Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill I believe will provide important benefits for our country's small businesses and the millions of people who work for them. The Small Employer Pension Start- up Incentive Act (SEPSI) will provide help to small businesses who want to help their employees save for their retirement. Congress has spent a great deal of time recently exploring the impact on our country of the impending wave of baby boomer retirements. Much of this debate has centered around strengthening the Social Security Trust Fund, so we can keep the promise we made to all working Americans that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. During this debate, however, we have all but neglected the important role the private pension system plays in American's retirement security. Social Security was never intended to provide the sole source of income for our retirees. Despite that, however, it is the only source of retirement income for 16% of elderly Americans. And it is the primary source of income for two-thirds of all retirees. Unless we can change this disturbing trend, preserving Social Security for the 21th Century will not be enough--there will still be far too many Americans who will spend their retirement years one step away from poverty. In addition to preserving Social Security, we must help Americans better prepare for their retirement years. When the President submitted this budget this year, he proposed dedicating most of our projected surpluses to create Universal Savings Accounts for all Americans. I strongly believe the concept behind the USA proposal was a good one. If our projected surpluses actually materialize, we have an unprecedented opportunity to plan for our nation's future, to make the kinds of investments that will pay off for ourselves and for our children. Helping strengthen our private pension system is one of those key investments we should be making now, before the wave of retirements begins. An important place to start is with our small businesses and their employees. Over 38 million workers in this country work for small businesses, that is, companies with less than 100 employees each. And even though almost everyone employed by a large company has access to a pension plan through their employer, only 20% of small business employees have pension plans available where they work. This means 31 million working Americans have no opportunity to save for their retirement through their employers. Small business owners don't offer plans, not because they don't want to, but because they simply can't afford to. Administrative costs are disproportionately high for businesses with few employees, as are the costs associated with meeting all of the regulatory requirements that can apply to pension plans. And their employees, who frequently earn minimum wage and don't have access to health insurance either, couldn't afford to set money aside for their retirement even if their employers offered pension plans. The bill I am introducing today will help reverse this trend. The Small Employer Pension Start-up Incentive Act will provide two new tax credits to small businesses that are providing pension plans to their employees for the first time. The first credit will help defray the administrative costs that accompany starting a new pension plan. It will provide up to $500 per year in tax relief for small businesses to compensate for the administrative costs they incur in providing a new plan. The credit would be available for three years, for employers with up to 100 workers. The second credit goes right to the heart of the pension problem--it helps subsidize the contributions employers make into a new plan on behalf of their employees. Studies have shown that pension participation increases dramatically when employers offer to match employee savings. But in far too many small businesses, neither the employer nor the employee can afford to set aside the money. My bill will provide a 50% tax credit for any employer contributions into a new pension plan on behalf of their lower paid employees, up to a maximum of 3% of the salaries of these workers. The credit will be available for the first 5 years of any new qualified pension plan offered by a small business employing up to 50 workers. I believe that enactment of the Small Employer Pension Start-up Incentive Act will help dramatically increase the number of Americans working for small businesses that can begin saving for their retirement. Providing these tax credits to small businesses, along with the other pension reform proposals that are included in S. 741, the Pension Coverage and Portability Act I introduced with Senators Graham and Grassley, will go a long way toward helping Americans plan for a secure retirement in the 21st century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was very disappointed last week when it appeared that we would not have a chance to act on this very important piece of legislation. I was disappointed for several reasons. First, because there's a lot more at stake here than the four basic elements of this bill: CBI, Africa Trade, TAA and GSP. All four are important, and I will say a few words about each one of them. But even more important is the signal that we send now. At the end of this month, the United States will host the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Seattle. The WTO writes and enforces the rules governing some $6 trillion in international trade. Delegations from over 130 nations will come participate in the meeting. They will launch a new global round of negotiations aimed at expanding trade. All of those delegations will have a common concern: Does the United States still intend to lead the world on trade? They will look at the way we deal with the trade bill before us as an indication of how they should answer that question. The signals we have sent them recently are not encouraging. First, we have failed to pass legislation granting negotiating authority to the U.S. Trade Representative. This undercuts our ability to persuade other nations to offer concessions, since we are not in a position to make credible offers. Second, the United States has not put forward the kind of visionary, far-reaching proposals needed at the onset of trade talks. Rather than leading the way forward, we seem to have adopted another strategy: offend the fewest number of people as possible. While we send these weak signals, other countries have moved into the breach to advance their own interests. The European Union and Japan mounted campaigns to paint us as foot-draggers on trade. They say that our proposals for trade negotiations are too narrow to allow for any real bargaining. They claim that they want to talk about the full range of trade issues, while we want to pull major portions of the trade system off the table. We know what they are really up to. They want to undercut the talks and make them drag on for years. That way they can avoid living up to their responsibilities on agriculture. Unfortunately, a number of countries are persuaded by the picture of America's trade policy that Europe and Japan are painting. This bill is the only opportunity the Senate will have before the Seattle meetings to show where America stands. It is vitally important that we pass this legislation to demonstrate our commitment to free market principles, and to open, fair trading system. Mr. President, I filed two amendments to the bill, both of them trade-related. Both of them are on issues which are extremely important to Americans. I was very disappointed that we were locked out of discussing them last week. One of the amendments allowed for tariff cuts on environmental goods as part of a global agreement in the WTO. The measure has the support of both business and environmental groups. This is a rare instance where both sides of the trade-environment debate agree on something. It's a shame that the Senate cannot move forward on something so sensible. The second amendment concerned agricultural subsidies. American farmers are the most productive in the world. But they're being frozen out of foreign markets by European and Japanese subsidies. I filed an amendment that would fight back by funding our Export Enhancement Program. This amendment required the Secretary of Agriculture to target at least two billion dollars in Export Enhancement Program funds into the EU's most sensitive markets if they fail to eliminate their export subsidies by 2003. It's time to start fighting fire with fire. This ``GATT trigger'' should provide leverage in the next round of the WTO in reducing grossly distorted barriers to agricultural trade. In addition to these amendments, Mr. President, I also filed a resolution in the form of an amendment about another important trade issue: telecommunications. It calls on the Administration to continue to pursue efforts to open the Japanese telecommunications market. This is another example of how Japan must shoulder its responsibilities as a major trading nation. It cannot benefit from access to foreign markets unless its offers access to its home market. It's simply a question of fairness. Mr. President, I voted against cloture last week because I objected to the way the Majority Leader handled the bill. I was denied the ability to do what the people of Montana sent me here to do: debate and pass legislation. But I support the bill itself. I support each of its elements--the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, and the renewal of both Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Generalized System of Preferences. Caribbean Basin Parity Initiative (CBI) I have long supported efforts to extend additional tariffs preferences to the Caribbean Basin. But with conditions. The benefits should be conditioned on the beneficiary countries' trade policies, their participation and cooperation in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (``FTAA'') initiative, and other factors. This trade bill is substantially similar to the version I supported in the 105th Congress with some reservation. I see a flaw in this bill, however, and would like to work to repair it. The bill suggests criteria the President can use when deciding whether to grant CBI benefits. It is a long list of about a dozen items. Criteria like Intellectual Property Rights. Investment protections. Counter-narcotics. Each one is important. The bill should make these criteria mandatory. In particular, I believe that the President should be required to certify that CBI beneficiaries respect worker rights, both as a matter of law and in practice. We can't maintain domestic support for open trade here at home unless our programs take core labor standards into account. We want to help our Caribbean neighbors compete effectively in the U.S. market. But we don't want them to compete with U.S. firms by denying their own citizens fundamental worker rights. It only seems reasonable that as we help the economic development of these nations, we also help them enforce the laws already on their books. The majority of these countries already have the