over the years, problems developed in the administration of the program. In particular, the General Accounting Office and others found that money that was set aside, by statute, for administration of the program was being used for unrelated activities. There also were considerable problems with budgeting and overall management. The bill is designed to address these problems. It makes several reforms. Among other things, it reduces the amount available for administrative expenses, clarifies what constitutes a proper administrative expense, and establishes a new multistate grant program, in part, codifying a previous practice. These reforms are important. They will assure that taxpayers' money is well spent and that states receive the funds that they are entitled to. In addition, both the bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee and the substitute amendment improve on the version of the bill that passed the House. The bill and amendment provide a level of funding for administration that, while significantly lower than the previous level, will fully fund the current activities of the federal aid office of the Fish and Wildlife Service. They also provide the Service with some limited flexibility in determining what is an appropriate administrative expense and avoid prescribing the Service's activities in such detail that we risk ``micromanaging.'' These changes make a good bill even better. I am pleased that the bill also includes two other important provisions, one reauthorizing the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and another establishing a program to recognize the upcoming centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Both have previously passed the Senate. I urge adoption of the amendment and passage of the bill. multi-state conservation grant program

Mr. BAUCUS. I think it is very important for us to recognize that the vast majority of states spend a considerable sum of money, both Pittman-Robertson and state funds, on hunter education and target range development.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the manager's amendment amends the Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program that was included in the bill as reported out of the Committee. It is my understanding that the manager's amendment authorizes $7.5 million for fiscal year 2001 and 2002, and $8 million for fiscal year 2003 and every year thereafter. The authorized funds would be provided to the States in the form of direct grants. Would you please briefly explain how this new grant program will impact the States, especially States like Montana and New Hampshire that are spending a considerable amount on these type of projects already?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to make a point about one provision of the amendment and ask the committee chairman, Senator Smith, whether he agrees. Section 132 of the bill establishes a new position, in the Fish and Wildlife Service, of Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. The provision also specifies the Assistant Director's responsibilities. Although this provision is similar to section 302 of the version of the bill that passed the House, it differs in one significant respect. The House report said that ``individuals in the Regional offices who are responsible for administering the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs will also report to the Assistant Director.'' We considered and rejected this approach. The Fish and Wildlife Service operates through a system of regional offices. Employees in the regional offices report to the regional directors, and the regional directors report to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In light of this, it would be potentially disruptive to require that individuals who are responsible for administering the federal aid program to report directly to the Assistant Director, in Washington, D.C., rather than to the regional director. We do not intend section 132 to mandate such a change. Does the chairman agree?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask consent that Peter Washburn, a fellow in the Environment Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 4635.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski--I worked with her on this bill--and also Senator Boxer for offering these amendments. I strongly support Senator Boxer in her efforts to delete these provisions. Not only do they intrude upon the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, they are clearly legislation. Our committee was not consulted. The Appropriations Committee is now writing legislative language in an appropriations bill. It also is very unsound public policy. One of these riders, the so-called Linder-Collins provision, is really an attack on the public's right to know. The provision prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from identifying those areas which do not the meet the 8-hour standard ozone pollution provision until next June. In other words, even if the EPA knew an area had unhealthy air, it could not tell citizens or their government. Since my time is so limited, I will not speak more on that issue. Senator Boxer will, and I believe other Senators will, too. I also want to speak a bit on the other one, and that is the arsenic provision. The other rider postpones EPA's final rules on arsenic standards for drinking water for 6 months. This is very important. This is yet another unhealthy delay that could expose Americans to unnecessary danger. Why do I say that? First, arsenic is a poison. We now know it is also a carcinogen. So it is an especially serious contaminant in drinking water. Get this. The current standard for arsenic was written in 1942, before we knew that arsenic causes cancer. Then, in 1996, Congress completed a comprehensive rewrite of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We put some common sense into the act, some risk assessment, some additional funding