Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I very much admire the work and the effort the Senator from New Mexico has put into this bill, and I hope after the President vetoes this bill, and it is sustained, we can work out this one problem so we can get the bill passed.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, our nation's agricultural heritage is a rich tradition, which encompasses much of what we are about as a people; hard work, common sense, and a deep respect for the land. In Montana, and in too many communities across America, our agricultural heritage is at risk. Productive farms and ranches that have been in the same family for generations are being forced to turn their back on the land they love in order to make ends meet. I applaud our current conservation easement system and the many fine non-profit organizations that have worked with landowners across America to protect millions of acres of land. The successes have been great, but so too have the lessons. What we have learned is that the current system does not work particularly well for working farmers and ranchers. That's why I've introduced the Rural Heritage Conservation Act, a creative approach that provides farmers and ranchers with a real incentive to preserve their, and our, agricultural heritage. Over the past twenty-five years, over 3 million acres of agricultural land have been lost to development in Montana alone. Many of these acres were lost when family farms, hit hard by tough times, chose to give up their generations of old farming operations and sell to developers in order to pay their outstanding debts. The measure proposed in this legislation will expand the current conservation easement tax incentive program with an eye toward making the system work better for the bulk of real, working farmers and ranchers who would like to preserve their land for future generations but for whom the current system does not provide any meaningful incentive. Let me give you a real-life example that was presented by my good friend Jerry Townsend of Highwood Montana before the Senate Finance Committee's subcommittee on Tax and IRS oversight. Mr. Townsend testified that when he gave a conservation easement to the Montana Land Reliance, the value of his deduction was $524,000. However, under current law, over the last five years he has only been able to save $1,858 in federal taxes. Not much of an incentive, particularly when you factor in the $2,500 he paid for the appraisal required to complete the conservation easement process. The Rural Heritage Conservation Act will do three things. First, it will create a targeted, limited tax credit for farm and ranch filers who donate a conservation easement to a qualified land trust. Mr. Townsend's example is all too familiar a story to farmers and ranchers throughout America. The relatively small deduction they can obtain under current law does not in any way equate to either the potential income they have forfeited or the value the public has gained from the donation. As a result, fewer and fewer farmers and ranchers are donating conservation easements and protecting their land for future generations. To protect against abuse, the bill calls for a cap on the total tax credit available under the program and requires that a majority of the income for the qualifying filer be from farm and ranch operations. Second, this legislation will level the playing field for all types of agricultural filers. Current law allows C-Corps to deduct up to 10 percent of their income compared to the 30% allowed for other business types including Limited Liability Companies, Sole Proprietorships and Limited Liability Partnerships. According to figures presented by the Montana Land Reliance, there are some 40,000 acres of land in Montana alone owned by C-Corporations, in most cases family held, that have identified the 10 percent limit as a barrier to their contributing an easement. Third, the bill would eliminate the current provision that limits additional estate tax relief to landowners only within a 25 mile radius of a metropolitan area. As we have discussed at some length in this very chamber, estate tax is a significant issue for many Americans, including those who live in farm and ranch households. The current radius restriction works to the financial disadvantage of people who live in states with sparse populations. Elimination of the radius will be a significant improvement to current law and will enable many rural families to pass along to future generations family farms and ranches that are so much a part of the very heart of America. Protecting our agricultural heritage and the land that makes it possible is good public policy. I believe that the Agricultural Heritage Preservation Act is a creative, common sense approach to improving the current conservation easement program and making it work better to meet this important goal. I'm not claiming that this approach is the ``perfect'' approach, or the only way to accomplish our goals. But it's clear that the current system does not work effectively for small farmers and ranchers and we must do more. I hope that the introduction of this bill will initiate an informed, intelligent discussion of this important matter. We must find the best way to solve this problem that threatens the conservation of our agricultural lands and rural way of life. I hope that as we consider other land conservation initiatives and other measures to make significant changes to the estate tax system, that the changes I'm proposing in the Rural Heritage Conservation Act will be a key part of the discussion.