Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in my view, public service is the most noble human endeavor. Today, more than ever, we must look to the younger generation as leaders for tomorrow. For their commitment to community service, I am pleased to recognize two of Montana's young leaders. Their community work demonstrates an ability to make a difference in the lives of others. The work of these two young Montanans sets an impressive standard for their peers. I would like to congratulate and honor two young Montana students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Mindi Kimp of Corvallis, Montana, and Jill Lombardi of Helena, Montana, have been named State Honorees in The 1999 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on only one high school and one middle school student in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Ms. Kimp is being recognized for her work in coordinating a ``senior citizen prom'' for seniors living in Missoula and Ravalli counties. Mindi, a 4-H member and junior class president, enjoys a close relationship with her grandparents. In helping to plan her own Hamilton High School prom, she conceived the idea of a senior citizen prom. She believed that this would be a great way to honor grandparents and help restore faith in today's younger generation. Mindi worked closely with the Council on Aging in planning the event. She solicited donations to make the event free to all seniors. She also used it to provide prizes, decorations, and a rose for every lady. The event was so successful that she will speak at the State Student Council Convention on how to plan a senior citizen prom. The event will now be held annually at Hamilton High School. Ms. Lombardi, a member of the Helena Youth Advisory Council, is being recognized for her leadership role in two projects: a skateboard park and ``Martin Luther King Volunteer Day.'' Jill served on and established the first-ever Helena Youth Advisory Council. As a member, Jill recruited interested skateboarders to advise the council on the design of the park. She also helped to obtain a $50,000 grant from the Turner Foundation for the park's construction. In planning the volunteer day, Jill worked with the council to organize activities such as community clean-up and youth reading programs. She recruited volunteers, analyzed community needs, arranged volunteer projects, and coordinated celebration activities. The event's success has inspired the council to host the event again next year. Young volunteers like Ms. Kimp and Ms. Lombardi are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. It is important that we recognize their achievements and support their contributions. Numerous statistics indicate that Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, and it is critical that the work of these young people is encouraged. The program that brought these young role models to our attention-- The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created by The Prudential Insurance Company of America in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995 to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. In only four years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with more than 50,000 youngsters participating. Ms. Kimp and Ms. Lombardi should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. As part of their recognition, they will come to Washington in early May, along with other 1999 Spirit of Community honorees from across the country. While here in Washington, ten will be selected as America's top youth volunteers of the year by a distinguished national selection committee. I heartily applaud Ms. Kimp and Ms. Lombardi for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of Montanans. I also would like to salute two young people in Montana who were named Distinguished Finalists by The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for their outstanding volunteer service: Nadia Ben-Youssef and Angela Bowlds. All of these young people have demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserve our sincere admiration and respect. These young Montana leaders show commendable community spirit and tremendous promise for America's future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize an outstanding group of Montana students. Recently, the Bozeman High School Marching Band and Color Guard earned the opportunity to perform in the Rose Bowl Parade in Pasadena, CA. By the sounds of the crowd of onlookers, it is safe to say that they stole the show. It was a beautiful day for a parade, and the Bozeman High School Marching Band and Color Guard took advantage of the opportunity to make a name for themselves. Over the past few years, Montana students have truly become competitive in academics, athletics, and the arts. The Bozeman High School band is just one of the many examples where Montana students are gaining national recognition. There are few appearances by Montana High Schools at events of this caliber, but rest assured, there are many more to come. Under the direction of Russ and Loralee Newbury, these students worked extremely hard to prepare for this prestigious event. They represented their school, city, county, and state with great enthusiasm and talent. I know that I speak for the people of Bozeman and the State of Montana when I say that I am very proud of these students. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate every one of these students on a job well done. Mr. President, I ask that articles from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle of December 29, 1998, and January 2, 1999, be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Dec. 29, 1998] California, Here They Come (By Gail Schontzler) Three hundred Bozeman High Marching Band members boarded charter planes in the wee hours Monday morning to fly to Los Angeles in advance of Friday's big Tournament of Roses Parade. Two hundred lucky friends and family members flew down with them and will be able to see the New Year's Day parade in person. The rest of us will just have to try to catch the band on TV. Two television networks, CBS and NBC, and one available only by satellite, Home & Garden TV, plan to carry the 110th Tournament of Roses Parade. The parade itself begins at 9 a.m. MST and that's when NBC plans to begin its 90-minute coverage. CBS will start at 8 a.m MST with an hour-long pre-parade show. Home & Garden TV is the only station that will carry the entire parade live and uninterrupted, but you have to be a satellite subscriber to receive its programming. So when's the best time to try to see the Bozeman band? According to the official parade program, Bozeman is scheduled to march in spot No. 71 out of the 103 parade entries, right after a group of fezwearing Shriners on horseback. All together there will be 56 floats, 22 marching bands and 25 equestrian teams. There's no way to know how many seconds of fame Bozeman's band will get from CBS or NBC--there's no guarantee some jovial commentator or commercial break won't blot the Bozeman band out entirely. But the band's boosters did their best to make Bozeman sound colorful. In the advance publicity sent to the parade organizers and the Home & Garden channel, Bozeman listed its famous alumni as actor Gary Cooper and New York Giants middle linebacker Corey Widmer, ``who played trumpet in the band''; reported that Bozeman High was named one of the nation's top 10 schools by Redbook magazine; and said it snows every month in Bozeman. The marching band has practiced in weather as low as 10 degrees with 40-mph gusts of wind blowing snow down the sousaphones,'' the school reported. ``Airplane hangers are preferred practice sites in such weather.'' It also boasted that Bozeman is the fly-fishing capital of the world and that Bozeman led the state in National Merit Scholars in 1997 and 1998. Bozeman will be competing for air time with the likes of the Los Angeles Unified All District High School Honor Band, which reported logging 100 miles around Dodger Stadium to get in shape for the parade, and the Lincoln High School Band from Stockton, Calif., one of the nation's asparagus-growing leaders. To hear the bands and see the flower-covered floats, one million people will line the five-and-a-half-mile parade route, according to the Pasadena Police Department. Many will bring sleeping bags and camp overnight. In honor of the end of the century, this year's Rose parade will have four grand marshals, actress and diplomat Shirley Temple Black, David Wolper, who produced ``Roots,'' a friend representing the late baseball great Jackie Robinson and astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who walked on the moon.