for the States. We also put in place a plan to resolve the remaining scientific issues. As a result of the scientific study done by the National Academy of Sciences, we learned that arsenic is even more deadly than previously thought. NAS found: There is sufficient evidence from human epidemiological studies . . . that chronic ingestion of inorganic arsenic causes bladder and lung cancer as well as skin cancer. The study also said the current standard should be revised downward ``as promptly as possible.'' Furthermore, when the Environment and Public Works Committee had a hearing on the matter, in response to a question, Dr. Michael Cossett, a member of the NAS group who studied the arsenic issue, said: Our committee specifically in its conclusions felt that the standards should be lowered as promptly as possible. He went on to say that the current standard certainly was not protective of public health. Yet we have this anti-environmental rider. It is further delay in protecting the American public from better arsenic standards. I cannot understand it. I think it is very bad public policy, and I strongly urge Congress to delete these provisions which, if not deleted, are going to cause serious harm to the American public. Mr. President, earlier today we had a discussion about the arsenic rider. I want to assure Mr. Bond and Ms. Mikulski that although the minority committee staff was notified about the intention to pursue this rider, they objected to its inclusion. I just want to be sure the Record accurately reflects what occurred. I yield the remainder of my time to my friend from California.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish we were here on the Senate floor discussing and debating the important issues that are in the Commerce- Justice-State Appropriations bill. I strenuously object to the fact that we are not doing just that. This bill will not be debated on the floor today, or probably any day this session. In fact, we will likely have no opportunity to debate this bill, to offer amendments, or to vote on it. The plan is to wrap it up in an omnibus bill of some sort as the session ends. This is no way to legislate. This is no way to lead. This goes against the very basis of what our country is about. Our Government is based on principles of transparency and openness. Our processes are supposed to be open to public scrutiny and comment. Robert Hutchins, former President of the University of Chicago and one of the most esteemed American intellectuals of the 20th century, wrote: The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment. Senators have been disenfranchised because of a distorted legislative process. And that means the American citizens who sent us to represent them have also been disenfranchised. I object to how this Congress is being run. There are many important issues that should be of concern to Senators in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. I will take a few moments today to address one of those issues. It needs public vetting, even if we are being deprived of our rights to debate it and vote on it. The issue is TV Marti. This is a television station owned and operated by the U.S. Government. It broadcasts daily to Cuba. For more than a decade we beamed TV signals to Havana. The problem is that no one watches TV Marti. No one. And under this appropriations bill, we will spend another $9.5 million next year on a television station that no one watches. Let me explain. The creation of TV Marti and Radio Marti was a good idea conceptually. With no freedom in Cuba, the United States Government would beam into Cuba uncensored news about the world and about what was really going on inside Cuba. The Cuban people, deprived of their freedoms, would have a source of news. What has TV Marti accomplished since its creation in 1989? Has it penetrated the Cuban television market and provided the Cuban people with information that Castro wants to hide from them? The answer is a resounding no. Virtually nobody in Cuba has even heard of TV Marti. According to research commissioned by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the agency that runs TV Marti, 9 out of 10 Cubans don't even know it exists. The same research by the Broadcasting Board of Governors asked over 1,000 adults whether they had watched TV Marti in the past week. The answer was no one had watched. Not a single person. How many had watched TV Marti in the past year? One. One person out of a thousand. Most Cubans watch television. None watches TV Marti. There are two major reasons. First, TV Marti is on the air when Cubans are asleep. It broadcasts only from 3:30 in the morning until 8:00 A.M. TV Marti has to respect international broadcast rules which require that it not interfere with Cuban TV transmissions. So TV Marti can broadcast only when no Cuban station wants to use the same frequency. That is, it broadcasts when nobody watches television. Second, there is nothing to see. It is just snow on the screen. The Cuban government has effectively jammed the video portion of TV Marti since its inception. So, for $9.5 million in the coming fiscal year, $139 million over the last decade, another $100 million over the next decade, we ask Cubans to get up in the middle of the night to watch snow on a blank screen. This makes no sense at all. Last year, some changes were made in TV Marti, although they are not likely to result in Cuban citizens watching. Defenders of TV Marti contend that it is a long-term investment. They say that someday Fidel Castro will be gone. When that happens, we will want to get accurate information to the Cuban people. Defenders of TV Marti claim that we will save money by having TV Marti up and running at that point. I don't buy this argument. So far we have spent $139 million to have TV Marti in place in case Castro suddenly leaves the scene. At the rate of spending in this appropriations bill, we will spend more than $100 million over the coming