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bill which will provide long-overdue compensation to agricultural producers in my state and across the country. The ``Wheat Protein Mismeasurement Compensation Act'' provides a legislative remedy for producers who suffered a loss due to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's erroneous underestimation of their wheat protein content for wheat sold between May 2, 1993 and January 24, 1994. In May 1993, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Federal Grain Inspection Service, required the use of new technology for determining the protein content of wheat. However, the calibrations provided by the Secretary for the new protein measurement instruments were erroneous and resulted in protein determinations that were lower than those produced by the technology in use before use of the new technology was required. As a result of this miscalibration and the USDA's failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, hundreds of wheat producers in my state were forced to adjust their protein measurement and pricing system in order to protect themselves on resale. The result was a significant loss of revenue from the sale of high-protein wheat. Mr. President, I have worked on this issue for several years--first as a case for my injured Montana producers. In a perfect this world, this problem would have been resolved by the USDA at an administrative level immediately after the miscalibration was identified and readjusted. Instead, it has lagged on and on and on. Unfortunately this matter for technical sovereign immunity reasons cannot be resolved in the courts. That is why we in Congress are their last chance at getting this resolved once and for all. It is clearly, however, that these wheat producers by no fault of their own were injured by the USDA's implementation of a flawed system. But for that error, they would have received a fair price for their wheat. At a time when the agricultural community continues to suffer from record low prices and disastrous weather conditions, this continued injustice is simply unacceptable. We must do all in our power to correct this problem and justly compensate our producers for their losses. I urge my colleagues to assist us in the expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, our nation's agricultural heritage is a rich tradition, which encompasses much of what we are about as a people; hard work, common sense, and a deep respect for the land. In Montana, and in too many communities across America, our agricultural heritage is at risk. Productive farms and ranches that have been in the same family for generations are being forced to turn their back on the land they love in order to make ends meet. I applaud our current conservation easement system and the many fine non-profit organizations that have worked with landowners across America to protect millions of acres of land. The successes have been great, but so too have the lessons. What we have learned is that the current system does not work particularly well for working farmers and ranchers. That's why I've introduced the Rural Heritage Conservation Act, a creative approach that provides farmers and ranchers with a real incentive to preserve their, and our, agricultural heritage. Over the past twenty-five years, over 3 million acres of agricultural land have been lost to development in Montana alone. Many of these acres were lost when family farms, hit hard by tough times, chose to give up their generations of old farming operations and sell to developers in order to pay their outstanding debts. The measure proposed in this legislation will expand the current conservation easement tax incentive program with an eye toward making the system work better for the bulk of real, working farmers and ranchers who would like to preserve their land for future generations but for whom the current system does not provide any meaningful incentive. Let me give you a real-life example that was presented by my good friend Jerry Townsend of Highwood Montana before the Senate Finance Committee's subcommittee on Tax and IRS oversight. Mr. Townsend testified that when he gave a conservation easement to the Montana Land Reliance, the value of his deduction was $524,000. However, under current law, over the last five years he has only been able to save $1,858 in federal taxes. Not much of an incentive, particularly when you factor in the $2,500 he paid for the appraisal required to complete the conservation easement process. The Rural Heritage Conservation Act will do three things. First, it will create a targeted, limited tax credit for farm and ranch filers who donate a conservation easement to a qualified land trust. Mr. Townsend's example is all too familiar a story to farmers and ranchers throughout America. The relatively small deduction they can obtain under current law does not in any way equate to either the potential income they have forfeited or the value the public has gained from the donation. As a result, fewer and fewer farmers and ranchers are donating conservation easements and protecting their land for future generations. To protect against abuse, the bill calls for a cap on the total tax credit available under the program and requires that a majority of the income for the qualifying filer be from farm and ranch operations. Second, this legislation will level the playing field for all types of agricultural filers. Current law allows C-Corps to deduct up to 10 percent of their income compared to the 30% allowed for other business types including Limited Liability Companies, Sole Proprietorships and Limited Liability Partnerships. According to figures presented by the Montana Land Reliance, there are some 40,000 acres of land in Montana alone owned by C-Corporations, in most cases family held, that have identified the 10 percent limit as a barrier to their contributing an easement. Third, the bill would eliminate the current provision that limits additional estate tax relief to landowners only within a 25 mile