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor a Senate Resolution to designate March 24, 1999 as National School Violence Victims Memorial Day. Just last week I spoke to the Montana State Legislature and introduced an education action plan, a major part of which is making sure our kids are safe in America's schools. While I was home I saw Steve Bullock. Steve works for our Attorney General, and every time I see Steve I remember his step-brother, Jeremy. You see, Jeremy was 11. He and his twin brother Joshua left for school together as they always did. The day was April 12, 1994. Jeremy didn't come home from school that day. He was shot and killed on the playground, leaving a family and a community forever changed. By recognizing March 24th as National School Violence Victims Memorial Day we will be honoring the memory of Jeremy Bullock and countless other children, families and communities by saying clearly, with one voice that we as Americans will meet the challenge of eradicating violence from our schools. It is, in many ways a challenge to decide what kind of a people we are. A challenge to stand up for peace and safety against violence and hatred. This is about remembering the victims of school violence and it is about what we are going to do in their names. The easy reaction to this kind of senseless violence is to cast blame and to turn our communities into one big episode of the Jerry Springer show. But we have as a nation, more often than not, chosen what has historically been the more difficult road. The road to peace through dialogue, understanding and compassion. That is what National School Violence Victims Memorial Day is all about. Seventy five years ago, Mahatma Ghandi put it this way. He said ``I discovered that pursuit of truth did not permit violence being inflicted on one's opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience.'' We must use this day to teach and to learn. We must talk about the 225,000 victims of violent crime. We must act to make schools safer for parents, teachers and students and we must learn from our mistakes. And we are always learning. Learning the lessons of the past, committed to using that knowledge to build a better tomorrow. So let us enact this resolution, resolved to working together as one community of people to make America a better place. A place where patience wins out over bloodshed and where truth, as Ghandi said, does not permit violence. And let us always remember Jeremy Bullock. For though he is gone, his memory will help fuel our work. When I think of Jeremy I am always reminded of a poem called For The Fallen that goes this way: They shall not grow old, as we that are left to grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from the State of Montana on the introduction of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act. The legislation ratifies the Compact approved by the State and the Tribe in 1997. Senator Burns and I jointly introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress and had the 2nd Session of that Congress lasted a few more weeks, I believe the bill would have been approved by the Senate. The introduction of this bill is the culmination of 16 years of extensive technical studies and six years of rather intensive negotiations in our state involving the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the Montana state government, off-Reservation county and municipal governments in north-central Montana, local ranchers, and the United States Departments of Justice and Interior. The 122,000-acre Rocky Boy's Reservation sits west of Havre, Montana on several tributaries of the Milk River on what was formerly the Fort Assiniboine Military Reserve. Unfortunately, the portion of the land reserved for the Chippewa Cree is rough and arid. Without irrigation, much of the land is not suitable for farming. Recent studies have demonstrated that the Reservation could not sustain the membership of the Chippewa Cree Tribe as a permanent homeland without an infusion of additional water. The development of a viable reservation economy calls for more water for drinking purposes, as well as for agriculture and other municipal uses. In 1982, acting in its fiduciary capacity as trustee for the Tribe, the United States filed a claim for the water rights of the Chippewa Cree in the State of Montana general stream adjudication. Were it not for the negotiated settlement represented by this legislation, divisive and costly litigation would be pending between the State, the Tribe, the United States and non-Indian ranchers for many years to come. Fortunately, in 1979, the Montana legislature articulated a policy in favor of negotiation and established the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission to negotiate ``compacts for the equitable division and apportionment of waters between the state and its people and several Indian tribes claiming reserved water rights within the state.'' From the initial meeting in 1992, to the conclusion of an agreed on water rights Compact in 1997, the State, the Federal Government and the Tribe acted in good faith and worked together to explore options. This culminated in passage of a resolution by the Chippewa Cree Tribal Council to ratify the Compact on January 9, 1997. Following overwhelming approval by the Montana Legislature and appropriation of funds for implementation, Governor Marc Racicot signed the Compact into state law on April 14, 1997. Subsequent negotiation, in which staff from my office assisted the State and Tribe, resulted in approval by the United States Departments of the Interior and Justice and drafting of this bill by the three parties. The litigation filed in state water court in 1982 is stayed pending the outcome of this bill. Once passed, the United States, the Tribe and the State of Montana will petition the Montana Water Court to enter a decree reflecting the water rights of the Tribe. I urge my colleagues to support this very positive legislation and work with Senator Burns and Montana's Congressman Hill, who has simultaneously introduced this bill in the House, to secure passage of the Settlement Act this year. Mr. President, I look forward to expeditious passage of this historic settlement.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from the State of Montana on the introduction of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act. The legislation ratifies the Compact approved by the State and the Tribe in 1997. Senator Burns and I jointly introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress and had the 2nd Session of that Congress lasted a few more weeks, I believe the bill would have been approved by the Senate. The introduction of this bill is the culmination of 16 years of extensive technical studies and six years of rather intensive negotiations in our state involving the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the Montana state government, off-Reservation county and municipal governments in north-central Montana, local ranchers, and the United States Departments of Justice and Interior. The 122,000-acre Rocky Boy's Reservation sits west of Havre, Montana on several tributaries of the Milk River on what was formerly the Fort Assiniboine Military Reserve. Unfortunately, the portion of the land reserved for the Chippewa Cree is rough and arid. Without irrigation, much of the land is not suitable for farming. Recent studies have demonstrated that the Reservation could not sustain the membership of the Chippewa Cree Tribe as a permanent homeland without an infusion of additional water. The development of a viable reservation economy calls for more water for drinking purposes, as well as for agriculture and other municipal uses. In 1982, acting in its fiduciary capacity as trustee for the Tribe, the United States filed a claim for the water rights of the Chippewa Cree in the State of Montana general stream adjudication. Were it not for the negotiated settlement represented by this legislation, divisive and costly litigation would be pending between the State, the Tribe, the United States and non-Indian ranchers for many years to come. Fortunately, in 1979, the Montana legislature articulated a policy in favor of negotiation and established the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission to negotiate ``compacts for the equitable division and apportionment of waters between the state and its people and several Indian tribes claiming reserved water rights within the state.'' From the initial meeting in 1992, to the conclusion of an agreed on water rights Compact in 1997, the State, the Federal Government and the Tribe acted in good faith and worked together to explore options. This culminated in passage of a resolution by the Chippewa Cree Tribal Council to ratify the Compact on January 9, 1997. Following overwhelming approval by the Montana Legislature and appropriation of funds for implementation, Governor Marc Racicot signed the Compact into state law on April 14, 1997. Subsequent negotiation, in which staff from my office assisted the State and Tribe, resulted in approval by the United States Departments of the Interior and Justice and drafting of this bill by the three parties. The litigation filed in state water court in 1982 is stayed pending the outcome of this bill. Once passed, the United States, the Tribe and the State of Montana will petition the Montana Water Court to enter a decree reflecting the water rights of the Tribe. I urge my colleagues to support this very positive legislation and work with Senator Burns and Montana's Congressman Hill, who has simultaneously introduced this bill in the House, to secure passage of the Settlement Act this year. Mr. President, I look forward to expeditious passage of this historic settlement.