decade. That is, total spending of a quarter of a billion dollars for a contingency when Radio Marti is already operating and can get information to Cuban citizens. Is this cost effective? Hardly. TV Marti is a dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War. We should not spend another $10 million to preserve a worthless skeleton. We should bury it once and for all this year. I am compelled by the events of last week in the Agricultural Appropriations conference to raise another aspect of our Cuba policy. Earlier this year, both the Senate and the House agreed, by overwhelmingly majorities, to end the ban on food and medicine sales to Cuba. The votes clearly reflected the will of the American people. Yet the Republican majority on this conference rejected the House and Senate votes and thwarted the will of the people. They agreed to maintain restrictions on the sale of food and medicine that make any significant progress virtually impossible. Then, to make matters worse, the Republican conferees converted current administrative restrictions on travel to Cuba into legal restrictions. The result is that the right of Americans to travel freely, and the right of Cuban Americans to visit family members in Cuba, are going to be abridged more than ever. This is a travesty of our democracy. How can we allow a small group in the Republican leadership to flaunt the overwhelming will of the Congress, to maintain an anachronistic, Cold War policy toward Cuba that harms the average Cuban and risks great danger once the transition from the Castro regime begins, and to abridge the rights and freedom of Americans? I am profoundly unhappy with this result, and I protest the way this legislative process is being conducted.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a matter that has impacted every inhabitant of the state of Montana: The wildfires of the past 2 months. The recent rain and snow have finally brought the fires in Montana under control, but many of the largest fires are still smoldering. The Helena Independent Record Recently described the summer of 2000 as a: Fire season marked by miracles and loss, heroism and heartache, smoky skies and blackened backyards, of evacuations, waiting, planning and prayer. This photo showing two elk trying to escape the flames was taken on August 6th in the Bitterroot Valley by Forest Service firefighter John McColgan. On this particular day several forest fires converged near Sula, burning over 100,000 acres and destroying 10 homes. And this fire was just one of dozens burning across Montana. Mr. President, it is not an exaggeration to say that these fires impacted every inhabitant of Montana. Even people in our cities, miles from the front lines, lived with a constant reminder of the conflagration burning about them. As you can see in this photo of Helena, cities all across the region spent weeks under a cloud of smoke. Clearly, it was one of the worst fire seasons we've seen in the last 100 years. This is our cathedral, Saint Helena's Cathedral. You can see big smoke columns rising. The fact is, this is dramatically an understatement. I have asked my office to see if there are other photos which more accurately describe the situation in my State, and this is all we could come up with at the time. But this town, Helena, I might say, was so covered with smoke that my house--up just about 500, 600 feet from here--as I was looking across the back alley through the kitchen window, I could not even see across the alley. The whole city was just covered all the way down to ground level with smoke. That was the rule. That was the rule for all Montana cities, with the exception maybe of some of the eastern Montana cities. Most of them had just dense smoke impact for a long time. Clearly one of the worst fire seasons we have seen in over 100 years. But, Mr. President, I didn't come to the floor to talk about how bad the fires were--that's already apparent. Nor did I come down here to talk about forest management policy and what we could have done to lessen the harmful impact of these fires--there will be plenty of time to address both topics in the weeks and months to come. Mr. President, I am here today to commend the efforts of the thousands of people who pulled together to do battle with one of Mother Nature's most unforgiving forces. From New Zealand's finest, most experienced firefighters to the Montana volunteers who ran Red Cross evacuee camps, the fires brought together some of the most courageous and hard-working individuals I have ever encountered. Someone once told me that the true character of any community will reveal itself in the face of a natural disaster. I am proud of how Montanans and all of those who came to help rose to this challenge and persevered. Of all the statistics--almost a million acres burned, over 300 structures lost, over $200 million spent in battling fires--the one statistic I am most proud of is the number of human casualties--zero. That's right, in Montana not one life was lost during this disaster and no one was seriously injured. I can't tell you how proud I am that safety remained the highest priority: of all of the firefighters who were in harm's way, the pilots who flew risky missions dumping water or retardant chemicals over the fiery landscape, and the thousands of people who were evacuated--no one was seriously injured. To me, that's one heck of a statistic. That's why today, Mr. President, I want to extend a heartfelt ``thank you,'' and I know I speak for every Montanan. I want to thank firefighters from across the country, and around the world. Volunteer firefighters who left their regular jobs. The employees who let them go. Students who postponed attending classes. The families left at home and the co-workers who put in overtime to cover for those who traveled to the west. I might say in this photo, in the center is James Lee Witt, flanked by two members of the Montana delegation, myself on the