radius of a metropolitan area. As we have discussed at some length in this very chamber, estate tax is a significant issue for many Americans, including those who live in farm and ranch households. The current radius restriction works to the financial disadvantage of people who live in states with sparse populations. Elimination of the radius will be a significant improvement to current law and will enable many rural families to pass along to future generations family farms and ranches that are so much a part of the very heart of America. Protecting our agricultural heritage and the land that makes it possible is good public policy. I believe that the Agricultural Heritage Preservation Act is a creative, common sense approach to improving the current conservation easement program and making it work better to meet this important goal. I'm not claiming that this approach is the ``perfect'' approach, or the only way to accomplish our goals. But it's clear that the current system does not work effectively for small farmers and ranchers and we must do more. I hope that the introduction of this bill will initiate an informed, intelligent discussion of this important matter. We must find the best way to solve this problem that threatens the conservation of our agricultural lands and rural way of life. I hope that as we consider other land conservation initiatives and other measures to make significant changes to the estate tax system, that the changes I'm proposing in the Rural Heritage Conservation Act will be a key part of the discussion.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bill which will provide long-overdue compensation to agricultural producers in my state and across the country. The ``Wheat Protein Mismeasurement Compensation Act'' provides a legislative remedy for producers who suffered a loss due to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's erroneous underestimation of their wheat protein content for wheat sold between May 2, 1993 and January 24, 1994. In May 1993, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Federal Grain Inspection Service, required the use of new technology for determining the protein content of wheat. However, the calibrations provided by the Secretary for the new protein measurement instruments were erroneous and resulted in protein determinations that were lower than those produced by the technology in use before use of the new technology was required. As a result of this miscalibration and the USDA's failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, hundreds of wheat producers in my state were forced to adjust their protein measurement and pricing system in order to protect themselves on resale. The result was a significant loss of revenue from the sale of high-protein wheat. Mr. President, I have worked on this issue for several years--first as a case for my injured Montana producers. In a perfect this world, this problem would have been resolved by the USDA at an administrative level immediately after the miscalibration was identified and readjusted. Instead, it has lagged on and on and on. Unfortunately this matter for technical sovereign immunity reasons cannot be resolved in the courts. That is why we in Congress are their last chance at getting this resolved once and for all. It is clearly, however, that these wheat producers by no fault of their own were injured by the USDA's implementation of a flawed system. But for that error, they would have received a fair price for their wheat. At a time when the agricultural community continues to suffer from record low prices and disastrous weather conditions, this continued injustice is simply unacceptable. We must do all in our power to correct this problem and justly compensate our producers for their losses. I urge my colleagues to assist us in the expeditious passage of this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native American Telecommunications Improvement and Value Enhancement Act, the NATIVE Act. This bill provides a low interest loan program to build telecommunications infrastructure for federally-recognized Indian tribes. This legislation is timely. This week the Federal Communications Commission is hosting an Indian Telecom Training Initiative in St. Paul Minnesota to provide training to tribes on all phases of providing telecommunications services to their members. Why is this so important? At a time when 94 percent of Americans enjoy basic telephone service and the benefits derived thereof, only 47 percent of Native Americans on reservations have service. This is even below the rate of the rural homes, 91 percent. Indian and Alaska Native people live in some of the most geographically remote areas of the country. Most Alaska Native villages are reachable year-round by air only, have limited access by water, and have no road connections. On the mainland, many Indian reservations are located west of the Mississippi, where the wide-open spaces often mean that the nearest town, city, or hospital is several hours away by car. Those that do not have a telephone do not have access to some of the basic services that we take for granted each and every day. Some cannot obtain access to medical care in an emergency. Others cannot reach prospective employers quickly and easily. Many cannot take advantage of the commercial, educational, and medical care opportunities the Internet offers. Let me give you a couple of examples: Raymond Gachupin, governor of Jemez Pueblo in New Mexico, said he once was unable to call for emergency help for a young man who had been shot because no phone was available. William Kennard at an FCC Field Hearing in 1999 revealed a case on the Navaho reservation in Arizona, where 1,500 school children have computers, but can't hook up to the Internet because the Information Superhighway seems to have passed