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Food and Medicine for the World Act. For years the United States has enacted economic sanctions to punish foreign governments, often without regard for the effects of those sanctions back home. Under a bill that I am introducing jointly with Senators Ashcroft, Brownback and Kerrey, we can make more sense of our confusing sanctions policy. We can put an end to the practice of making our agricultural producers shoulder most of the blame when we impose sanctions. The exchange of goods and ideas worldwide has never been freer; it is now axiomatic to say that we live in a global economy. It follows that as the rules governing economics have changed, so too should those related to economic sanctions. Unilateral economic action is less effective than it used to be, simply because it's rarely possible for one country or company to corner the market on a good or service. Moreover, we often hurt ourselves with unilateral actions that disproportionately affect one sector of our economy over another. Our agricultural producers, for example, have long borne the brunt of American unilateral action. It is estimated that 10% of the world wheat market is put out of reach of U.S. producers by economic sanctions. That's why I became a member of the Senate Sanctions Task Force last year, and it's why I am joining my colleagues in introducing the Food and Medicine for the World Act. Under this legislation, when any new unilateral sanction is announced by the President, the sanctions he imposes will not affect agriculture or medicine unless: the President submits a report to Congress asking that the sanction include agriculture; and Congress approves of his request. The process must be complete within 60 days before the sanctions against agriculture are supposed to go into effect. This bill would not take effect in the event that Congress has declared war or in the case of national emergency. Mr. President, while I believe sanctions can be a legitimate tool of foreign policy, I don't think that American producers should be punished for the actions of unscrupulous foreign governments. Nor do I think it is fair to put an abrupt end to the supply of medicine based on the behavior of a dictator. We must send a message to the world that our producers are reliable and that those abroad who rely on U.S. products will not be put at risk by a sanction on U.S. food and medicine. The Food and Medicine for the World Act sends that message, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Senator, would you please describe the intent of the provision?

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS. I understand that the House has sent the Senate a substitute to H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, that includes a provision that would amend the Clean Water Act.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Soon after reaching an agreement with the Administration on final bill language for a substitute to S. 1913, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees agreed to include this Act as Title X of the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Provisions of Title X Title X grew out of a decision made by the Bureau of Reclamation in the late 1950s, soon after Canyon Ferry dam was completed near Helena, Montana. It was at that time that the Bureau decided to lease 265 cabin sites on the north end of Canyon Ferry Reservoir to local families. As conditions of their leases, the Bureau required the families to build and maintain cabins on these sites. In the intervening forty years, many of these cabins have been expanded into full fledged houses, with yards, driveways and carports. Mr. President, there are many things that the federal government does well. I'm not sure that being a landlord is one of them. This intensive concentration of cabin sites has led to on-going conflicts between the Bureau and the cabin owners. Most recently, these conflicts escalated when the Bureau moved to raise rental rates for these cabin sites by as much as 300 percent. From the cabin owner's perspectives, this is an inequitable situation. They have invested time and money in these sites and yet live with the constant worry that their leases will be terminated and their cabin sites taken away. To resolve these conflicts, Title X directs the Secretary of Interior to sell the 265 cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir in Montana in one transaction to the highest bidder. The minimum bid for this transaction is set at the fair market value of all 265 sites, appraised individually using standard federal appraisal procedures. I would like to note that, while the appraisal process for rental rates has been a point of contention between the cabin owners and the Bureau of Reclamation in the past, recently these two parties reached an accord for completing a joint appraisal for the purposes of setting rental rates. I applaud this cooperation and expect that the Bureau will continue this agreement and this cooperation in appraising these sites for the purposes of this bill. Title X contains protections to ensure that each cabin owner has an option to purchase their site from the highest bidder and to protect the existing lease rights of each cabin owner. At the same time, Title X contains ample protections to ensure that the public gets a fair deal too. Mr. President, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies lease cabin sites across the West. I would not want to suggest that the solution contained in Title X is appropriate in each case where cabin owners have conflicts with the federal government. To the contrary, I believe that the Canyon Ferry situation is unique in a number of respects. First, these are not isolated cabin sites around which the public and wildlife can move freely. At Canyon Ferry Reservoir, there are 265 cabin sites arranged in tight clusters. This is one of the largest concentrations of residences on public lands in the West. This tight pattern of development dramatically lowers the value of these sites to the general public and largely precludes the use of the area by wildlife. Second, in this case, the lessees were required to make improvements to their property and, in many cases, have gone so far as to build houses on these sites. Many of these houses have now become primary residences for local families. Though the federal government leases cabin sites across the West, few are occupied by families living year- round in their homes. Even under circumstances such as these, however, I do not believe that the federal government should support the sale of cabin sites. Mr. President, as a matter of principle, I am opposed to the sale of public lands. I believe that the sale of public lands threatens to establish a dangerous precedent that, over time, could erode our public lands heritage. Let me be clear though--I am not opposed to trading lands with low value to the general public for lands that are important for fish and wildlife conservation or that are more accessible to the public. Across the West, the federal government has recognized that land exchanges can be useful tools to allow the government to trade out of lands that have low values for the general public in order to acquire lands that are more accessible to the public or that are more important for fish and wildlife. Just this year, Congress approved S.1719 to complete the Gallatin Land Exchange near Bozeman. I was the primary sponsor of that bill in the Senate and can say first hand that legislation produced enormous benefits for the public. I modeled the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act after this and other land exchanges to ensure that our public land heritage is not eroded and to try to improve our public lands holdings. Because public lands are important to Montanans and, indeed, to all Americans. We take our children fishing on these lands. They're where we hunt, hike, and recreate. We take our families out for picnics at the local Forest Service campground and we ride our horses in the high alpine meadows. These lands serve as the backdrop for our homes and our communities. Mr. President, you might say that I'm a big fan of public lands, and that's why this bill is so important to me. Title X directs the Secretary of Interior to sell 265 cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir in Montana. The proceeds from this sale are then placed into a new trust called ``The Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Trust.'' Title X very explicitly specifies the appropriate uses of the proceeds from this trust. The Act states that the trust is to ``provide a permanent source of funding to acquire publicly accessible land and interests in land, including easements and conservation easements, in the State from willing sellers at fair market value to: a) restore and conserve fisheries habitat, including riparian habitat; b) restore and conserve wildlife habitat; c) enhance public hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities; and d) improve public access to public lands.'' Mr. President, these provisions are very important. First, this trust is dedicated to acquisition of land and interests in land in Montana. The land-for-land concept is a critical component of this Act. To reiterate, this bill has been modeled after other land exchanges. By using the intermediary step of a trust, however, we have created a new breed of land exchange known as a ``bifurcated'' or ``land-trust'' exchange. It is my belief that this tool, by functioning as a permanent source of funding, and by allowing for more targeted acquisitions over time, may have benefits not found in the traditional land exchange process. In commenting on an early debate over this provision, the Helena Independent Record noted on July 9, 1998: The problem here is the ideological question of public land, of which they aren't making any more. While some feel that almost any public land would be more productive in private hands, backers of Baucus' bill believe that a public land value should be sold off only in return for an equal land value--not marinas or roads or other things that can, after all, be funded in other ways. Just as it is perfectly all right for the Forest Service to trade off checkerboard landholdings, as long as the public receives equal value, so selling the Canyon Ferry lease sites is