power and only need the will to ensure that their citizens see the benefits of enhanced trade--decent wages, decent hours and a decent life. Overall, I believe that CBI parity is the right thing to do--if it does what it is intended to do. That is lift the people of the hurricane devastated countries out of poverty and ensure them a better way of life. I also believe that the United States must lead by example. Sensitivity to labor and environment must play a role in our trade decisions and actions around the world. It's tragic that partisan politics keeps the United States Senate from taking these actions. African Growth and Opportunity Act I have the same concerns about labor in terms of the African Growth and Opportunity portion of the bill. But I supported the Chairman's mark, which included a provision requiring U.S. fabric for apparel products produced in eligible sub-Saharan African countries. Developing markets is in the best interest of us all. And the trade bill would help Africa move in that direction. But this bill is about more than trade. It is about hope. It is about bringing the struggling nations of sub-Saharan Africa into our democratic system. It is about establishing stability and a framework wherein the citizens of these nations can enjoy the fruits of prosperity. It is about building a bridge between the United States and Africa that will be a model for all nations. Trade Adjustment Assistance The third part of the bill renews the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. We cannot expect to maintain a domestic consensus on trade if we fail to assist those who are adversely affected. For 37 years, this program helped Americans adjust to the forces of globalization. I would like to acknowledge Senator Moynihan, who originated this program, in another demonstration of his wisdom and foresight. I have seen the effects of this program in Montana. The renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance translates to 330 Montana employees impacted and approximately $44 million in gross annual sales preserved. This legislation is long overdue. TAA authorization expired on June 30. There are families who are displaced in the world economy, and they are living off this transitional benefit--200,000 eligible workers. While we delay, certified firms anxiously await funding. This is fundamentally unfair--especially for employees of firms fighting import competition that is beyond their control. They cannot afford to wait while TAA is caught up in the annual battle for funding as the ``perennial bargaining chip'' for other trade proposals. That's just ineffective government. It's time to pass this legislation. Generalized System of Preferences Finally, let me say a word about GSP renewal. This is the fourth part of the trade bill. This is also a question of effective government. Over the years, the program has lapsed periodically when renewal legislation was delayed. Like TAA, the latest lapse occurred on June 30. Four months later, we still haven't acted on its renewal. Who gets hurt? Not just foreign companies. A lot of American firms get hurt. That includes both American importers and exporters. A lot of the American firms produce abroad and then export to the United States. Much of this is internal company trade. That's the reality of today's global economy. When GSP lapses, these companies are suddenly required to deposit import duties into an account. Customs holds the money until renewal legislation is signed. Eventually the companies get their money back. But they don't know how long renewal legislation will take. So they don't how much they'll have to set aside, or how long the money will be in escrow. How can we expect businesses to operate efficiently under such conditions? These cycles of GSP lapsing and then being renewed represent government at its worst. We have a responsibility to provide business and consumers with a consistent, predictable set of rules. We need to fix this GSP lapse as quickly as possible. Mr. President, a lot of effort, a lot of thought, a lot of time has gone into this bill. Much time has also gone into formulating amendments. It was a great disappointment to see this effort unravel over partisan politics. We have a second chance this week. Let's not squander the opportunity. We can and should work together to pass this bill. We were elected to this body to pass legislation not to bicker. Let's do what the people sent us here to do. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2430

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Healthy Seniors Act of 1999. Prescription drugs are a hot topic these days. From the lawn of the White House to the TV screen in your house, everyone is talking about prescription drugs, and for good reason. Americans have the greatest health care system in the world: The best doctors, the best research, and the most effective prescription drugs. That doesn't mean anything if thousands of seniors can't afford to use them. We are creating a system where the well-off can buy the best health care and the poor can afford little more than an aspirin. Recently, ``60 Minutes'' did a show on the high cost of prescription drugs and the need to provide coverage to low-income beneficiaries. National Public Radio has run a series of stories on the rising cost of prescription drugs and government plans to make them available to Medicare beneficiaries. Full-page advertisements and news stories are in our Nation's newspapers, from the Washington Post to the Billings Gazette. We have all seen Flo and her bowling ball. I have a story from the Montana Standard, Butte's local newspaper. The headline reads: ``Montanans Testify for Medicare Drug Coverage.'' Greg Loushin's heart breaks every time he watches Montana's elderly and uninsured scrounge for change to buy prescription drugs. Oftentimes, the Butte pharmacist pulls money from his own pocket. Think of that, the local pharmacist pulls money from his own pocket when his own customers do not have adequate funds to pay for their drugs. From the story: Pharmacist helping seniors buy drugs they need from his own money. People help one another out in Butte, MT. Greg's customers are lucky to have him for a pharmacist. But we know in our increasingly interpersonal world, Greg's generosity is a rare exception. It isn't a long-term solution to the problem of escalating costs of prescription drugs; creating a prescription drug benefit under Medicare is. Why is it suddenly so important seniors be given a drug benefit under Medicare? Why all the attention? Why the stories? The answer is twofold. First, prescription drug costs have risen dramatically. Overall medical inflation has been slowed in recent years, but the cost of prescription drugs has actually skyrocketed, rising much faster than the average cost of medical care. In 1980, prescription drugs were only 4 percent of total health costs. In the year 2000, they will account for 16 percent of the total, a fourfold increase in 20 years. The increased costs are attributable both to the prices charged for the new, sophisticated drugs that are being developed by pharmaceutical companies, and to increase use of the drugs by our seniors. Today as never before there is increased competition among drug companies to put out new drug therapies for the many ailments that face Americans, young and old. I, for one, do not want to stunt the innovation that has made America the leading architect of medical technology. The second reason the drug benefit is so important is these research efforts are increasingly fruitful. Drugs can now treat illnesses where formally surgery was needed. Drug coverage means healthier individuals, leading to fewer hospitals and less time in the hospital. New York has a plan called EPIC to help low-income seniors with medications that saved an estimated $47 million in hospitalization costs in the recent year, compared with the $41 million it cost to run the program. David Cutler, a Harvard economist, reports elderly disability rates have fallen 15 percent in the last decade largely because of increased use of prescription drugs. Barbara Holter, a Montana Medicare beneficiary, last week wrote me: Senator Baucus . . . innovative prescription drugs and biological therapies played an important role in the treatment of arthritis. While not a cure, these new medications can help alleviate the pain, slow the progress of disease, and prevent disability. Unfortunately, 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries do not have coverage. It is important that Congress take action to expand access to drug coverage. Gone are the days when surgery and mechanical devices alone work to save lives and increase their quality. A heart ailment that may have required an extensive bypass a few years ago can now be treated with a clot-busting medication or a stent. To paraphrase the renowned physician and health care policy expert, Dr. William Schwartz, medicine is changing ``from the mechanical to the molecular.'' Everyone seems to recognize this shift. Everyone, that is except our government. We are 60 days from the year 2000, and we are still trying to run a health care program rooted in the year 1965. Some say we ought to reform Medicare before providing a drug benefit. Senator Bill Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, has indicated his interest in working in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen Medicare in the coming year. I welcome his willingness to do so. Without action, Medicare will go broke in just 15 years, at the very time our social insurance system becomes inundated with the baby boom generation, about 15 years from now. We must act to save Medicare. We ought not let perfection be the enemy of the good. I accept and agree that Medicare must be changed. It is also true the average senior fills 19 prescriptions every year on average. Our seniors don't have the luxury of waiting until the politics are right to get the drugs they need. This is particularly true in rural areas. As this chart indicates, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage. One-third of seniors in our country have no prescription drug coverage. In rural areas, it is even worse. In rural America, the number increases to nearly half. Seniors are being denied products that can save their lives because of geography. Half of American seniors don't have prescription drug coverage. Part of the problem is we don't have a lot of managed care in rural areas. In fact, we have very little. Managed care will often provide drug coverage to seniors. In many parts of America, particularly rural America, there is no managed care, much less prescription drug coverage for seniors. Recently, my staff spoke to Ardys Olin and her mother Thelma of Billings, MT. Both are beneficiaries of Gold Choice, Montana's only Medicare managed care plan. Ardys is disabled; Thelma is 87. For the time being, they both get prescription drug coverage through Gold Choice, the only managed care program for Medicare in Montana. They are quite pleased with it. Because payment rates are insufficient