left, and Senator Burns on the right. We are talking to a volunteer firefighter. These are people who, when the fire comes, often are in an area next to a community--there are homes back in the woods and the volunteer fighters immediately rush out. They are the first ones there. They are there without any pay. It is their community and they are fighting their hearts out. They are bleeding, almost literally--doing all they can to prevent that structure from burning, to do all they can to force the fire back. They are not paid. It is without compensation. The Forest Service and smokejumpers are; there are others who are not paid. The others are not. They are the first there and often the last to leave. They are just into it because it is their community. I called James Lee Witt, pictured in the center of this photo. He very quickly got some regulations changed so volunteer firefighters could be reimbursed. Recently now they are receiving payment for the services they rendered. But the point is, people came from all over. Employers let volunteers leave work--it was lost work, but still the main job had to be done fighting these fires. Students postponed attending classes at the University of Montana, or other classes, families left at home, coworkers who put in overtime to cover those who traveled to the West. The Red Cross and its hundreds of volunteers who were there when folks needed to see a friendly face. The various state agencies that worked diligently and expeditiously to implement emergency plans. The federal agencies that came forward to help put the fires out and begin to rebuild these communities. Specifically, I'd like to commend FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency for their efforts. On several occasions, they quickly released federal funds or waived personnel requirements. Cutting red tape so we could get the assistance we needed right away. I especially thank FEMA Director James Lee Witt who spent countless hours working with me and other folks in Montana. When these fires started to blow in Montana, James Lee Witt said he was really booked up with other plans, but he dramatically changed his schedule so he could come to Montana. That made a huge difference in getting agencies to work together, and it cut so much of this redtape. FEMA is still working on recovery efforts, and we very much appreciate all they have done and continue to do. I also thank with the same enthusiasm the adjutant general of the Montana National Guard, Gene Prendergast, and all his troops. Gene really stepped up. This guy really cares. He mobilized his troops, who care just as much. He was also influential in working with Federal, State, and local agencies to coordinate plans and requests for Federal assistance. We owe Gene Prendergast a huge debt of gratitude. At the high point of the fires, there were well over 12,000 people fighting blazes in western Montana. That includes Forest Service firefighters and National Guard men and women. We had 3 active-duty battalions from the East coming to fight fires in Montana. People came from everywhere-- from 48 States and 3 countries--to Montana. Across the West, some 30,000 brave individuals battled wildfires during this season. We did not lose any lives in our State, thanks to the combination of solid training, sensible fire strategy, and good luck. The dangers faced by these individuals, however, were obviously real. Think of the danger we put people into. Last year, we took time to remember the Mann Gulch fire. That was a huge fire in Montana which blew up about 50 years ago. Thirteen National Forest Service smoke jumpers died in that blowup. They were fighting a fire 10 miles away from Helena, 10 miles from the photo I showed earlier. It was not thought to be a fire that was going to threaten lives or property. An observer described the Mann Gulch fire with these words: A terrific draft of superheated air of tremendous velocity had swept up the hill exploding all inflammable material, causing a wall of flame 600 feet high to roll over the ridge and down the other side and continue over ridges and down gulches until the fuels were so light that the wall could not maintain enough heat to continue. This wall covered 3,000 acres in 10 minutes. Anything caught in the direct path of the heat blast perished. Just 6 years ago, we lost 14 smoke jumpers in a similar firestorm near Glenwood Springs, CO. This fire, like the Mann Gulch, was considered routine, and these were not even the most deadly fires in the West's history. It is important to remember those who gave their lives fighting wildfires. It is also important to celebrate those who put their lives on the line day after day to keep our homes and communities safe. A simple thank you does not seem to be enough to show our appreciation for these people and for everything they have done. That is why I have come to the floor to announce I am introducing legislation to honor and commemorate the selfless sacrifices each of these individuals has made to keep our families and our homes safe. The legislation will direct the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the U.S. Department of Defense to work together to create a commemorative pin or badge that will be issued to each firefighter at the end of a fire season. This will serve as an emblem of the vital service they have provided and a symbol of our gratitude, much as a soldier might receive a band to record a tour of duty, because those who fight wildfires really are soldiers who put their lives on the line every day in defense of the people, communities, the lands of America. These courageous men and women need to be recognized as the heroes they are. As we properly focus on the work these brave firefighters do for us, let us not forget the work we must do for them, for it is only by creating and funding sensible forest management policy and by guiding development to reduce the risk to homes and property posed by wildfires that we can keep more of our firefighters out of harm's way and prevent future tragedies like Mann Gulch. As we commemorate our firefighters, let us make sure we rise to the task of putting aside our differences and working together for commonsense policies that will keep our forests healthy and firefighters safe. Again, I say thank you, thank you to all the heroes--firefighters, volunteers, Government employees, ordinary citizens--who pulled together to protect life and home in Montana and across the West. Please know that we are truly grateful for everything you have done.