acceptable--so long as equal value land values are received in return. . . . That's why it is the Senate version that should be enacted into law. Mr. President, I agree with this statement and endorse very strongly the land-for-land concept embodied in this bill. Second, it is important to note that the bill language makes clear that this land trust is dedicated to the conservation and public enjoyment of Montana's fish and wildlife resources. The title of S.1913 and the purposes of Title X emphasize that this trust is established to promote fish and wildlife conservation. Similarly, the title of the trust itself and the requirement in section 1007(c)(3)(B) that the members of the citizen advisory board have a dedicated commitment to fish and wildlife conservation should leave no question of the goals that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. While the trust may be used to acquire land and interests in land to improve recreation and access to public lands, it is the intent of this bill that the recreation and access provisions should be complimentary to, not contradictory with, the purposes of fish and wildlife conservation. Toward that end, it is my expectation that the members of the citizen advisory board will recommend, and members of the federal- state agency board will request, expenditures from this trust that meet both the letter and spirit of this important bill. It is also the intent of this legislation that, under section 1007(e), lands acquired under this substitute amendment will be managed in a manner that promotes fish and wildlife conservation. Because the land-for-land and conservation principles are so critical, this bill establishes a management framework for this trust designed to ensure that the trust is as effective as possible. The permanent trust is to be managed by a trust manager who is responsible for investing the corpus of the trust and for ensuring that the proceeds from the trust are dispersed only in accordance with the terms of the bill. Requests for dispersal must be submitted by a five-member board consisting of representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. The federal- state agency board is directed to ensure that any requests for dispersal will meet the purposes of the trust. The bill intends that the federal-state agency board will base its decisions regarding expenditures from this trust on the trust plan compiled by a four- member citizen advisory board. The citizen advisory board contains a representative from a Montana organization representing agricultural landowners, a Montana organization representing hunters, a Montana organization representing fishermen, and a Montana nonprofit land trust or environmental organization. Each of these members is to have a demonstrated commitment to improving public access to public lands and to fish and wildlife conservation. Mr. President, this citizen advisory board is integral to the proper functioning of this legislation. It is my intent that this group of citizens should play a very active role in identifying critical properties for acquisition and in setting the priorities of this trust. Because this trust is intended to supplement, not supplant, regular Land and Water Conservation Fund expenditures, I do not expect that the federal agencies' priority list for LWCF expenditures will govern the expenditures from this trust. Rather, it is the intent of this legislation that the citizen advisory board will take an independent look at land acquisition needs in Montana as they craft and update the trust plan. The legislation intends that the federal-state agency board will rely heavily on direction set by the citizen group and the trust plan and contemplates that the two boards will work hand-in-hand together. The legislation also requires the trust manager to consult with the citizen advisory board to ensure that expenditures from the trust are strictly limited to those authorized by this legislation. Mr. President, I would also like to take a moment to comment on a number of additional provisions in this substitute amendment. First, section 1004(b)(3)(C) provides that restrictive covenants will be placed on deeds to the cabin sites at the time of transfer to ensure the maintenance of both existing and adequate public access to and along the shoreline of Canyon Ferry Reservoir and to restrict future uses of these properties to the ``type and intensity of uses in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, as limited by the prohibitions contained in the annual operating plan of the Bureau of Reclamation for the Reservoir in effect on October 1, 1998.'' These provisions were very important to the Administration to ensure that the privatization of these sites does not diminish the values of adjacent public lands. It is important that lands acquired in an exchange have public values at least equal to those traded away. It is equally important to ensure that the lands that are traded out of the federal estate do not compromise the values of adjacent public or private lands. I would also like to note the distinction between protecting ``existing'' and ensuring ``adequate'' access. These provisions were added to ensure that the public continues to have access to and along the shore of Canyon Ferry Reservoir and, where access is not currently adequate, to ensure that such access is improved. I want to note, however, that the historical use restriction is not intended to require cabin owners to remove or modify structures that were in existence on the date of this Act. As noted in the letter from OMB that I mentioned earlier, this provision ensures that subsequent owners of these properties will ``preserve the existing character of this area.'' Quite simply, it is the intent of this bill that this area should not be turned into another Lake Tahoe Resort. However, it is also the intent of this bill that the historical use provision should not unduly burden the cabin owners by requiring new limitations on the type and intensity of uses that are allowed on these sites. Second, section 1004(d)(2)(A) specifies that, if the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association (``CFRA'') submits the highest bid for these cabin sites, the Secretary will sell a cabin site to a lessee, if he receives a purchase request from that lessee. Section 1004(d)(2)(D) provides that CFRA and the lessees must purchase at least 75 percent of the properties by August 1 of the year following the first sale of a cabin site. Section 1004(d)(2)(E) provides that the Secretary shall continue to lease the cabin sites to those lessees who have not purchased their sites by that time. While this is a complex arrangement, the intent should be clear. It is the intent of this bill that every cabin owner have an opportunity to purchase their lot so long as they are leasing from the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill requires that, if CFRA submits the highest bid for these sites, CFRA will purchase at least 75% of the lots by August 1 of the year following the first sale of a cabin site. CFRA's obligation to purchase 75% of the lots is, of course, offset by sites that have been purchased by individual cabin owners by that time. It is further the intent of this bill that the Bureau should continue to lease to remaining cabin owners who have not purchased by that time, and that the Bureau should continue to provide each lessee with the option of purchasing their site so long as they continue to lease their site from the Bureau. It is important to note that, once CFRA submits the highest bid, section 1004(d)(2)(g) requires that all rental revenue from the cabin sites will be distributed to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Trust and to reduce the Pick-Sloan debt as set forth in section 1006 of the bill. conclusion Mr. President, this bill is the result of exhaustive negotiations between local citizens, wildlife groups, county commissioners, the cabin owners, the Montana delegation and, most recently, the Administration. I am pleased that we have been able to reach a broad consensus on this matter and I support its inclusion as Title X of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. Again, in closing, I would like to thank Senator Burns and Congressman Hill for their work on this important effort--I look forward to working together on many more such collaborative efforts. Exhibit 1 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 10, 1998. Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Baucus: I am writing to express the Administration's support for your substitute amendment to S. 1913, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. As amended, S. 1913 creates a unique opportunity to exchange lands at Canyon Ferry Reservoir for other lands in the state to conserve fish and wildlife, enhance public hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities, and improve public access to public lands. We would like to commend you for your leadership in vigorously pursuing legislation that promotes conservation and for the cooperation shown by you and your staff in working with us to address our concerns. As you know, S. 1913 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell the affected Federal properties around Canyon Ferry Reservoir as a single block. Although, as a general rule, we believe the Secretary of the Interior should have administrative discretion as to how such a transaction should occur, we believe that the procedures contained in the Baucus substitute amendment are acceptable given the unique situation of this property. The substitute also includes a number of provisions that we feel are necessary for the Administration's support of this bill. First, it is our understanding that you have made the changes that we have requested to the bill's land appraisal procedures to ensure a fair and accurate appraisal of market value of the properties to be sold and to avoid creating opportunities for needless litigation. Second, the bill ensures that subsequent owners of these properties will maintain public access to Canyon Ferry Reservoir and preserve the existing character of this area. And, third, this substitute amendment preserves the ability of the Secretary to manage Canyon Ferry Reservoir for its Congressionally authorized purposes. We believe that this legislation, with the changes noted above, will enhance public recreation and fish and wildlife opportunities for this area while protecting Federal interests in the operation and management of the Canyon Ferry Project. Sincerely, Jacob J. Lew, Director.