to sustain managed care in rural America, Gold Choice is soon going to leave Montana, leaving its 2,600 beneficiaries without prescription drug coverage. Where are these people going to go? What are they going to do when Gold Choice pulls out of Montana? Most employers in rural America can't afford to offer prescription drug coverage in their retirement plans. The profit margins are so low in rural America. Unfortunately, many people in rural areas have little or no retirement income beyond their Social Security checks. These people are hurting. Many of the 2,600 Montanans losing prescription drug coverage with the termination of Gold Choice--the only managed Medicare care program in our State--don't have enough money of their own to buy Medigap coverage. Medigap is the insurance plan offered by many companies to fill the gap between what Medicare doesn't pay and what Medicare should pay. Maybe people do not have enough money to buy Medigap insurance. That is why many Americans don't have any prescription drug coverage at all. They simply have to hope they do not become ill and, if they do, that they will be able to afford the cost of the drugs their doctors prescribe. The legislation I am introducing will begin, not totally--but begin to address this problem. We are not creating any new bureaucracies, no new large Government programs. We are simply extending the reach of the Medicaid program to administer drug coverage to our most needy. That is it. This bill provides prescription drug coverage to the elderly whose incomes are 175 percent of the Federal poverty limit. In real terms, that means seniors making up to about $13,500 a year will be provided some prescription drug coverage; $16,800 in the case of couples. This bill impacts seniors who are less able to pay for their prescription drugs. Consider the following data graciously provided by, and under review at, Health Affairs, the Nation's leading health policy journal. These numbers are from a study supported by the Commonwealth Fund, a national philanthropic organization engaged in independent research on health and social policy issues, and is the product of the able scholarship of Dr. Jan Blustein, professor at the Wagner School of New York University. This chart shows the extent to which low-income seniors with hypertension have prescription drug coverage. Hypertension--that is, high blood pressure--is prevalent among the elderly, occurring in better than 50 percent of persons over age 65. As you can see, seniors with hypertension, with incomes between 100 and 125 percent of poverty, only have prescription drug coverage about 65 percent of the time. Again, seniors whose income is between 100 percent and 125 percent of poverty have prescription drug coverage only about 65 percent of the time. Those between 126 percent and 150 percent of poverty, the next line down, fare even worse, receiving drug coverage only about half the time, 55 percent of the time. Mr. President, 150 percent of poverty is not a lot of money, only about $11,500 a year. There is clearly a need to help these people, and the bill I am introducing today does just that. Let me be clear in stating this legislation is not intended as a permanent solution to the prescription drug problem. It does not provide stop-loss coverage for beneficiaries whose drug bills measure in the thousands of dollars. And because it uses Medicaid, the legislation uses a delivery mechanism that can differ from State to State in the scope of benefits it provides. But it does provide a benefit to those who need it the most. It is not perfect, but it is a start. Most important, it is an idea that has broad-based support from the public and in the Congress. The Medicare Commission, although unable to reach a supermajority on its recommendation to fix the program--that is, Medicare--proposed covering drugs for low-income seniors through Medicare. In a recent poll, 86 percent of Americans favored adding a new Medicare drug benefit to cover part of the cost of the prescription drugs. During the recent debate over tax cuts and the Federal budget, I, with 33 of my colleagues, sent the President a letter urging him to set aside one-third of the on-budget surplus for Medicare. I am pleased he announced his intentions just last week to do that, to fund a prescription drug benefit. Although creating a prescription drug benefit will be expensive, I think inaction is even more costly. In the words of the former President, Calvin Coolidge, ``We cannot do everything at once but we can do something at once.'' Let's do that something now to help our most vulnerable seniors, help them pay for the drugs that can save their lives.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Healthy Seniors Act of 1999. Prescription drugs are a hot topic these days. From the lawn of the White House to the TV screen in your house, everyone is talking about prescription drugs, and for good reason. Americans have the greatest health care system in the world: The best doctors, the best research, and the most effective prescription drugs. That doesn't mean anything if thousands of seniors can't afford to use them. We are creating a system where the well-off can buy the best health care and the poor can afford little more than an aspirin. Recently, ``60 Minutes'' did a show on the high cost of prescription drugs and the need to provide coverage to low-income beneficiaries. National Public Radio has run a series of stories on the rising cost of prescription drugs and government plans to make them available to Medicare beneficiaries. Full-page advertisements and news stories are in our Nation's newspapers, from the Washington Post to the Billings Gazette. We have all seen Flo and her bowling ball. I have a story from the Montana Standard, Butte's local newspaper. The headline reads: ``Montanans Testify for Medicare Drug Coverage.'' Greg Loushin's heart breaks every time he watches Montana's elderly and uninsured scrounge for change to buy prescription drugs. Oftentimes, the Butte pharmacist pulls money from his own pocket. Think of that, the local pharmacist pulls money from his own pocket when his own customers do not have adequate funds to pay for their drugs. From the story: Pharmacist helping seniors buy drugs they need from his own money. People help one another out in Butte, MT. Greg's customers are lucky to have him for a pharmacist. But we know in our increasingly interpersonal world, Greg's generosity is a rare exception. It isn't a long-term solution to the problem of escalating costs of prescription drugs; creating a prescription drug benefit under Medicare is. Why is it suddenly so important seniors be given a drug benefit under Medicare? Why all the attention? Why the stories? The answer is twofold. First, prescription drug costs have risen dramatically. Overall medical inflation has been slowed in recent years, but the cost of prescription drugs has actually skyrocketed, rising much faster than the average cost of medical care. In 1980, prescription drugs were only 4 percent of total health costs. In the year 2000, they will account for 16 percent of the total, a fourfold increase in 20 years. The increased costs are attributable both to the prices charged for the new, sophisticated drugs that are being developed by pharmaceutical companies, and to increase use of the drugs by our seniors. Today as never before there is increased competition among drug companies to put out new drug therapies for the many ailments that face Americans, young and old. I, for one, do not want to stunt the innovation that has made America the leading architect of medical technology. The second reason the drug benefit is so important is these research efforts are increasingly fruitful. Drugs can now treat illnesses where formally surgery was needed. Drug coverage means healthier individuals, leading to fewer hospitals and less time in the hospital. New York has a plan called EPIC to help low-income seniors with medications that saved an estimated $47 million in hospitalization costs in the recent year, compared with the $41 million it cost to run the program. David Cutler, a Harvard economist, reports elderly disability rates have fallen 15 percent in the last decade largely because of increased use of prescription drugs. Barbara Holter, a Montana Medicare beneficiary, last week wrote me: Senator Baucus . . . innovative prescription drugs and biological therapies played an important role in the treatment of arthritis. While not a cure, these new medications can help alleviate the pain, slow the progress of disease, and prevent disability. Unfortunately, 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries do not have coverage. It is important that Congress take action to expand access to drug coverage. Gone are the days when surgery and mechanical devices alone work to save lives and increase their quality. A heart ailment that may have required an extensive bypass a few years ago can now be treated with a clot-busting medication or a stent. To paraphrase the renowned physician and health care policy expert, Dr. William Schwartz, medicine is changing ``from the mechanical to the molecular.'' Everyone seems to recognize this shift. Everyone, that is except our government. We are 60 days from the year 2000, and we are still trying to run a health care program rooted in the year 1965. Some say we ought to reform Medicare before providing a drug benefit. Senator Bill Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, has indicated his interest in working in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen Medicare in the coming year. I welcome his willingness to do so. Without action, Medicare will go broke in just 15 years, at the very time our social insurance system becomes inundated with the baby boom generation, about 15 years from now. We must act to save Medicare. We ought not let perfection be the enemy of the good. I accept and agree that Medicare must be changed. It is also true the average senior fills 19 prescriptions every year on average. Our seniors don't have the luxury of waiting until the politics are right to get the drugs they need. This is particularly true in rural areas. As this chart indicates, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage. One-third of seniors in our country have no prescription drug coverage. In rural areas, it is even worse. In rural America, the number increases to nearly half. Seniors are being denied products that can save their lives because of geography. Half of American seniors don't have prescription drug coverage. Part of the problem is we don't have a lot of managed care in rural areas. In fact, we have very little. Managed care will often provide drug coverage to seniors. In many parts of America, particularly rural America, there is no managed care, much less prescription drug coverage for seniors. Recently, my staff spoke to Ardys Olin and her mother Thelma of Billings, MT. Both are beneficiaries of Gold Choice, Montana's only Medicare managed care plan. Ardys is disabled; Thelma is 87. For the time being, they both get prescription