them by. And then there is just the basic inconvenience of not having a readily available means of communication: The community of Bylas in Arizona, which has approximately 2,000 residents, had only one payphone. People would line up at 6 o'clock in the morning to use the phone. They would stand in line sometimes until 12 o'clock midnight to use the phone. The only other way to talk to people was if you saw them in town and then any news may be days old. I know these stories are from the Southwestern United States but in my home state of Montana many of the reservations lack phone service, over 60 percent of the homes on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, 55 percent on the Crow Reservation. The Federal Communications Commission is stepping up to the plate to help solve this problem by reducing the cost of basic telephone service for individuals on reservations through the Lifeline and Linkup programs. The lifeline program could reduce the monthly cost of phone service to one dollar, all eligible customers would see bills below $10. The Linkup program helps offset the cost of the initiating service by as much as $100. As stated earlier, this week in St. Paul Minnesota, the FCC is conducting a training seminar for tribal telecommunications. I commend the FCC for their efforts and want to assist where I can. That is why I am introducing this valuable legislation. The infrastructure costs for providing telecommunications services can be very high especially in remote areas where customers can be more than one mile apart. This legislation will help to keep those costs down by lowering the cost of borrowing. The NATIVE Act provides a $1 billion revolving loan fund with a graduated interest rate pegged to the per capita income of the population receiving service. The interest rates range from 2 percent for the poorest tribes up to 5 percent. The plans submitted for loan approval will be subject to the requirements of current Rural Utilities Service borrowers including service capable of transmitting data at a minimum rate of one Megabit per second. This will ensure the system in place will connect Native Americans to the Internet thereby opening up economic opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist. The program is not intended to displace existing telecommunications carriers who are providing service to Native Americans. In fact, the bill is specific in that loan funds can only be used to provide service to unserved and underserved areas, where existing service is deemed inadequate due to either cost or quality. Additionally the Act establishes a matching grant program for conducting feasibility studies to determine the best alternative for providing service. The program will be administered by the Rural Utilities Service, an agency with over 50 years experience in lending for rural telecommunications infrastructure throughout the country. The RUS telecommunications program has provided financing for 866,000 miles of line approximately one-tenth of which is fiber optic, serving 5.5 million customers, including Native Americans. The RUS distance learning/telemedicine program has funded 306 projects for rural schools and medical centers in 44 states since its inception in 1993 bringing improved services for education and health care centers in rural communities. All without incurring any loan losses. I have the utmost confidence that the Rural Utilities Service will successfully administer this program. To wrap up, Mr. President, I know that we cannot reach everyone. There are some who simply do not want service in order to preserve their traditional way of living and others who feel owning a telephone is not a priority within the household budget; however, we should strive to try to ensure telecommunications service to those who want and need to have a telephone.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my good friend, Senator Smith, for his comments. I join him in urging my colleagues to support final passage of the legislation before us. As we stated on the floor last week, this important bill authorizes projects for flood control, navigation, shore protection, environmental restoration, water supply storage, and recreation. All very important matters across the country. These projects often don't get headlines or much attention, but they clearly mean a lot to many people. Each of these projects meet our committee criteria. That is important, too, because the Environment and Public Works Committee gets lots of requests. The projects are technologically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally sound. In addition, each project has a local sponsor willing to share a portion of the cost, which is something we insist upon in order to show that the project is important locally. Passage of this bill will advance two projects that are very important for my State of Montana--the fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake and the exchange of cabin site leases in the C.M. Russell Wildlife Refuge. The fish hatchery is particularly important since it will create more jobs and help our State's economy in northeastern Montana, a part of the State which is, frankly, hurting. The cabin lease exchange provision will also benefit the government, sportsmen, and cabin site owners by acquiring inholdings that are within the refuge and that have high value for wildlife in return for cabin sites now managed by the Corps. Finally, this bill will start us on the path to restoration of that unique national treasure known as the Everglades. Last week we heard my colleagues from Florida, as well as the leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee elaborate on the importance of this effort. We all know how important it is. It is one of our natural treasures. This provision is a testament to true