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today Senator Smith, on behalf of Senator Voinovich, myself and others is introducing the Environmental Streamlining Improvement Act. This bill ensures that the United States Department of Transportation will issue a revised rule on TEA-21 environmental streamlining regulations. This bill will give the USDOT another chance to follow the statute when issuing proposed rules on planning and the environment. The Environment and Public Works Committee has held three hearings on the subject of environmental streamlining since the passage of TEA-21 in 1998. I am sorry to say that in the 2 years it has taken the USDOT to issue this NPRM, they fall far short of what Congress has intended. TEA-21 is very specific about what the regulations should do. The proposed regulations follow neither the word nor the intent of TEA-21. I remember working with Senators Warner, Graham, Wyden and Chafee and with the House members to develop an agreement on environmental streamlining. Those provisions are now Sections 1308 and 1309 of TEA- 21. I had heard from the Montana Department of Transportation and from others about how cumbersome a process it is to complete a highway project. Everyone who worked on TEA-21, in both the House and Senate, wanted to include a direction to the USDOT to streamline the planning and project development processes for the states. We were very clear--the environment and the environmental reviews should not get short shrift! But, we need to find a way to make it easier to get a final decision, eliminate unnecessary delays, move faster and with as little paperwork as possible. I cannot over-emphasize that the planning and environmental provisions of TEA-21 need to be implemented in a way that will streamline the expedite, not complicate, the process of delivering transportation projects. That is why Congress directed the USDOT to include certain elements in their regulations on environmental streamlining. We included concepts to be incorporated in future regulations--like concurrent environmental reviews by agencies and reasonable deadlines for the agencies to follow when completing their reviews. Certainly we did not legislate an easy task to the USDOT. Trying to coordinate so many separate agencies is like trying to herd cats. The whole concept of environmental streamlining--that is, to make the permit and approval process work more smoothly and effectively, while still ensuring protection of the environment--is one of the more difficult challenges of TEA-21. So I waited for the rules to come out. And waited. And two years after the passage of TEA-21 I look at the proposed rules and I am very disappointed. I have identified several problems with these regulations and I would like to mention just a few things that I see as real problems. First, elevating the planning process participants to the roles of decision makers. These regulations were supposed to help the States get their jobs done better and more efficiently. Its one thing to add more participants to the process. More involvement is a good thing. But its another thing to give them the authority to make decisions about how the planning process will work. This decision maker role is currently held by State DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations for a reason. Second, what happened to ``streamlining?'' The basic elements of real streamlining are the only things not in the regs. Third, these regulations are supposed to answer questions--but what is contained in the proposed regulations raises even more questions because they are vague there they need to be precise. Fourth, this proposal makes it even harder, if not impossible to come to a decision. These regulations include initiatives not outlined in sections 1308 and 1309 and in many areas would strip states of their authority. I would also like to mention that the Montana Department of Transportation filed comments or wrote letters at every possible opportunity for the public record. As I read these proposed regulations, I see that MDT's comments were either never read by the USDOT or ignored. Let me close by saying that I believe the proposed rules would add significant requirements and uncertainty to planning and environmental review for transportation projects. In practical terms, they would increase overhead and delay--and delay usually means increased project costs. These proposed rules could make it difficult for States to deliver their programs. Contracts won't get let and jobs will be lost. I know this is a tough task. To streamline a process while ensuring that we maintain a thorough planning and environmental review process. But, adding requirements to the process is contrary to the course charted by Congress. At our last hearing, the administration testified that their intent was to streamline the process. The bill we are introducing today would allow them to make good on their intent. Our bill requires the USDOT go back to the drawing board and incorporate comments received from States and others and issue another NPRM. I am confident the USDOT will do the right thing this time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not have first hand knowledge of the situation, but it is troubling to hear of U.S. businesses running into such difficulties. I read the written statement that the U.S. sponsor of this project submitted to