drug coverage through Gold Choice, the only managed care program for Medicare in Montana. They are quite pleased with it. Because payment rates are insufficient to sustain managed care in rural America, Gold Choice is soon going to leave Montana, leaving its 2,600 beneficiaries without prescription drug coverage. Where are these people going to go? What are they going to do when Gold Choice pulls out of Montana? Most employers in rural America can't afford to offer prescription drug coverage in their retirement plans. The profit margins are so low in rural America. Unfortunately, many people in rural areas have little or no retirement income beyond their Social Security checks. These people are hurting. Many of the 2,600 Montanans losing prescription drug coverage with the termination of Gold Choice--the only managed Medicare care program in our State--don't have enough money of their own to buy Medigap coverage. Medigap is the insurance plan offered by many companies to fill the gap between what Medicare doesn't pay and what Medicare should pay. Maybe people do not have enough money to buy Medigap insurance. That is why many Americans don't have any prescription drug coverage at all. They simply have to hope they do not become ill and, if they do, that they will be able to afford the cost of the drugs their doctors prescribe. The legislation I am introducing will begin, not totally--but begin to address this problem. We are not creating any new bureaucracies, no new large Government programs. We are simply extending the reach of the Medicaid program to administer drug coverage to our most needy. That is it. This bill provides prescription drug coverage to the elderly whose incomes are 175 percent of the Federal poverty limit. In real terms, that means seniors making up to about $13,500 a year will be provided some prescription drug coverage; $16,800 in the case of couples. This bill impacts seniors who are less able to pay for their prescription drugs. Consider the following data graciously provided by, and under review at, Health Affairs, the Nation's leading health policy journal. These numbers are from a study supported by the Commonwealth Fund, a national philanthropic organization engaged in independent research on health and social policy issues, and is the product of the able scholarship of Dr. Jan Blustein, professor at the Wagner School of New York University. This chart shows the extent to which low-income seniors with hypertension have prescription drug coverage. Hypertension--that is, high blood pressure--is prevalent among the elderly, occurring in better than 50 percent of persons over age 65. As you can see, seniors with hypertension, with incomes between 100 and 125 percent of poverty, only have prescription drug coverage about 65 percent of the time. Again, seniors whose income is between 100 percent and 125 percent of poverty have prescription drug coverage only about 65 percent of the time. Those between 126 percent and 150 percent of poverty, the next line down, fare even worse, receiving drug coverage only about half the time, 55 percent of the time. Mr. President, 150 percent of poverty is not a lot of money, only about $11,500 a year. There is clearly a need to help these people, and the bill I am introducing today does just that. Let me be clear in stating this legislation is not intended as a permanent solution to the prescription drug problem. It does not provide stop-loss coverage for beneficiaries whose drug bills measure in the thousands of dollars. And because it uses Medicaid, the legislation uses a delivery mechanism that can differ from State to State in the scope of benefits it provides. But it does provide a benefit to those who need it the most. It is not perfect, but it is a start. Most important, it is an idea that has broad-based support from the public and in the Congress. The Medicare Commission, although unable to reach a supermajority on its recommendation to fix the program--that is, Medicare--proposed covering drugs for low-income seniors through Medicare. In a recent poll, 86 percent of Americans favored adding a new Medicare drug benefit to cover part of the cost of the prescription drugs. During the recent debate over tax cuts and the Federal budget, I, with 33 of my colleagues, sent the President a letter urging him to set aside one-third of the on-budget surplus for Medicare. I am pleased he announced his intentions just last week to do that, to fund a prescription drug benefit. Although creating a prescription drug benefit will be expensive, I think inaction is even more costly. In the words of the former President, Calvin Coolidge, ``We cannot do everything at once but we can do something at once.'' Let's do that something now to help our most vulnerable seniors, help them pay for the drugs that can save their lives.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am proud to stand on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body. I've been proud every time over the past twenty years that I have had this privilege. I can think of no greater honor than to discuss with my Senate colleagues issues of vital importance to our nation. So I am deeply distressed that I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss important trade issues. Last week, the majority leader chose to cut off consideration of amendments to the Africa bill, the only trade bill which will reach the floor of this honorable body. That bill included amendments which had bipartisan support. Because of this bizarre process, we can't even act on Senator Harkin's amendment to combat child labor, which has widespread support. I had filed two amendments to the bill, both of them trade-related. Both of them issues which are extremely important to Americans. I am very disappointed that we were locked out of discussing them. However, with the new filing of cloture, I hope that we may have the chance to talk about these important matters. One of the amendments allowed for tariff cuts on environmental goods as part of a global agreement in the WTO. The measure has the support of both business and environmental groups. This is a rare instance where both sides of the trade-environment debate agree on something. It's a shame that the Senate cannot move forward on something so sensible. The second amendment concerned agricultural subsidies. American farmers are the most productive in the world. But they're being frozen out of foreign markets by European and Japanese subsidies. I filed an amendment that would fight back by funding our Export Enhancement Program. This amendment required the Secretary of Agriculture to target at least two billion dollars in Export Enhancement Program funds into the EU's most sensitive markets if they fail to eliminate their export subsidies by 2003. It's time to start fighting fire with fire. This ``GATT trigger'' should provide leverage in the next round of the WTO in reducing grossly distorted barriers to agricultural trade. I voted against cloture last week because I objected to the way the majority leader handled the bill. I was denied the ability to do what the people of Montana sent me here to do. But I support the bill itself. I support each of its elements--the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, and the renewal of both Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Generalized System of Preferences. I have long supported efforts to extend additional tariffs preferences to the Caribbean Basin. But with conditions. The benefits should be conditioned on the beneficiary countries' trade policies, their participation and cooperation in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (``FTAA'') initiative, and other factors. This trade bill is substantially similar to the version I supported in the 105th Congress with some reservation. I see a flaw in the bill, however, and would like to work to repair it. The bill suggests criteria the President can use when deciding whether to grant CBI benefits. It is a long list of about a dozen items. Criteria like Intellectual Property Rights. Investment protections. Counter-narcotics. Each one is important. The bill should make these criteria mandatory. In particular, I believe that the President should be required to certify that CBI beneficiaries respect worker rights, both as a matter of law and in practice. We can't maintain domestic support for open trade here at home unless our programs take core labor standards into account. We want to help our Caribbean neighbors compete effectively in the U.S. market. But we don't want them to compete with U.S. firms by denying their own citizens fundamental worker rights. It only seems reasonable that as we help the economic development of these nations, we also help them enforce the laws already on their books. The majority of these countries already have the power and only need the will to ensure that their citizens see the benefits of enhanced trade--decent wages, decent hours and a decent life. Overall, I believe that CBI parity is the right thing to do--if it does what it is intended to do. That is lift the people of the hurricane devastated countries out of poverty and ensure them a better way of life. I also believe that the U.S. must lead by example. Sensitively to labor and environment must play a role in our trade decisions and actions around the world. It's tragic that partisan politics keeps the United States Senate from taking these actions. I have the same concerns about labor in terms of the African Growth and Opportunity portion of the bill. But I supported the Chairman's mark, which included a provision requiring U.S. fabric for apparel products produced in eligible sub-Saharan African countries. Developing markets is in the best interest of us all. And the trade bill would help Africa move in that direction. But this bill is about more than trade. It is about hope. It is about bringing the struggling nations of Sub-Saharan Africa into our democratic system. It is about establishing stability and a framework wherein the citizens of these nations can enjoy the fruits of prosperity. It is about building a bridge between the United States and Africa that will be a model for all nations. The third part of the bill renews the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. This program is vital to help our workers adjust to the new forces of globalization. I have seen the effects of this program in Montana. We have been well served by the efforts of Gary Kuhar, Director of the Northwest TAA Center in Seattle, Washington. Impact on Montana--Montana currently has six firms affected by TAA funding, including: Montana Moose--Christmas ornament operation, Ranchland--a cattle operation, Mountain Woods--furniture designer, Western States--pellet operation, Sun Mountain Sports--manufacturer of golf bags and other ripstops, Burt and Burt--wind chimes, and Kahlund Enterprises--picture frames producer. In fact, the renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance translates to 330 Montana employees impacted and approximately $44 million in gross annual sales preserved. This legislation