bipartisanship. Senators Graham and Mack have been at the forefront of this effort. Governor Jeb Bush and the Clinton administration, particularly Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, have also worked closely to achieve this result. And, of course, it could not have happened without the support of Senator Smith, our chairman, who put this issue at the top of the committee's agenda this year and has worked tirelessly throughout the year to make this bill happen, and Senator, Voinovich, the subcommittee chairman. This has been an effort of his as well. Without this bipartisan support in Washington, and throughout Florida, this project would not be where it is today. It would still be on the drawing board. And the Everglades would still be destined to die. In conclusion, I want to assure our colleagues that this bill is the right thing to do. And it is worthy of their support. Before yielding the floor, let me also mention some of the staff who deserve recognition for putting this bill together. I will submit a longer list for the Record. But let me mention here my fine staff, particularly Jo-Ellen Darcy, who is sitting to my immediate left. Her expertise and experience in water issues has been a real asset to me and the committee. I'll also tell you that she has become more familiar with the State of Florida than I think she ever imagined. And Peter Washburn, who is sitting to Jo-Ellen's left, a fellow from EPA on the staff of the Environment Committee. He has provided invaluable assistance in shepherding this bill through the legislative process, and on many other issues before the committee. Senator Smith's staff, Chelsea Henderson, Stephanie Daigle, and Tom Gibson have similarly provided the leadership necessary to get this bill done. And Senator Voinovich's staff, Ellen Stein and Rich Worthington, were instrumental in negotiating this bill from the beginning. Finally, staff from Senator Graham's office, Catharine Cyr, and from Senator Mack's office, C.K. Lee, at times probably felt that they were on the staff of the committee for all the time they put into this effort. All of us in the Senate, and all Floridians, should appreciate their dedication and hard work. They are people whose names aren't often mentioned. In fact, to be honest about it, they do most of the hard work. They are true servants in the best sense of the term because they are doing work for our country, yet do not seek to have their names in headlines. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the many other people who deserve thanks for their part in making this bill a reality be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to honor a great Montanan, a great American, who passed away just a few days ago, Maureen Hayes Mansfield. These are remarks about Maureen, but it is also a love story. Maureen was born Maureen Hayes in the State of Washington at the beginning of the last century, in 1905, and spent most of her youth in Butte, MT. Butte, at that time, was a live, bustling, raucous mining city, with big copper mines. Living in Butte, she met a grade school dropout, a mucker working in the Butte mines, a profound young man named Mike-- Mike Mansfield. Mike was not only a grade school dropout but he also was an extremely wonderful person. Maureen must have recognized the strength in Mike at the time. Mike, as many of us know, served in all three branches of the armed services--age 17, 18, and 19. He had to maybe tell a little story about his age so he could get into--I think it was the Navy at the time. Mike served, and Maureen noticed that. They became very close--they fell in love with each other, Mike living as a solitary boarder in a boarding house, Maureen living up in a nice spacious house with her large family in Butte. After they got to know each other even more, Maureen, who was a high school teacher in Butte, persuaded Mike to go back to school. She persuaded Mike to leave the mines, go back to school and get an education. A few years later, they moved to Missoula, MT. In Missoula, Maureen quit her job. She cashed in her life insurance policy to support Mike's education so Mike could go back and get a university degree. Mike gradually worked his way up and became a professor in history at the University of Montana. He got his master's degree at the University of Montana. And Maureen, in the year Mike got his master's in history, got hers in English, writing a thesis on Emily Bronte. Mike's thesis was on U.S.-Korea diplomatic relations. Maureen persuaded Mike to run for Congress in 1940. It was the Western District in Montana. Mike was unsuccessful. It, ironically, is the same district that Jeannette Rankin, a very strong woman, held for a couple of terms. It is a district I once represented, and Lee Metcalf and other Montanans of great note have held. Mike finally won in 1942. He came to Washington on a train --he did not take one of these jets; it was on a train, to Washington, DC--and set up his office. Maureen worked in his office without compensation. They worked together; they were such a wonderful team. Mike then, after 10 years in the House, served 10 years in the Senate beginning in 1952. Years after his service in the House, he was elected majority leader of the Senate. He served 16 years, longer than any other American, as majority leader of the Senate. Then Mike, as we know, went off to serve as Ambassador to Japan under both President Carter and President Reagan. This is a story probably about Mike Mansfield, but Maureen's death is time for us to reflect upon Maureen herself and upon the love that Mike and Maureen had for each other. They were inseparable. They were always together, always giving each other support, help, and confidence as a team. I can remember when I met Mike. The majority leader's office at that time was a little more modest