the Senate Finance Committee last spring. Two things struck me. One is that the mediator split the difference. He split the difference between the price for electricity proposed by the Tangshan pricing bureau and the minimum price that the U.S. developer of the project said it needed in order to avoid defaulting on the project debt. The other thing that struck me is, although this was no great result for the U.S. developer, all the developer is seeking at this point is to have the mediator's recommendation implemented. I would like to read a paragraph from the statement that the U.S. sponsor of the project submitted to the Senate Finance Committee. This is the president of the company speaking. ``I am not here to ask you or your colleagues to grant or deny China PNTR status. I am here to relate a story of how one U.S. company fared when it tried to supply electricity to the Chinese. Unfortunately, we have come to find that our experience is not all that uncommon. However, in our case, the consequences are potentially disastrous because Panda had to guarantee the U.S. bondholders that they would be repaid. We feel like the jilted bride who entered into a marriage five years ago with the Chinese only to find them trying to walk away from the marriage now that the child has been born. This isn't fair.'' I agree, and I yield the Floor to the Democratic Leader.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against adoption of the Conference Report for the Energy and Water Appropriations. Section 103 is an anti-environmental rider that prevents the sound management of the Missouri River. As my colleagues will recall, during Senate consideration of this bill last month, Senator Daschle and I proposed to delete this provision. Unfortunately we were not successful. Now, rather than attempting to work out a compromise, the conferees have included the very same language in the conference report before us tonight. I will not repeat all of the arguments made in the earlier debate about why this amendment is bad for the river and the people of my state. The important point is, nothing has changed from that debate and the need to remove this rider remains as true today as it did then. First, the Army Corps of Engineers is managing the Missouri River on the basis of a master manual that was written in 1960 and hasn't changed much since then. Today, conditions are much different. Priorities are different. Under the current master manual--40 years old--water levels in Ft. Peck lake are often drawn down in the summer months, largely to support barge traffic downstream, which is an industry that is dying and, according to the Corps' own analysis, has much less economic value than the recreation value upstream. These drawdowns have occurred time and time again. Their effect is devastating: Moving ramps to put boats in the lake a mile away, severely curtail boating and fishing that are enjoyed by thousands of Montanans and tourists alike. They also reduce the numbers of walleye, sturgeon, and other fish. The drawdowns are the big reason why eastern Montana has been getting an economic raw deal for years. More balanced management of the Missouri River, which takes better account of upstream economic benefits, is absolutely critical to reviving the economy in that part of our State. Now there has been some talk that the proposed split season will affect hydropower production. While detailed studies are not yet complete, in fact, the Corps estimates that the split season will have ``essentially no impact to the total hydropower benefits.'' So there really should be no doubt. The split season is a better deal for Montana. It is a better deal for the whole river. Of course, this rider is about more than just Ft. Peck. It also prevents the Corps of Engineers from obeying the law of the land. Specifically, the Endangered Species Act. If we create a loophole here, there will be pressure to create another loophole somewhere else. And then another. Before you know it, the law will be shredded into tatters. We all know the Endangered Species Act is not perfect. I believe we need to reform it so it will work better for landowners and for species. We are working hard to pass returns, but those reforms haven't passed. So the Endangered Species Act remains the law of the land, and we have to respect it. And so should the Corps. Forget about the species for a minute. Think about basic fairness. We require private landowners to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Why should the Federal Government get a free pass? The answer is, they should not. The Army Corps of Engineers should be held to the same standard as everybody else, and the Corps agrees. We have a public process in place, to carefully revise the master manual. It's been underway for 10 years. Now, at the last minute, when the end is in sight, a rider in an appropriations bill would derail the process by taking one of the alternatives right off the table. That's not fair. It's not right. It's not the way we ought to make this decision. Instead, we should give the open process that we began ten years ago a chance to work. We should give people an opportunity to comment on the biological opinion and the environmental impact statement. So the final decision will not be made in a vacuum. But this rider makes a mockery of that process. The rider allows for an extensive period for public comment. But then it prohibits the public agencies from acting on those comments. A better way is to allow the agencies and the affected parties to continue to work together to strike a balance to manage this mighty and beautiful river: for upstream states, for downstream states, and for the protection of endangered species; that is, for all of us.

Mr. BAUCUS. I inquire of the minority leader and the Senator from New Mexico if we could get perhaps an extra 5 minutes before the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my colleague, I need only 5 or 6 minutes.