is long overdue. While we delay, certified firms anxiously await funding. This is fundamentally unfair--especially for firms fighting import competition that is beyond their control. They cannot afford to wait while TAA is caught up in the annual battle for funding as the ``perennial bargaining chip'' for other trade proposals. That's just ineffective government. It's time to pass this legislation. Finally, let me say a word about GSP renewal. This is the fourth part of the trade bill. This is also a question of effective government. Over the years, the program has lapsed periodically when renewal legislation was delayed. The latest lapse occurred on June 30. Four months later, we still haven't acted on its renewal. Who gets hurt? Not just foreign companies. A lot of American firms get hurt. That includes both American importers and exporters. A lot of the American firms produce abroad and then export to the United States. Much of this is internal company trade. That's the reality of today's global economy. When GSP lapses, these companies are suddenly required to deposit import duties into an account. Customs holds the money until renewal legislation is signed. Eventually the companies get their money back. But they don't know how long renewal legislation will take. So they don't how much they'll have to set aside, or how long the money will it be in escrow. How can we expect businesses to operate efficiently under such conditions? These cycles of GSP lapsing and then being renewed represent government at its worst. We have a responsibility to provide business and consumers with a consistent, predictable set of rules. We need to fix this GSP lapse as quickly as possible. Mr. President, a lot of effort, a lot of thought, a lot of time has gone into this bill. Much time has also gone into formulating amendments. It was a great disappointment to see this effort unravel over partisan politics. We may have a second chance this week. Let's not squander the opportunity. We can and should work together to pass this bill. We were elected to his body to pass legislation not to bicker. Let's do what the people sent us here to do. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I express my support for this bill. This bill is not perfect. There are many of us in the Senate who have hoped we could have done more. I have argued that the Research and Development tax credit should be made permanent for many years. Companies plan their research many years in advance, and we don't get the full benefit of the R&D credit by allowing it to expire so frequently. I also support making the AMT exclusion in the bill permanent. Taxpayers should be assured they will receive the full benefits of the personal credits that we enacted with such fanfare just last session. There are other credits in this bill that should be made permanent, such as the Work Opportunities and Welfare to Work tax credits. These credits help compensate companies for hiring those employees that are the hardest to employ and train--those coming off the welfare rolls. But we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We stand here in the waning days of this session, and it appears as though enacting legislation that would make these credits permanent is simply not in the cards. They are expensive, and it is not possible to enact major tax legislation that uses a substantial portion of the surplus unless it is in the context of a comprehensive bill. Above all, we must be fiscally responsible, and protect the surplus for our children and grandchildren. This bill has been reviewed by all Senators and has received unanimous consent to proceed. I hope the Conferees on the bill will work out the differences between the House and Senate quickly, and send us back a bill the President can sign into law. Doing otherwise risks getting nothing at all, and allowing the gap since these important credits lapsed to grow. This would further undermine their effectiveness, and leave thousands of businesses and individuals with tremendous uncertainty about their tax liabilities for this year. We cannot and should not leave this important work undone. We should restore these credits as soon as possible, even if that means leaving the debate about permanence for these credits for another day.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the history of our Government's effort to promote deregulation and openness in the Japanese telecommunications sector goes back over 20 years. Back to the days when Bob Strauss was the U.S. Trade Representative. The first agreement involved significant changes in the procurement policies of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone. Known as NTT, it was then the government owned, monopoly, domestic telecommunications provider. This agreement has been revised and renewed seven times--most recently earlier this year. There has been a plethora of other bilateral telecommunications agreements with Japan over the years. On interconnection. On cellular phones. And on international value added networks. We have used Section 301 to pry open the Japanese telecommunications market. We created Section 1377 in the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act to deal with Japanese telecommunications practices. We have had the MOSS talks with Japan in the 1980s. And we have also pursued multilateral efforts through the GATT, the WTO, and the Information Technology Agreement-- the ITA. I don't think the United States has negotiated more in one sector with any nation than we have done with Japan over telecommunications. And we have made progress, from virtually zero sales by Americans to Japan in this sector twenty years ago to several billion dollars today. But there is still a long way to go. Japan is the second largest economy in the world. It is at the cutting edge of most high technology. Yet its consumption of telecommunications goods and services fits more closely the model of a second tier economy. It is true that penetration of cellular phones in Japan is among the highest in the world. But, Japan has only 17 million Internet users, while the United States has almost five times as many--80 million users. Japan hosts fewer than two million web sites, while the United States hosts over 30 million. Electronic commerce in Japan is valued at less than one billion dollars, versus at least thirty times as much in the United States. And only 19 percent of Japan's schools are connected to the Internet, versus in the United States where 89 percent of schools are connected. Why is this? The answer is simple. Japan maintains a non-competitive regulatory system that prevents market forces from fully operating in the telecommunications sector. American telecom service and equipment providers are still limited in their ability to do business in Japan. But the system also hurts the Japanese consumer. They can't obtain the highest quality telecommunications technology at the lowest price. They are not able to choose from the incredible array of services and products available around the world. And they pay higher prices than they should. Japanese firms also suffer for the same reasons in their telecommunications purchases. They cannot get the best. And they overpay for what they can buy. Many modern services are simply unavailable in Japan. Earlier this month, the United States Government presented Japan with its annual deregulation requests in a number of sectors. If the Japanese government implemented this whole list, they would be on a path leading to economic growth. To better choice and lower prices for its consumers. And to increased efficiency for its industry. I an not naive enough to think that will happen. However, I do know that Japan's adoption of the USTR requests, a so-called ``Telecommunications Big Bang'', would open the telecommunications sector to global competition with all the attendant benefits. Senator Grassley and I are submitting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It simply stresses the need for this significant regulatory reform in Japan. It calls on USTR vigorously to implement their call for this change. And it sends the message to Japan that the Senate is strongly behind this effort. Such deregulation serves American and International business. It serves the Japanese economy. It serves the Japanese consumer. It serves Japanese industry. And it serves the original and global economy which need so desperately a growing Japan. In the long-run, everyone would win. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution when it is called up.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for another 10 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am going to speak a few minutes about an issue that is very important to me; that is, the condition of school buildings with the federal impact aid, particularly on the school buildings on Indian reservations which are in very dire condition. I hope there is something we can do about it. As you know, there have been many bills introduced in this Congress to try to help school districts and make sure school districts have enough funds for school construction and renovation, modernization, and so forth. But as you also know, when schools try to raise money, basically they do so by bonding, which is paid for by local property taxes. That is essentially the way schools in our country are financed; it is a time-honored approach to school construction. The problem is, in this heated debate, one group of children is continually left out in the cold; that is, students who live on federally owned land, usually on an Indian reservation or a military installation. In my State of Montana, there are about 12,000 children who fall into this category; that is, children who live on a military installation or on an Indian reservation, where there is either none or there is very little private property to support school funding, particularly school construction. These schools are located in areas where much of the local property just cannot be taxed. Why is that? Because it is Federal property. In many cases, the local schools have to educate the children of the families who live on the property, and these are so-called Federal students who could come from military families, from civilian families, or could come from Native American families. Some schools are off reservations, but a lot of the kids live on reservations, and vice versa. This causes a tremendous problem in financing school construction. I believe we have a responsibility. After all, the Federal Government has a trustee responsibility with respect to Indian reservations. More than that, more fundamentally, we have a moral obligation to be sure all children in our country have not only equal access to education but generally have the same accessibility to good schools and relatively up-to-date schools. We are not asking for the Taj Mahal but just basic solid construction. Congress has recognized its responsibility in many respects for these schools through payments authorized under title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is