than it is today. Maureen was sitting in there, and they were talking a little bit. Right away I realized Mike and Maureen just did not have all the time they would have liked to have had together because Mike was so busy as majority leader. I said: You two don't get much chance to be together. I am going to leave so you can have some time together. I did. I walked out. I could tell they liked it very much. Maureen's eyes twinkled and smiled. I say this because Maureen always smiled. She was always optimistic, always upbeat, always helping people, always a very kind person, self-effacing, a lady of few words but uncommon talent and knowledge and wisdom. She attended St. Mary's University, a women's college which was then attached to Notre Dame in Indiana. She got her master's degree in English in 4 years, which was quite a feat for women in those years. She read constantly. She was always taking home books from the Library of Congress. I believe if one looks throughout history, very often people who read a lot are wiser, have more confidence in themselves, and have a greater imprint upon other people in a positive way. I am thinking of people such as Harry Truman. He read a lot. Justice Blackmun read a lot, and Maureen was one of those who constantly read and was just a wonderful influence on Mike. Let me give a couple examples to demonstrate just how much Mike believed in Maureen. We all know that Mike never took credit for what he did. Maureen never took credit for all that she did. It was an era, a time when people did not take credit for what they did. They just did a good job. That was in the sixties, seventies, less so in this era. Whenever somebody wanted to credit Mike for his tremendous accomplishments, Mike would always insist: No, Maureen is first. Whatever I did, Mike Mansfield, whatever honors I had is because of Maureen. It is true. Often the people of the State of Montana would say: OK, Mike, we want to dedicate a building to you, the Mansfield Center. Mike would say: No, it has to be the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center, and they would agree. The legislature in Montana wanted to create a statue honoring Mike Mansfield, one of the most famous Montanans in our State's history. ``No way,'' Mike said, ``unless it is a statue of Maureen and myself.'' Otherwise he was very much opposed. The legislature agreed. I wish you could have seen the two of them together. They were always together. They celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary last March. They were married 68 years, solidly helping to reinforce each other. They were always together helping each other. I asked Mike once: Mike, you have lived such a rich life. When are you going to write your memoirs? Mike said: I am not going to. I asked why. He said: I was told so much in confidence, it would not be proper for me to write memoirs. Those are confidential statements. And that is Maureen. The two of them were just like that. I am sure Maureen's influence on Mike helped make Mike the great, wonderful person he is, and it was mutually reinforcing. I also have a view that teachers tend to be more dedicated than most other professions. After all, teachers are servants in a sense. If one looks at achievers, very often one of their parents was a teacher or there was a teacher somewhere in the family. Maureen was a teacher. She was a teacher in the public school system. Mike was a teacher at the University of Montana. The best lessons they taught us were by example: Honest as the day is long; their word is their bond; upbeat, positive, contributing, giving, thinking, searching for a better way for more people. I believe the most noble human endeavor is service--service to community, to church, to family, to friends, to State, whatever makes the most sense for an individual. Maureen Mansfield served her husband, her State, and her country more than any other person I have had the privilege to know or to meet and with such grace, such style, and such inspiration. I stand here today, Mr. President, in great honor of Maureen Mansfield, in awe of the wonderful love affair between Mike and Maureen. As many of Maureen's Indian friends would say: This is not goodbye; we will see you later. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Section (h)(2)(C) of Title VI of S. 2796 states, ``in carrying out his responsibilities under this subsection with respect to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary of the Interior shall fulfill his obligations to the Indian trust tribes in South Florida under the Indian Trust Doctrine as well as other applicable legal obligations.'' Is the intent of this provision to ensure that the Secretary of the Interior give full and equal consideration to all his legal responsibilities?

Mr. BAUCUS. Furthermore, I understand that the Savings Clause provision was not intended to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to redirect to the natural system water from the human environment of unsuitable quality or quantity in an effort to provide the flood protection guaranteed in the section?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator for his assistance in clarifying the intent of this provision. waterbury dam

Mr. BAUCUS. I think the answer to that, if I might answer my friend, is, again, a sort of rough justice. The State of Florida wants to be a partner in this thing.

Mr. BAUCUS. It is not lopsided. There is a slight tilt in favor of the State of Florida, and I mean it is slight. It is not really out of bounds. But the Everglades is really special. It is a national treasure. I think we should help restore the Everglades.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield.

Mr. BAUCUS. You go often and I appreciate it.

Mr. BAUCUS. You did, and you told many stories about how proud you are of that.