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Title X of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill. I drafted this provision as a substitute amendment to S. 1913, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998, a bill that I sponsored and Senator Burns from Montana co-sponsored. I am pleased that this provision has been included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. As amended, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998 (now Title X) creates an exciting opportunity to exchange lands at Canyon Ferry Reservoir for other lands in Montana to conserve fish and wildlife, enhance public hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities, and improve public access to public lands. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank my good friends and colleagues from Montana--Senator Burns and Congressman Hill. Together, we have worked long hours on this project. We certainly would not be where we are today if not for this team effort. I would also like to take a moment to thank their staffs as well--especially Leo Giacometto, Ric Molen and Ryan Thomas from Senator Burns' office and Mark Baker and Kiel Weaver from Congressman Hill's office. These staff members have logged long hours on this project and this accomplishment belongs as much to them as to anyone. Legislative History So that there will be no question as to the origins of this provision, let me provide a brief history of this legislation. On April 2, 1998, I introduced S. 1913, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998. Senator Burns joined me as a co-sponsor of this legislation. This bill, like Title X of the Omnibus Appropriations bill, proposed to exchange 265 cabin sites at Canyon Ferry Reservoir for public lands elsewhere in the state. Like the adopted provision, S. 1913 proposed to accomplish this exchange through the use of a permanent trust that would hold the proceeds of the cabin site sale pending acquisition of other lands. While S. 1913 actually created two trust funds (one for local land acquisitions and one for land acquisitions elsewhere in Montana), Title X to the Omnibus bill simplifies this arrangement by creating one land acquisition trust, but then specifying that no more than 50% of the proceeds from this trust can be used outside of the local area in any given year. This trust arrangement is set forth in Section 1007 of Title X. On May 3, 1998, I held an Environment and Public Works Committee field hearing on S. 1913 in Helena, Montana. That hearing was attended by over 200 cabin owners and sportsmen--all of whom overwhelmingly supported the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998. On May 22, 1998, Congressman Hill from Montana introduced a related piece of legislation in the House. Like S. 1913, H.R. 3963 established a mechanism for the sale of the 265 cabin sites. Unlike S. 1913, H.R. 3963 made no provision for the use of the proceeds from this sale. Between May and August of 1998, these two bills received substantial attention in Montana. In early August, the Montana delegation sat down to craft a consensus bill. By mid-August, we had reached agreement in principle on a substitute amendment for S. 1913. Under our agreement, we would use the land trust idea encompassed in S. 1913, but would add two provisions to provide additional benefits to Broadwater County, Montana. These provisions (sections 1005 and 1008 of Title X) are designed to improve recreational opportunities in Broadwater County, without diverting any of the cabin site revenues away from the land acquisition trust. After drafting legislative language to encompass this agreement in principle, I then sat down with Administration officials to gain their support for this legislation. In response to concerns voiced by Department of Interior officials and others in the Administration, I made a number of substantive changes to this bill. One of these changes was to add section 1009 of Title X to clarify the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to improve public recreation and to conserve wildlife at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. On October 10, 1998 after I revised the legislation to respond to the concerns of the Administration, Jack Lew, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, wrote to express the Administration's support for this new bill. Mr. Lew wrote: ``as amended, S. 1913 creates a unique opportunity to exchange lands at Canyon Ferry Reservoir for other lands in the state to conserve fish and wildlife, enhance public hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities, and improve public access to public lands.'' Mr. President, I ask that the entire text of the OMB letter of support be printed in the Congressional Record following this statement.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in supporting tax incentives for alternative fuels. Our country has assumed a leadership role in the reduction of greenhouse gases because of the global importance of pollution reduction. As my colleagues have also pointed out, promotion of alternative fuels is not just an environmental issue, but an issue important to our domestic economy and independence as well. We cannot afford to slip back toward policies which will leave us dependent upon foreign sources of oil for our economic growth. With the huge reserves of coal and lignite in the United States and around the world, as well as the tremendous potential for use of biomass, wind energy, and other alternatives, it is particularly important to our economy and the world's environment that new, more environmentally friendly fuels are brought to market here and in developing nations. But bringing new technologies to market is financially risky. In particular, finding investors to take a new technology from the laboratory to the market is difficult because so many technical problems need full-scale testing and operations to resolve. Few investors are prepared to take on the risks associated with bringing a first-of-a-kind, full-sized alternative energy production facility on- line without some level of security provided by a partnership with the federal government. Tax incentives represent our government's willingness to work with the private sector as a partner to bring new, clean energy technologies to the market. These incentives demonstrate our country's commitment to the future.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak a few minutes about the bill we just passed. I would like to register my personal views about both the substance of the bill and the process by which it was passed. I have very mixed emotions. First, I am very disappointed in a process that led to this midnight power play. This bill, as has been pointed out by others speaking before me, is almost 4,000 pages long. It weighs 40 pounds. It contains about $500 billion in Federal spending. I might tell you, Mr. President, that $500 billion is enough to pay for the State budget of Montana for 200 years. It was also produced within 24 hours' notice of this vote. As a practical matter, most offices had no more than a few hours to look at this bill. They had no copies of it. They had to go to a central location and wade through it with other staff members. There is nobody in this entire Congress who knows all of the provisions in this bill; it is that massive, and it was written behind closed doors. Mr. President, I will admit that it is a with many worthwhile projects and programs. For example, it provides assistance for farmers, so important to the State of Montana and other farming states. It has provisions that help increase our investment in education, again not only for the Nation but for my State of Montana. It provides important new tools on the war against drugs. And it provides important new funding for health care programs. The bill also provides money for the International Monetary Fund to help fulfill our obligations as a leader in the global community. By doing so, we are strengthening the economies on which our export markets depend. Montana has seen wheat exports decline by 50 percent, almost entirely because of lack of demand in Asia. In addition, one company, U.S. Semitool in Kalispell, MT, has had to lay off over 200, again because of a reduction in demand. By funding the IMF we also fulfilled our role as leader of the world community. Like it or not, the United States is the sole remaining superpower, and our leadership is essential in resolving international crises. By appropriating $18 billion for an IMF credit line, Congress is letting the world know that the United States is interested in living up to its