the impact aid provision. These districts are supposed to receive impact aid to compensate school districts for the burden of educating children whose parents do not have to pay local property taxes due to Federal activities; namely, because they live on an installation or an Indian reservation. The bulk of the impact aid payments do help with salaries and utilities and other day-to-day costs of running the schools, but this is the catch: When it comes to replacement or renovation of buildings, these schools still have an additional problem; that is, impact aid cannot begin to pay both the salaries and utility bills and the day-to- day costs, and also pay for the modernization of schools because they just cannot issue the construction bonds to pay for them. There have been several bills introduced in this body dealing with school construction, but none of them deal with this problem; that is, the problem of impact aid on reservations and installations. I am asking for something that is pretty simple. I am asking for a slight increase, from the present $7 million that goes to impact aid school construction to $50 million. That is all. That is not very much money. Mr. President, $7 million is currently spent on impact aid school construction, and I am asking that it be raised to $50 million. Very simple. I can give lots of stories, lots of examples, of just the dire conditions these school districts face. For example, I talked to the superintendent of the Harlem school district. Harlem is in north central Montana. He says his district is so crowded that his students are now using a closet. Guess what was in that closet. In that closet was a snowblower that they hauled out whenever there was a bad snowstorm. So that closet is now a classroom. The snowblower is out in the hall. The students are in the closet. I think this is not right. It is no place to put kids. There is no place to put kids in the closet of a school and put the equipment out in the hallway. In addition, if they try to bring in a portable classroom, then there would be no playground. That is just not right. A few days ago, I received a letter from the principal of the elementary school in Box Elder, MT. His student population is growing very rapidly because there is new housing on the nearby Rocky Boy Indian Reservation. In fact, virtually all of the 300 or so students in his school are Federal students. He has classrooms in portable buildings and in basement rooms with no windows and only one exit door. He tells me he would be afraid to send his own small children to that school, but he has to. This is a disgrace. Last year, the Box Elder school received--get this--$13,000 in Federal impact aid construction funding; $13,000, that is all. That is about the average for schools in this situation. I might say, $13,000 is a pittance. That is not even enough for half of a paint job in the school, let alone for reasonable reconstruction or renovation. I have some photos I would like to display. These photos are representative of not only my State but could represent almost any State in the Nation that has Federal impact aid. This is a picture of an out-of-code electric installation at Babb Elementary School in Browning. There are no fire sprinklers in the basement where the insulation is located. Over in the left corner, we see a socket and wiring dangling. It is uncovered. It is obviously a fire hazard. This is all they can do. Now I have another photograph of a doorway at Babb. This is a doorway in the school. This photo doesn't begin to represent how bad the situation is. Sometimes pictures overstate something. In this case, the photograph understates. The next photo is that of a lunchroom. This is down in the basement of the school. Again, it doesn't look all that bad; but I have been there; it is worse. Then there is a photo taken in the local high school in the same community. There is a leaky ceiling. Things are starting to fall apart. Again, this school can't find the money to pay for it. Imagine for a moment that we in the Senate met in a facility that looked like this or our offices were in rooms such as this or we had electrical equipment so obviously out of code. We would change it. We would do something very quickly because we wouldn't stand for it. What kind of message does this send to children throughout our country--the message that we don't have enough respect for them, enough respect for their parents, enough respect for education to do something about this. We have a huge Federal surplus and the biggest, most wealthy country in the world. Yet we turn our back on a lot of kids in our country. Obviously, it is to their peril but even more to the peril of our country. The bill I will introduce will raise the authorization from $7 million to $50 million--not very much but a first step that is needed. We also make a change in the eligibility rules. Right now schools with populations made up of 70, 80, or even 100 percent Federal students cannot ask for impact aid construction funds if the percentage of the federally impacted population for the whole district is less than 50 percent. That is, obviously, a standard that is much too high. The bill introduced by me and Senator Hagel will decrease the district minimum to 25 percent. That will affect a lot of schools in this district. I have a chart that shows how many States would be affected by changing the eligibility standard from 50 percent to 25 percent. You can see that virtually every State in the Nation would be affected, which means every State gets a little bit, if it is enacted at the $43 million increase from the current $7 to $50 million. This is obviously a problem in our State. It is obviously a problem in other heavy Federal impact aid States, such as Nebraska, Senator Hagel's State. But this isn't a parochial problem. This isn't a partisan problem. This is a national problem. I ask that we step up to the plate, exercise our responsibility and, when we take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, make this change so that a needy portion of our school population gets a modicum of assistance. Then after that, I hope we can go further.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, for myself, Senator Campbell, and Senator Daschle. This bill will address one of our nation's most overlooked environmental problems: the thousands of abandoned mines that pour pollution into rivers and streams throughout the west. Since 1972, when we enacted the Clean Water Act, our nation has made a lot of progress improving water quality. Generally speaking, our water is cleaner. The Potomac doesn't stink. The Cuyuhoga doesn't burst into flame. EPA estimates that about 1/3 more of our rivers are fishable and swimmable than 20 years ago. But we still face serious water pollution problems. One of the most serious, in the west, is pollution from abandoned mines. Let me provide some background. The settlement of the mountain west was driven, in large part, by mining. Take my home state of Montana. At the center of Helena is Last Chance Gulch, where gold was discovered in 1864. Butte was called the ``Richest Hill on Earth, ``because of it's huge veins of copper. Our state's motto is ``Oro y Plata''--gold and silver. The ASARCO smelter in East Helena is one of the largest and most efficient in the world. Mining has long been critical to our development. It's created jobs. It's part of our culture. Of our community. But mining, like many other economic activities, can have severe environmental consequences. Especially the way it was conducted years ago, before the development of sophisticated environmental laws and regulations. I am reminded of the words of the Montana writer, A.B. Guthrie. Much of the exploitation, much of unthinking damage, was done in . . . a spirit characteristic of pioneer America. Growth was the way of life. It was the nature of things. . . . The end was not yet. The end never would be. That's what we thought. We know better now. One reason that we know better now is that we've seen the effect of the abandoned hardrock mines that dot the landscape of the mountain west. They once were active mines, in many cases, long ago. Now they're an abandoned collection of tailings, shafts, and adits. Even in generally arid areas, these mines release acid wastes. They leach mercury, arsenic, copper, and other heavy metals. They load sediments into nearby waters. They poison drinking water. They contaminate fish, making them unfit to eat. They threaten public health and destroy rivers and streams. According to the Western Governors Association: Abandoned and inactive mines are responsible for many of the greatest threats and impairments to water quality throughout the United States. Thousands of stream miles are severely impacted by drainage and runoff from these mines, often for which a responsible party is unidentifiable or not economically viable. At least 400,000 abandoned or inactive mine sites occur in the west. This map shows the scope of the problem. The small dots indicate individual sites. Light shading indicates that there are more than 100 sites. Orange, between 200 and 300. Red, more than 300 sites. As you can see, There are hundreds of sites in many western states-- Montana, Idaho, California, Utah. New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota. And that's not all. Michigan. The Ohio Valley. The Appalachains. All across the country. In Montana, there are approximately 6,000 abandoned hardrock mines. State officials already have identified 245 that are within 100 feet of a stream. In many cases, these mines are known to be polluting downstream waters. Most of the sites are concentrated around Helena. But there are sites throughout western Montana, in 24 of our 56 counties. All the way from Lincoln County, in Northwest Montana, to Park County, in South Central Montana. Let me show you an example. This is an abandoned hardrock mine site near Rimini, about 15 miles west of Helena. It's in the Ten Mile Creek watershed, which serves as the Helena drinking supply. As you can see, the water is actually orange. Clearly, abandoned hardrock mines pose a big problem. So why isn't somebody doing something about it? As is often the case, this simple question requires a pretty complicated answer. In the first place, it may be impossible to track down the person who created the problem. The original mine operator may long gone. In other cases, the ownership patterns are a complex mix of federal, state, and private land; and of surface, mineral, and water rights. It is not uncommon for dozens of parties to have had some connection to a mining site over the years. So it's difficult to establish legal responsibility for a private party to clean up the site. There's another alternative. A state, tribe, or local government agency may want to step in and clean the site up themselves. As the Western Governors Association has put it: The western states have found that there would be a high degree of interest and willingness on the part of federal, state and local agencies . . . to work together toward solutions to the multi-faceted