Mr. BAUCUS. I tell you, we are very proud of it.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will tell them this is a good precedent for Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that the Savings Clause was intended to provide that until a new source of water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace any water supply to be lost as a result of implementation of the Plan, the Secretary of the Army and the non-federal sponsor shall not eliminate or transfer existing legal sources of water.

Mr. BAUCUS. Am I correct in saying with respect to flood control, the Savings Clause was intended to ensure that implementation of the Plan will not result in significant adverse impact to any person with an existing, legally recognized right to a level of protection against flooding, including flood protection for the natural system?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all want to protect the Everglades. I don't think there is a Senator here who does not want to substantially protect and restore the Everglades. How do we do it? What is the most fair, most equitable way to restore the Everglades? I think it is important to remember we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. There is no perfect solution. But there are good solutions. The committee has crafted a good solution. It is true, as the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Ohio are pointing out, we are breaking precedent. It is true. The provisions of the bill do provide for Uncle Sam to pay 50 percent of the operation and maintenance cost of this very large and very important project. That is true. I share many of the concerns of the Senators, the potential slippery slope; what is this going to lead to? Why are we breaking precedent here? It is a 14-year precedent, I think. It has been some time. What is a Federal interest? Sometimes it is hard to define what a Federal interest is. But just as there are more Federal dollars going in for operation and maintenance, on the other side of the equation we are also breaking another precedent; that is, the State is putting up more of the construction costs. Ordinarily the State would have to put up about 35 percent of the construction costs. It is a big project, about $8 billion. Florida has decided to put up the full 50 percent. So they are paying more than they ordinarily would. The U.S. Government will be paying more than it ordinarily would in operation and maintenance costs. This arrangement may not be perfect. But we are dealing with an extraordinary, special situation, and that is the Everglades. All of us in America feel a part of the Everglades. Certainly, the Floridians feel more closely attached to the Everglades, but I think the rest of us in this country have a feeling about it. It is part of America, a special part of America we want to protect and restore as best we can. So I say we should stick with the approach the committee has come up with after a lot of hard work, and a lot of give and take. In addition, I might point out 50 percent of the benefits go to parks, Federal parks, Federal land. There are about 18,000 square miles involved in the Everglades restoration. About 9,000 square miles of that is Federal lands; 9,000 is non-Federal lands. So it seems to me a 50-50 operation and maintenance cost share--it is rough justice. It is about right: 9,000 Federal, 9,000 non-Federal, 50-50; at a time when the State of Florida also is putting up more than its usual share for construction. So this has been a good debate. In future years, when we are faced with similar questions, I know the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Ohio are going to be front and center saying: Uh-oh, here we go again. Remember that time in September 2000? And they will be making good points. But I believe one has to make a decision. The decision is now before us to proceed with the bill and not adopt the amendment offered by my good friend, recognizing they made good points, but I do not agree those points are sufficiently valid to warrant passage of their amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, in supporting S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I will say a few words about the bill and a couple of words about some projects in Montana, and finally wrap up with further comments about the Everglades restoration. This bill authorizes projects for a lot of different areas. It is really quite a sweeping bill: flood control, for one, navigation, shore protection, environmental restoration, water supply storage, and recreation. It also modifies some existing projects and directs the Corps to study other proposed projects. All projects in this bill have the support of a local sponsor, somebody at home willing to share the cost of the project. Even a brief review of the projects will demonstrate the importance of passing this bill. A number of the projects are needed to protect shorelines along oceans, lakes, and rivers. Several of the navigation projects will ensure that our ports remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. The studies authorized in the bill will help us make informed decisions about the future use and management of our water resources. Each project in this bill has been reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and has been found to be in the Federal interest, technologically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally sound. These projects have also been reviewed in accordance with applicable standards and also with our own committee criteria; in other words, they are worthy of support. Let me mention two that are very important to my State of Montana. First is the authorization for a fish hatchery at Fort Peck. This fish hatchery will make good on a long-awaited promise on the Fort Peck project; namely, to create more opportunities for people in communities like Sidney, Malta, Lewistown, Billings, and, of course, Glasgow, and all across Montana. Fort Peck Lake, one of the greatest resources that exists in our State, not only plays a major role in power