unique role. Incidentally, it should be noted that the United States has never lost one thin dime in the last 50 years that we supported funding for the IMF. It is not the big drain that some people, unfortunately, believe it is. Mr. President, I obviously have serious reservations about the process with which this bill reached the Senate floor. That said, I do want to commend the efforts of those who made a flawed process better. The President's Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, who is departing, was outstanding. He will be sorely missed by anyone, who has worked with him. I know of no finer public servant than Mr. Bowles. The President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, has likewise been a pleasure to work with, as has Larry Stein, the President's congressional liaison. There are many others I could name in the executive branch with whom I worked--devoted servants tenacious in their support for good programs for our country. The same applies to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd. Both are tremendous leaders and both are tremendous men. The House leadership was also very helpful at times, as were the chief persons in the House Appropriations Committee. I very much appreciate their efforts, without which we would have faced an even more objectionable means of legislating today. Mr. President, I am convinced that Americans are less concerned about the process we have used to pass this bill than what is actually in it. Whether it is highway funding an airport project, I think process is less important than outcome, as long as results are delivered. I think Tip O'Neill, the former Speaker of the House, said it best: ``all politics is local.'' So, why am I so concerned about the process? Let me explain. Ordinarily, bills that go through the Congress arrive through committees. They are debated there and, if passed, sent to the floor. After being placed on the calendar, the majority leader--some years it is a Republican leader, other years it is a Democratic leader--sets the agenda and decides which bills to bring up to be debated before the Senate. It is generally a collegial agreement between the majority leader and the minority leader as to which bills are brought up and debated. Following debate and passage on the floor, bills go to a conference, because the House has gone through a similar procedure. Many of the bills that are brought up on the floor under the Senate rules have added onto them various amendments. Some amendments are relevant and germane to the bill before the Congress but often, under the Senate rules, many are not. Regardless, all of those provisions are debated, in full view of the public and press. Senators cast their votes yes or no--sometimes with recorded votes, sometimes with voice votes--but then they go to conference. What happens in conference? Generally, the principal members of the committee of jurisdiction meet with the principal members of the committee of jurisdiction of the House of the bill that passed, because they are similar but there are different provisions. There are some adjustments the conferees have to make, so they recommend the same bill with the same provisions back to both bodies. Both bodies then vote yes or no, and, if passed, the President gets one bill. The President can sign it, veto it, or pocket veto the bill. That is the procedure, and it is basically the procedure our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. They didn't write all the rules for the House and the Senate, but they decided there should be a House and Senate and the bodies should make their own rules. They intended that Congress should operate in the context of openness in government and representative democracy in government. That was the whole purpose of our Founding Fathers writing the Constitution, escaping tyranny from Europe: representative democracy, where the people are in charge. Mr. President, I am not going to stand up here as a purist and say we should follow that lock, stock and barrel. We have to be practical and do what works, but we must do so with full respect for the people who elected us, the people we have the privilege of serving. Unfortunately, something very different than the process I just described was used to pass this omnibus appropriations bill. What happened, essentially, is that 3,800 pages of legislation--which, by and large, contains 8 appropriations bills that did not pass both bodies and go to conference, was put in one conference report. This legislation did not go to the floor of the House or the Senate, where it could be debated and amended. It is legislation, rather, which is in this conference report and sent back to the House and Senate unamendable--unamendable. I might also mention that roughly half this bill is authorizing language that ordinarily goes through the committee process. So who made the decisions that resulted in this 4,000 page bill? Were they the chief people in the committees of jurisdiction? No. Were they Democrats, Democratic leadership? Not very often. So, who were they? Essentially, the people in the closed room--unavailable to the press, to the public, unavailable to other Senators--were top staff in the administration and the leadership of the House and Senate, usually Republican and to some degree Democratic, which would mean about five or six, maybe eight Members of Congress. Mr. President, we have 535 Members of Congress, roughly. Eight of whom were in the room with the administration officials, hammering this bill out. There is so much here, even they do not know what is in it. What did the rest of us do? We had little choice but to do the very best for our people at home and get on the phone. We called the select few in that room, trying to make our views heard, trying to make a semblance of a democratic process. I spent a lot of time talking to the chief administration officials who I know were in the room. To their credit, they listened to me. And to their credit, they agreed with a good number of the views that I was espousing. I did the best I could, given the circumstances we had, and I am pleased that those people in the room decided to include some Montana provisions, like Canyon Ferry; various land and water conservation funds, like money for the purchase of the Royal Teton Ranch right next to Yellowstone Park; funding to help the massive Gallatin land exchange; the purchase of Lindbergh Lake, for a number of the same reasons. There are a lot of provisions in this bill that directly affect my State, in addition to broad national policies, such as more teachers, more funding for education, and so forth. But I believe, Mr. President, that there comes a time when the process becomes so corrupted that it undermines and corrupts the legislation that is passed. Let me give a little personal background here. Several years ago, I was involved in writing Montana's State Constitution. I think we are the last State in the Nation to rewrite a constitution. There is a very important provision in our State's constitution called an open meeting law. In Montana's constitution, all public meetings are open to the press. The Governor of our State knows all the meetings he has in his office will be attended by the press. Sure, it causes some problems. Some in State government say, ``Oh, my gosh, this is a terrible provision; it cramps our style; it makes it difficult for us to do our work.'' Sure, it makes it sometimes difficult, but we all know deep down it is for the public good and, as with a lot of things that are good, it takes effort, it takes hard work. Most of the good things in life take effort and hard work. This is one of those. We have an open process in Montana, and we have a much higher view in Montana of our public servants. It is very helpful. I will relate another personal experience which indicates my resolve toward a more open representative process. It occurred a little more than 20 years ago, when I was a freshman Member of the House. I had a free hour with not much to do, and I said, ``Well, I think I will learn something. I will go to a tax conference writing a tax bill,'' by Senate conferees, House conferees, Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, top folks who are in the conference for a large tax bill. I asked around, ``Where is this meeting, where are they?'' I got the runaround. Nobody could tell me where they really were. I finally went to Mike Mansfield, then majority leader of the Senate. I thought, ``Gee, Senator Mansfield could find out where it is occurring.'' Sure enough, his people told me. I went over there. A policeman was standing right at the doorway. I said I am a Member. I think he thought I was a member of the conference, so he let me in. I took a seat in a corner so I could watch and learn a little about tax policy and how conferences work. I was there, minding my own business listening to Wilbur Mills, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Russell Long, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, talking. They were trying to work out this bill. There were a lot of executive branch people in the room. Treasury Secretary Bill Simon was in the room, along with other executive branch people. I was just sitting there about 5 or 10 minutes, and up walked a senior House Member, Congressman Burke from Massachusetts. He said, ``Sorry, you can't be here.'' I asked, ``Why? Why can't I be here?'' He said, ``Well, it's the rules.'' I said, ``What rule is it?'' He said, ``Well, it's the Senate rule.'' I said, ``What Senate rule is it?'' He said, ``I'm sorry, you just can't be here. Nobody can be