problems commonly found on inactive mined lands. But there's a hitch. A few years ago, a federal court of appeals held that, under the Clean Water Act, one of these ``good samaritans'' is treated exactly the same as the operator of an working mine. That is, someone who has no responsibility for a site, but nevertheless wants to step in and make progress in cleaning up the site, must get a permit that complies with all of the effluent guidelines and other requirements of the Clean Water Act. Many states, tribes, and local government good samaritans simply can't afford to clean up a site to full Clean Water Act standards. So, facing the legal consequences if they fall short, potential good samaritans refrain from attempting to address water pollution problems at all. Let me tell you about the Alta mine, outside Corbin, Montana. That's about 15 miles South of Helena. The mine is an important part of Montana's heritage. Ore was discovered in there 1869. During the late 1800s, 450 miners were extracting more than 150 tons of ore each day, generating a total of $32 million worth of gold, silver, lead, and zinc. That's the equivalent of about $1 billion in today's dollars. The main portion of the mine closed in 1896. This century, mining and remining continued sporadically, under a variety of different operators. The mine was completely abandoned in the late 1950s. I visited the site a few weeks ago, with my friend Vick Anderson, who runs the Montana mine cleanup program. This is a photograph of the mine shaft. It cuts down to the old underground workings, 650 feet below. The shaft serves as a collection point for groundwater. In the picture, you can see the toxic, acid water that seeps from the shaft and eventually drains into Corbin Creek. Up until this point, Corbin Creek runs clear and clean. It's a high- quality trout stream. But, after the runoff from the Alta mine, the water is contaminated with arsenic, antimony, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, and zinc. There's a distinct sulphuric odor. In some places, the water looks orange, like the picture I showed of the mine near Rimini. This contamination affects not only Corbin Creek, but also Spring Creek and Prickly Pear Creek. That's about 7 miles of contamination. In the town of Corbin itself, the pollution is so bad that the State of Montana was forced to close groundwater wells and contstruct a $300,000 water supply project to serve 11 homes. Now let me tell you what you can't see in the picture of the Alta mine. All around the mine shaft, the State of Montana is conducting reclamation work. Removing structures. Closing adits. Removing or covering contaminated soil. The state would also like to do something about the water pollution. For example, they could divert runoff through a channel, and then construct wetlands to filter the arsenic, iron, lead, mercury, and other pollutants. This would clean the water up, significantly. The engineers say that it will work. But the lawyers say it won't. They say that, by diverting the water, the state would become liable under the Clean Water Act. It would have to get a permit. And the permit would require permanent treatment that is prohibitively expensive. Faced with that possibility, there is only one practical thing for the state to do. Nothing. Leave the water pollution alone. And that's exactly what is happening. As we speak, the toxic water continues to flow directly into Corbin Creek. This is not an isolated example. According to the Western Governors Association and others, the same thing is happening all across the west. As you can see, the current system creates a disincentive. It prevents well-intentioned state and local governments from stepping in and conducting voluntary cleanups. As a result, the cleanups don't occur and the pollution keeps flowing. That's the problem that our bill will fix. The title of this bill, the ``Good Samaritan Mine Remediation Waste bill'' says it all. The state, tribal, and local government agencies that we refer to as ``good samaritans'' are not trying to make money. They're not trying to skirt the law. They're trying to do good--in this case, to improve water quality. The basic objective of this bill is to allow that. To allow states, tribes and local governments to be good samaritans. In a nutshell, the bill will allow state, local, and tribal governments to clean up an abandoned mines under a special permit, tailored to the conditions of the site. They apply for a good samaritan permit from EPA. The application must include a detailed plan describing the cleanup actions that will be taken to improve water quality. EPA reviews the plan and takes comments from the local community. EPA can approve the application if it determines that the plan will result in an improvement in water quality to the greatest extent practical, given the resources and cleanup technologies available to the Good Samaritan. Once a permit is approved, the good samaritan can proceed with the cleanup. EPA will monitor progress and conduct periodic reviews. When the cleanup is finished, the permit is terminated and the Good Samaritan is not held responsible for any future discharges from the site. That's the basic framework. Let me also mention several additional safeguards, that are described in detail in a summary that I ask be included in the Record after this statement.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the Western Governors Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Washburn, a fellow with the Environment and Public Works Committee, be allowed floor privileges during the introduction of the Good Samaritan legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the Western Governors Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, for myself, Senator Campbell, and Senator Daschle. This bill will address one of our nation's most overlooked environmental problems: the thousands of abandoned mines that pour pollution into rivers and streams throughout the west. Since 1972, when we enacted the Clean Water Act, our nation has made a lot of progress improving water quality. Generally speaking, our water is cleaner. The Potomac doesn't stink. The Cuyuhoga doesn't burst into flame. EPA estimates that about 1/3 more of our rivers are fishable and swimmable than 20 years ago. But we still face serious water pollution problems. One of the most serious, in the west, is pollution from abandoned mines. Let me provide some background. The settlement of the mountain west was driven, in large part, by mining. Take my home state of Montana. At the center of Helena is Last Chance Gulch, where gold was discovered in 1864. Butte was called the ``Richest Hill on Earth, ``because of it's huge veins of copper. Our state's motto is ``Oro y Plata''--gold and silver. The ASARCO smelter in East Helena is one of the largest and most efficient in the world. Mining has long been critical to our development. It's created jobs. It's part of our culture. Of our community. But mining, like many other economic activities, can have severe environmental consequences. Especially the way it was conducted years ago, before the development of sophisticated environmental laws and regulations. I am reminded of the words of the Montana writer, A.B. Guthrie. Much of the exploitation, much of unthinking damage, was done in . . . a spirit characteristic of pioneer America. Growth was the way of life. It was the nature of things. . . . The end was not yet. The end never would be. That's what we thought. We know better now. One reason that we know better now is that we've seen the effect of the abandoned hardrock mines that dot the landscape of the mountain west. They once were active mines, in many cases, long ago. Now they're an abandoned collection of tailings, shafts, and adits. Even in generally arid areas, these mines release acid wastes. They leach mercury, arsenic, copper, and other heavy metals. They load sediments into nearby waters. They poison drinking water. They contaminate fish, making them unfit to eat. They threaten public health and destroy rivers and streams. According to the Western Governors Association: Abandoned and inactive mines are responsible for many of the greatest threats and impairments to water quality throughout the United States. Thousands of stream miles are severely impacted by drainage and runoff from these mines, often for which a responsible party is unidentifiable or not economically viable. At least 400,000 abandoned or inactive mine sites occur in the west. This map shows the scope of the problem. The small dots indicate individual sites. Light shading indicates that there are more than 100 sites. Orange, between 200 and 300. Red, more than 300 sites. As you can see, There are hundreds of sites in many western states-- Montana, Idaho, California, Utah. New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota. And that's not all. Michigan. The Ohio Valley. The Appalachains. All across the country. In Montana, there are approximately 6,000 abandoned hardrock mines. State officials already have identified 245 that are within 100 feet of a stream. In many cases, these mines are known to be polluting downstream waters. Most of the sites are concentrated around Helena. But there are sites throughout western Montana, in 24 of our 56 counties. All the way from Lincoln County, in Northwest Montana, to Park County, in South Central Montana. Let me show you an example. This is an abandoned hardrock mine site near Rimini, about 15 miles west of Helena. It's in the Ten Mile Creek watershed, which serves as the Helena drinking supply. As you can see, the water is actually orange. Clearly, abandoned hardrock mines pose a big problem. So why isn't somebody doing something about it? As is often the case, this simple question requires a pretty complicated answer. In the first place, it may be impossible to track down the person who created the problem. The original mine operator may long gone. In other cases, the ownership patterns are a complex mix of federal, state, and private land; and of surface, mineral, and water rights. It is not uncommon for dozens of parties to have had some connection to a mining site over the years. So it's difficult to establish legal responsibility for a private party to clean up the site. There's another alternative. A state, tribe, or local government agency may want to step in and clean the site up themselves. As the Western Governors Association has put it: The western states have found that there would be a high degree of interest and willingness on the part of federal, state and local agencies . . . to work together toward solutions to the multi-faceted problems commonly found on inactive mined lands. But there's a hitch. A few years ago, a federal court of appeals held that, under the Clean Water Act, one of these ``good samaritans'' is treated exactly the same as the operator of an working mine. That is, someone who has no responsibility for a site, but nevertheless wants to step in and make progress in cleaning up the site, must get a permit that complies with all of the effluent