production, water supply, but it is an increasingly important center for recreation. Not just for Montanans; people from all around the world--believe me, that is true, all around the world--come to Fort Peck Lake, MT, for our annual walleye tournaments. Hundreds of boats and probably 1,000 or more anglers participate in these events. It is amazing. I was there last summer. It is truly a sight to behold, all these boats taking off for a major national fishing tournament. The local community really puts its heart and soul into these tournaments. Local folks have also collaborated on raising a lot of money for the matching share of the feasibility study for the fish hatchery, from Sidney, Malta, Glasgow, all across northeastern Montana. There are not a lot of people in northeastern Montana, but there is a lot of spirit and spunk and a lot of wide open spaces. Fort Peck Lake is very important to these communities, in some sense it is almost the heart and soul of the northeastern part of our State. So, these communities have come together, they have raised the funds, and they have pitched in to support the fish hatchery project. The State legislature also passed a special warm water fishery stamp to help provide additional financial support for the hatchery. This hatchery will help ensure the continued development of opportunities at Fort Peck Lake, and it will represent a major source of jobs and economic development for that part of our State. Another provision of the bill that affects my State of Montana is the one that affects cabin sites that are leased by private individuals on Federal land at Fort Peck Lake. The lake is huge. It is surrounded by the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, but there are a lot of private in-holdings in this refuge. This provision will allow cabin leases to be exchanged for other private land within the refuge that has higher value for, say, fish, wildlife, and recreation. By consolidating management of the refuge lands, the provision will reduce the cost to the Corps associated with managing these cabin sites. It will also enhance public access to the refuge lands. This exchange is modeled on a similar project, of which I am very proud, near Helena, MT, which Congress authorized in 1998. It represents a win-win-win solution--a win for the public, a win for the wildlife, and a win for the cabin site owners. I also want to mention another landmark provision in this bill referred to at some length by my good friend, Senator Smith, chairman of the committee. In addition to the usual project authorizations contained in the water resources bill, this bill also affords a historic opportunity. Title 6 of the bill is known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Restoration of the Everglades has been many years in the making. For example, in the 1970s, the State of Florida became concerned that the previously authorized central and south Florida water project was doing too good a job. Why? Because it was draining the swampy areas of the State and was, in fact, draining the life out of the Everglades. Under the leadership of our current colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, who was then Governor Graham, the State recognized that the health of the entire south Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades, was in serious jeopardy and that a major effort was needed to restore it. Ever since, Senator Graham has worked tirelessly to achieve that goal. I can testify to that personally. The comprehensive plan to restore this valuable ecosystem that is contained in the bill before us is the culmination of his work. The Everglades is clearly a national treasure. I know it holds a particularly special place in the hearts of Senator Graham and Senator Mack. Senator Mack joined Senator Graham to make Everglades restoration a key part of their agenda for the State of Florida. Both of them worked very hard in a bipartisan way to make this provision a reality. The administration, under the leadership of the Corps of Engineers and Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Joe Westphal, with the cooperation of the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, are also committed to bringing all the affected parties together to develop a plan that will work for the State of Florida, the ecosystem, and the Everglades. The committee has worked with all the stakeholders in South Florida and with the administration to develop the consensus contained in this bill. There are provisions to review the progress of the plan, to make sure it is working, to require Congress to approve steps along the way, and to assure the water will be where it is needed, when it is needed. We cannot wait for the Everglades to die. We have to begin now to restore it. This project is the largest environmental restoration project in the Corps' history, and it will reverse the decline of the Everglades. It is the right thing to do. I know my colleagues will join us with in supporting this section of the bill and the Water Resources Development bill generally. I have one final point. I pay special commendation to the chairman of our committee, Senator Smith. The first committee hearing he held as chairman of the committee was in Florida on the Everglades. It was there he saw the need to restore the Everglades, and it was there he made his pledge to the people of Florida, and to the Nation, to restore the Everglades. That is the hallmark of the very balanced, solid, far- reaching, and perceptive way in which he has handled the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We are here today, in many respects, not only because of the Senators from Florida, Senators Graham and Mack, and others, but also because of Senator Smith's farsighted work as chairman of the committee. I thank him, as well as the others, for what they have done for a true national treasure.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, on the Senator's time.

Mr. BAUCUS. That's correct, ordinarily.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct, as do all States.