here. No other Member of the House and Senate can be here. Not even Congressman Bill Green can be here.'' Bill Green, who was then a Member of the House Ways and Means Committee who successfully authored the provision on the floor of the House to modify the percentage of the oil depletion allowance, even he couldn't be in the room. All the people allowed in the room were the conferees. It was closed doors and that is it. I said to Congressman Burke at the time, ``Look, I'm not going to cause a fuss here, but this is wrong. It is just not right that this is not open to the public, certainly to Members of the Congress.'' That afternoon, I stood before the House, along with Congressman Ab Mikva, who also did not like that process, and we voiced our disagreement and displeasure. Next year, things opened up because it was the right thing to do. Perhaps I have too much of a personal investment in this, but I do believe the people are much better served the more the process is open and the more the process is not corrupted as, in my judgment, this process is. Again, about half of the U.S. Government bills, which did not pass the House or the Senate or go through committees in the full light of day, which did not pass the floor of the House, some of which were not even brought up on the floor of the House or the Senate, were put in this huge bill, then sent back to the Senate and the House unamendable. No amendments are in order, Mr. President, in this process; none. I suppose there is a reason for that because none of us know what is in the bill. How can we offer an amendment if we don't know what is in the bill? I asked the Parliamentarian not long ago: How much of this is authorization, how much is appropriations? He said, ``Senator, we just don't know; this huge stack here is too big for us to have gone through it by now. We just don't know.'' As I said, Mr. President, I am in an anxious position here because a lot of good is in this bill. But the process, in my view, is wrong. That's why I voted no on the bill. The provisions that are in this bill I would have worked for in separate bills, in separate agriculture bills or Agriculture appropriations bills or in other authorizing bills that would ordinarily come before the Congress. Again, I am not going to be a purist about this, I just want to be practical. We have done this 2 years in a row, dumping so much in such a very undemocratic way into a huge bill written behind closed doors, written by only a few Members of the House and Senate and the administration. This process dangerously disenfranchises most Senators, House Members and American voters. We, as Senators and House Members, don't have an opportunity to go back to our people and say, ``What do you think of this provision?'' They don't have an opportunity to say to us, ``We don't like what is in there, vote this way or that. They are disenfranchised, cut out of the process. This is not legislation by representative democracy, Mr. President. It is legislation by a very few, by oligarchy. At a deeper level, what does that do? It further undermines the people's confidence or belief in Government. This process does that. It confirms some of the worst views a lot of Americans have; namely, oh, those guys back there in Washington are just out for themselves; they don't care about us. Mr. President, we must draw the line. Enough is enough. We all know that the more issues are actually fully debated--and I mean debated-- the more the public has a chance then to see what is going on, and they themselves get more involved. To the extent we do that, this country will be stronger. We know that. We also know that the less the people are involved, the less they know what is going on, and the weaker this country is going to be. Mr. President, we are the world's oldest democracy. We have a form of government where the people elect their representatives to do their nation's business. We are not a kingdom, we are not a monarchy. And we will be the leader in the next century if people are more involved in government. And they will be more involved in government the more we, as representatives, respect them, respect their views, want their views, want them to be able to comment on what we are doing or not doing. But on the other hand, the more we disrespect people by hiding behind closed doors, in the dark of night, the more we will cause a further deterioration of our government and weaken the United States role as the world leader that we want to be in the next century. Finally, Mr. President, let me say that this is a sad moment for me. I cast my vote with reservation, fully aware of the good that this bill contains. But vote no I must, simply because I think that to vote yes would be to cast a vote for exclusivity and against the democratic process. I worked very closely with some individuals who made a few of this bill's important provisions reality, and I do not want now to be voting against their reference. They made a good effort and did a very good job, given the situation they were in, given the circumstances they faced. They were helpful to those of us who were working for our States and had nothing else to do--no alternative--but to try to work with this abominable process. In closing, Mr. President, I want to say that next year it is critically important that we prevent this process from happening again. We have done this two years in a row, and each year more and more and more is getting dumped into this omnibus conference report process. If this trend continues, then within a year or two maybe three-quarters of Government is going to be in there; maybe everything is soon going to be in there, which means I might as well not report for work until the final 3 weeks of the Congress, because that is where it is all done, with those few people behind closed doors. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Butte, Montana has a long history of excellence in sports and the cultivation of champions. On Sunday, October 11, 1998 in Christchurch, New Zealand, a young champion from Butte won a gold medal in the 200-meter individual medley at the Paralympic World Swimming Championships. At age 13, Erin Popovich obtained a gold medal with her personal best time of 3:32.45, shattering her previous mark of 3:37.18 which had been a world record. On Thursday, October 15 Erin significantly added to her trophy case by winning gold medals in the 50-meter freestyle and 50-meter butterfly races. The Butte Central Junior High 8th Grader improved on her United States record time in the 50-meter butterfly with a time of 45.63. She also recorded a personal best in her 50-meter freestyle with a time of 37.54. In the freestyle Erin was in second place until the final 4 meters when she went on to win the gold. Erin also won a bronze medal in the 100-meter freestyle and helped win a gold for the women's 200- meter team freestyle relay. The most amazing aspect of this is that Erin only started competitively swimming 10 months ago when she joined the Butte Tarpons Swim Club, under the direction of Swim Coach Marie Cook and Assistant Coach Bill Sever. She is a natural athlete, but her true strength lies in her dedication. ``Her determination is her strength,'' Coach Cook says. ``Her mental attitude is just tough.'' Erin's focus provides an excellent example for her teammates, Coach Cook says. ``The kids on this team don't think of her as disabled . . . when she gets on the blocks with taller kids you can see it--she's such an inspiration to everyone.'' Erin, who is the daughter of Dr. Keith and Barbara Popovich, is only one of 30 swimmers to qualify for the United States Disabled Team. The Paralympics features 585 swimmers from 55 countries. I want to join with her family and friends and all the Butte Tarpon Swimmers in congratulating Erin on her tremendous success. Erin has proven herself as a World Champion and as one of Butte, Montana's finest.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Again, I agree. We recognized that flexibility is required to ensure that EDA may address the varied causes and types of economic distress nationwide. Therefore, in his efforts to ensure that EDA assistance go to the communities of greatest distress, the Secretary is allowed some flexibility in making determinations for awards of assistance under this Act.