guidelines and other requirements of the Clean Water Act. Many states, tribes, and local government good samaritans simply can't afford to clean up a site to full Clean Water Act standards. So, facing the legal consequences if they fall short, potential good samaritans refrain from attempting to address water pollution problems at all. Let me tell you about the Alta mine, outside Corbin, Montana. That's about 15 miles South of Helena. The mine is an important part of Montana's heritage. Ore was discovered in there 1869. During the late 1800s, 450 miners were extracting more than 150 tons of ore each day, generating a total of $32 million worth of gold, silver, lead, and zinc. That's the equivalent of about $1 billion in today's dollars. The main portion of the mine closed in 1896. This century, mining and remining continued sporadically, under a variety of different operators. The mine was completely abandoned in the late 1950s. I visited the site a few weeks ago, with my friend Vick Anderson, who runs the Montana mine cleanup program. This is a photograph of the mine shaft. It cuts down to the old underground workings, 650 feet below. The shaft serves as a collection point for groundwater. In the picture, you can see the toxic, acid water that seeps from the shaft and eventually drains into Corbin Creek. Up until this point, Corbin Creek runs clear and clean. It's a high- quality trout stream. But, after the runoff from the Alta mine, the water is contaminated with arsenic, antimony, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, and zinc. There's a distinct sulphuric odor. In some places, the water looks orange, like the picture I showed of the mine near Rimini. This contamination affects not only Corbin Creek, but also Spring Creek and Prickly Pear Creek. That's about 7 miles of contamination. In the town of Corbin itself, the pollution is so bad that the State of Montana was forced to close groundwater wells and contstruct a $300,000 water supply project to serve 11 homes. Now let me tell you what you can't see in the picture of the Alta mine. All around the mine shaft, the State of Montana is conducting reclamation work. Removing structures. Closing adits. Removing or covering contaminated soil. The state would also like to do something about the water pollution. For example, they could divert runoff through a channel, and then construct wetlands to filter the arsenic, iron, lead, mercury, and other pollutants. This would clean the water up, significantly. The engineers say that it will work. But the lawyers say it won't. They say that, by diverting the water, the state would become liable under the Clean Water Act. It would have to get a permit. And the permit would require permanent treatment that is prohibitively expensive. Faced with that possibility, there is only one practical thing for the state to do. Nothing. Leave the water pollution alone. And that's exactly what is happening. As we speak, the toxic water continues to flow directly into Corbin Creek. This is not an isolated example. According to the Western Governors Association and others, the same thing is happening all across the west. As you can see, the current system creates a disincentive. It prevents well-intentioned state and local governments from stepping in and conducting voluntary cleanups. As a result, the cleanups don't occur and the pollution keeps flowing. That's the problem that our bill will fix. The title of this bill, the ``Good Samaritan Mine Remediation Waste bill'' says it all. The state, tribal, and local government agencies that we refer to as ``good samaritans'' are not trying to make money. They're not trying to skirt the law. They're trying to do good--in this case, to improve water quality. The basic objective of this bill is to allow that. To allow states, tribes and local governments to be good samaritans. In a nutshell, the bill will allow state, local, and tribal governments to clean up an abandoned mines under a special permit, tailored to the conditions of the site. They apply for a good samaritan permit from EPA. The application must include a detailed plan describing the cleanup actions that will be taken to improve water quality. EPA reviews the plan and takes comments from the local community. EPA can approve the application if it determines that the plan will result in an improvement in water quality to the greatest extent practical, given the resources and cleanup technologies available to the Good Samaritan. Once a permit is approved, the good samaritan can proceed with the cleanup. EPA will monitor progress and conduct periodic reviews. When the cleanup is finished, the permit is terminated and the Good Samaritan is not held responsible for any future discharges from the site. That's the basic framework. Let me also mention several additional safeguards, that are described in detail in a summary that I ask be included in the Record after this statement.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Asking further clarification, is that on the motion to proceed?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from New Hampshire, I be allowed to speak for 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, when we go to H.R. 434, I am going to introduce a sense-of-the-Senate resolution encouraging the U.S. Government to pursue its bilateral measures with Japan and urge the United States to urge Japan to go further to open up telecommunications markets, particularly its Internet services, and so forth. I will have a lot more to say at the appropriate time. I believe strongly that we, as a country, have to go further and, more importantly, Japan has to go a lot further in opening up its market. It would be in the best interest of Japanese consumers, if it were to do so, and it would surely be in the best interest of peoples all around the world. At the appropriate time, I will speak more at length.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, twice I have spoken about John Chafee. He was one of the very special people. We just can't stop thinking about him or talking about him. I will not take a great length of time except to say that as I was listening to my colleague from New Hampshire and other colleagues, it really struck me that he was the quintessential, almost perfect public servant. I believe service is the most noble human profession--service to family, service to church, service to community, service to friends, public service. There is no more noble pursuit than service. John Chafee epitomized public service. I wish Americans could have known John Chafee and could have watched him and been with him during the day. If American schoolchildren were to have been with John Chafee, watched John Chafee, I know one thing, most everybody would have wanted to be a Senator. Most everybody would have wanted to emulate John Chafee; he was so good. He taught by example. Somewhat by words, somewhat by telling students what to do, but much more by example. We are all almost in awe of John Chafee because of his example, what he did. He didn't make a big thing about it. He didn't brag about himself. He didn't try to take credit for anything. He just acted according to what he thought was in the country's best interest and in Rhode Island's best interest. It was just by accident that I learned only a couple years ago that he was a highly decorated Korean war hero. There are Senators on this floor sometimes who like to brag about their exploits in the armed services or at least allude to them and hope that somebody asks them more questions about it, pursue it a little more. Not John Chafee. If John Chafee's staff would write a statement or a speech on his behalf and allude to his service in Korea or Guadalcanal as a veteran, he would strike it. He didn't want to brag about anything. He didn't want to brag about all the awards he had been given. He was that kind of guy. To me, they don't get any better. There aren't many cut from that bolt of cloth these days. I wish more people could have seen and watched John as a person, as he was, and a Senator. I know this country would have a much higher regard for public service if they just knew who John Chafee was. This is really John Chafee's day. I hope we all will savor the good thoughts and the wonderful memories of John, this day and in future days.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? I want to tell the Senator what a gracious suggestion he has made, naming the Coastal Barrier Resources System after Senator John Chafee. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute with respect to legislation with which he has been associated. I hope, therefore, we can bring that bill out quickly--I do not think it is controversial at all--and pass it in this session of this Congress. I thank the Senator. I express my appreciation to the Senator for such a gracious thought, and I will join with him, moving as quickly as we can to make that become law with John's name on it. All of us are at a loss to find the words. We dig down deep to try to ascertain the meaning of John's death. It was so sudden. It happened so quickly, and to such a wonderful, decent, good man. I think basically all of us are going to be remembered to some degree by who we are as people, more than what legislation we passed. We all work together here to pass legislation, but it is really the character of the person that is remembered by family, friends, associates. I can think of no person for whom I presently do have a fonder memory or more respect than John Chafee. There is no man who was more of a good man than John Chafee. His decency, his civility--they do not come any better. They just don't. We are all thinking about John. Words don't come to us--certainly not to this Senator at this moment--but we all know what a good man he was. We cherish those memories very deeply. He was a great Senator.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the long and distinguished career of Judge John L. Peterson. After serving in the District Bankruptcy Court for 35 years, Jack is retiring. As a native of Butte, MT, Jack has become a fixture in the Montana court system. His tenure on the bench has earned him the distinction as ``Dean'' of bankruptcy judges in this century. Jack is a no-nonsense type of judge, just ask any lawyer that has ever come before Judge Peterson, they had to learn that quickly. He has saved bankruptcy clients and lawyers thousands of dollars by pioneering video trials. He has proved over and over that he is innovative and effective. As the longest serving bankruptcy judge in the United States his experience and wisdom will be sorely missed.. Although his absence will leave a void in the courts, the handball courts and golf courses in Butte will get to see a lot more of him. Jack's retirement will also allow him to spend some welcome time with his wife, Jean, his three children and four grandchildren. On behalf of myself and the people of Montana who have benefited from Judge Peterson's wisdom and service over the last 35 years, I extend my thanks and warmest wishes for a long and happy retirement.