Mr. BAUCUS. I agree. In fact, many areas of the country, including Montana, face similar situations. We included that phrase intentionally to ensure that such distress may be addressed by EDA programs. It is our view, and it is a view shared by EDA officials, that such communities should be eligible to apply for EDA aid.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. If I might ask the manager if I may speak 5 minutes before 5:50. Otherwise, I will object. I ask the managers of the bill if they can assure me they will give me 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Otherwise, I will object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Three to 4 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Three.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Utah for his graciousness in yielding me 3 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. BAUCUS. I just wonder if the Senator will give am a few minutes. I have been in the Chamber for over a half hour waiting. I would appreciate the Senator yielding.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, all Americans deserve access to primary health care and emergency treatment. But in rural America the delivery of these services is often difficult, given the vast distances and extreme weather conditions that typically prevail. Just as small communities' transportation, education and housing needs are different than those of urban areas, so too are their mechanisms for delivering health care. That's why Senator Daschle and I are introducing the Promoting Health In Rural Areas Act of 1998. PHIRA would, among other things: reformulate the Adjusted Average Per Capita Cost for Medicare payments to managed care; direct Medicare payments to tribally-owned hospitals; rebase provisions for Sole Community Hospitals; revise the underserved criteria used by the Office of Personnel Management; and allow recently-closed hospitals to be designated on a Critical Access basis. As you know, 1997 reforms went a long way towards ensuring the viability of the Medicare program, including its use by rural Americans. For example, under Section 4201 of the 1997 BBA, Congress established a rural-friendly hospital program. Modeled on a demonstration project conducted in my state of Montana, the new program allows a rural hospital to convert to a limited-service hospital status, called a ``Critical Access Hospital,'' or CAH. These hospitals are given flexibility and relief from Medicare regulations designed for full-size, full-service acute care hospitals. By giving these smaller hospitals greater latitude on staffing and other cumbersome federal regulations, it is easier for rural hospitals to organize their staffs and facilities based on patient needs. If the demonstration project on which this new program is based is any indication (and I certainly hope that it is), Congress can be proud of this new law. And rural folks across the country will benefit. They will receive access to quality care in a way that meets their unique needs, and they will be assisted in preserving a way of life that is increasingly threatened by the urban- and sub-urbanization of America. Yet despite many positive developments, it has become clear to the Minority Leader and I that much still needs to be done to facilitate the delivery of rural health services. In order to meet those needs, the Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act will do several things. First, it will change the Office of Personnel Management's underserved designation criteria by changing the way the Office of Personnel Management designates rural areas. Back in the 1960s, underserved areas were designated on a state-by-state basis. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services has the sophistication to designate areas by county, or even sub-county. The bill we are introducing today would require OPM to designate underserved areas on a county-by-county, not state-by-state, basis. Second, PHIRA would direct Medicare payments to tribally-owned hospitals. As you know, Mr. President, a demonstration project conducted in Alaska, Mississippi and Oklahoma allowed four tribal health care providers operating Indian Health Services hospitals to bill Medicare and Medicaid directly. The demo project increased efficiency and, by allowing providers to directly bill Medicare, provided badly-needed revenue. Our bill would expand the demonstration project nationwide and make it permanent. Mr. President, our bill would also allow recently-closed hospitals to be designated as Criticala Access Hospitals. Under the 1997 law establishing the Critical Access Hospital program, a closed or downsized hospital does not qualify. Our bill would allow a hospital that had closed within the last five years to qualify for conversion to CAH status. Our bill also addresses rural needs for Medicare Graduate Medical Education (GME). As you know, BBA mandated a cap on the number of residents a teaching hospital is allowed to train. Because this provision threatens to exacerbate an already serious shortage of physicians in rural America, our bill would allow programs training residents targeted for rural areas to be exempt from the cap. Mr. President, by reforming the way health care is delivered in rural areas, we are not only making government more efficient, we are making agencies more accountable. And we are preserving a way of life that American pioneers established long ago and that rural Americans continue today. It is in many ways a simpler lifestyle, uncomplicated by traffic, smog and a desire to get everything done yesterday. But it is also a difficult way of life, characterized by harsh weather, long distances, and the historic tendency of the Federal Government to view all areas--rural or urban--through a one-size-fits-all lens. I invite senators to join the Minority Leader and I today, to ensure that our rural residents are given proper access to the health care they need. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, all Americans deserve access to primary health care and emergency treatment. But in rural America the delivery of these services is often difficult, given the vast distances and extreme weather conditions that typically prevail. Just as small communities' transportation, education and housing needs are different than those of urban areas, so too are their mechanisms for delivering health care. That's why Senator Daschle and I are introducing the Promoting Health In Rural Areas Act of 1998. PHIRA would, among other things: reformulate the Adjusted Average Per Capita Cost for Medicare payments to managed care; direct Medicare payments to tribally-owned hospitals; rebase provisions for Sole Community Hospitals; revise the underserved criteria used by the Office of Personnel Management; and allow recently-closed hospitals to be designated on a Critical Access basis. As you know, 1997 reforms went a long way towards ensuring the viability of the Medicare program, including its use by rural Americans. For example, under Section 4201 of the 1997 BBA, Congress established a rural-friendly hospital program. Modeled on a demonstration project conducted in my state of Montana, the new program allows a rural hospital to convert to a limited-service hospital status, called a ``Critical Access Hospital,'' or CAH. These hospitals are given flexibility and relief from Medicare regulations designed for full-size, full-service acute care hospitals. By giving these smaller hospitals greater latitude on staffing and other cumbersome federal regulations, it is easier for rural hospitals to organize their staffs and facilities based on patient needs. If the demonstration project on which this new program is based is any indication (and I certainly hope that it is), Congress can be proud of this new law. And rural folks across the country will benefit. They will receive access to quality care in a way that meets their unique needs, and they will be assisted in preserving a way of life that is increasingly threatened by the urban- and sub-urbanization of America. Yet despite many positive developments, it has become clear to the Minority Leader and I that much still needs to be done to facilitate the delivery of rural health services. In order to meet those needs, the Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act will do several things. First, it will change the Office of Personnel Management's underserved designation criteria by changing the way the Office of Personnel Management designates rural areas. Back in the 1960s, underserved areas were designated on a state-by-state basis. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services has the sophistication to designate areas by county, or even sub-county. The bill we are introducing today would require OPM to designate underserved areas on a county-by-county, not state-by-state, basis. Second, PHIRA would direct Medicare payments to tribally-owned hospitals. As you know, Mr. President, a demonstration project conducted in Alaska, Mississippi and Oklahoma allowed four tribal health care providers operating Indian Health Services hospitals to bill Medicare and Medicaid directly. The demo project increased efficiency and, by allowing providers to directly bill Medicare, provided badly-needed revenue. Our bill would expand the demonstration project nationwide and make it permanent. Mr. President, our bill would also allow recently-closed hospitals to be designated as Criticala Access Hospitals. Under the 1997 law establishing the Critical Access Hospital program, a closed or downsized hospital does not qualify. Our bill would allow a hospital that had closed within the last five years to qualify for conversion to CAH status. Our bill also addresses rural needs for Medicare Graduate Medical Education (GME). As you know, BBA mandated a cap on the number of residents a teaching hospital is allowed to train. Because this provision threatens to exacerbate an already serious shortage of physicians in rural America, our bill would allow programs training residents targeted for rural areas to be exempt from the cap. Mr. President, by reforming the way health care is delivered in rural areas, we are not only making government more efficient, we are making agencies more accountable. And we are preserving a way of life that American pioneers established long ago and that rural Americans continue today. It is in many ways a simpler lifestyle, uncomplicated by traffic, smog and a desire to get everything done yesterday. But it is also a difficult way of life, characterized by harsh weather, long distances, and the historic tendency of the Federal Government to view all areas--rural or urban--through a one-size-fits-all lens. I invite senators to join the Minority Leader and I today, to ensure that our rural residents are given proper access to the health care they need. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.