Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to talk about something very simple. It is about post offices and particularly small town or community post offices. Our first Postmaster General was Benjamin Franklin, 200 years ago. And, obviously, at that time post offices were very important to Americans. It was a local gathering place; it was a meeting place, in addition to sending and receiving mail. And the same is true today in small town America, in some of our smaller communities and even some of our larger communities. For example, in my State of Montana, let's take Livingston, the post office is where people meet to compare notes, talk about what the fly hatch is on the Yellowstone so they will know what to go fishing with. And maybe Red Lodge, MT--collect the mail and talk about what happened at the most recent track meet. The same is true in Plains, MT, a post office that has been there for 115 years. The problem is this: The Postal Service recently, in my judgment, has not treated communities fairly because it has come in and closed local post offices and often rebuilt them outside of town to essentially destroy the local character of the community. Senator Jeffords and I offered an amendment on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. It passed the Senate by a vote of 76 to 21. A similar version passed the House. Essentially, we are just providing for notice so that local communities, when the Postal Service decides to come in and close a post office or move it, would have a chance to have a hearing, would have an opportunity to have notice, would have an opportunity to have some say in their community. Today, under Postal Service regulations, local people don't have a say. They don't have the ability to influence, in any meaningful way, where their post office is located or whether it should be closed. I think that is wrong. I regret saying this, but the conferees on the bill stripped our amendment, even though it passed the Senate 76 to 21, and even though it had very large support in the House. That is just not right. It is not fair. It is not fair to those folks in communities who very much rely on their post office. We are just asking for a fair process so the local people have the opportunity to have some say in their community so that Uncle Sam, Uncle Postal Service, doesn't ram down their throats a solution that doesn't make sense. I regret to say the conferees did not include it, and next year I will reintroduce the legislation, I am sure, along with Senator Jeffords. That provision, unfortunately, is not in the bill. Again, I thank my good friend from Utah, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the adoption of S. 2131, the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. This legislation is our usual biennial authorization for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It includes authority to construct projects for navigation, flood control, hurricane and storm damage reduction, emergency streambank and shore protection, water supply storage, recreation and ecosystem restoration and protection. These projects range from harbor improvements in Nome, Alaska, to shore protection at Little Duval Island in Florida. Since this historic Water Resources Development Act of 1986, when project cost-sharing was established, the Corps of Engineers has established a successful working relationship with the local sponsors of these projects. This partnership has proven to be beneficial for all involved, and we have continued it in this bill. This important principle, combined with technical soundness, environmental acceptability and economic justification guided the selection of projects in this legislation. The legislation also contains several changes to the Corps' program. It established new continuing authorities program that would allow the Corps of Engineers to undertake nonstructural flood control projects. It changes the periodic beach renourishment cost-share from the current 65 percent Federal, 35 percent non-Federal, to 50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal. And it allows the Corps to use recreation fees collected above the current baseline to remain at the park where they were collected to be used for maintenance. The legislation contains 2 provisions that are very important to my State of Montana. One provision would allow the Corps of Engineers to provided needed emergency streambank stabilization in Billings, Montana. Another provision directs the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the State of Montana and all local interests to conduct a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of activities on the Yellowstone River. This study will give us a better understanding of how the natural flow and the man-made structures can best protect the river and its habitat. I thank Senators Chafee and Warner and all members who worked with us. I urge the passage of this bill and swift consideration by the House in order to enact this legislation in the Congress.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a small business in my state, Big Sky Airlines, on their 20th Anniversary. Big Sky Airlines commenced scheduled passenger service on September 11, 1978. The initial flight flew from Billings to Helena with continuing service to Kalispell. The aircraft was a Hadley-Paige Jetstream with a seating capacity of 19. Today, Big Sky operates a fleet of six nineteen-passenger Metro III aircraft, with service to 12 cities in Montana and Spokane, Washington. The company operates out of its hub in Billings and provides connecting opportunities from Eastern and Central Montana to it's markets in the west. The Montana cities are Glasgow, Glendive, Miles City, Wolf Point and Sidney in the east. Havre and Lewistown in central Montana and Great Falls, Helena, Missoula, Kalispell and Spokane in the west. All of the eastern and central Montana service is operated under the Essential Air Service subsidy contract with the Department of Transportation. Big Sky Airlines has been through a lot in their 20 years of providing service in Montana. They've had their good times and bad. However, through it all they continued to provide service to remote areas that would have been further isolated from the Nation's economic centers without them. The Essential Air Service program is critical to these communities. Without this service, these communities would be seriously hampered in their efforts to attract new business or even to retain those they now have, resulting in further strain on local economies and loss of jobs. In my visits to the state, I frequently fly on Big Sky Airlines. In our state, to many cities, it's the ONLY way to fly. I've had lots of experiences, I could tell you about. However, I'd rather talk about the many families I've seen reunited as the Big Sky plane lands in those rural communities. I'd like to congratulate the Board of Big Sky Airlines and their chairman, Jon Marchi for their foresight and perseverance. I'd also like to congratulate the officers of the company: Kim Champney, the President and CEO, and Craig Denney, the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating officer. Kim has only been there a short time, but is moving the company in exciting new directions. I've personally seen Craig load the luggage, check in the passengers and send the airplane on it's way. He knows how to do every job in the company and do it well. I'd also like to congratulate John Rabenberg and the other members of the Essential Air Service task force for the hard work they do in their communities for this program. Big Sky Airlines currently employs 103 people throughout its system (all in Montana). And you can tell it's a good company to work for. Whether you are checking in at the counter, or watching the pilots get ready to take-off, they are very customer service oriented. It's a pleasure to fly with them, and Mr. President, it's a pleasure for me today to congratulate them on their 20th Anniversary and to wish them many more years of flying the big sky of Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of William A. Fletcher to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Fletcher has proven himself superbly qualified for this position. A man of deep personal integrity, of sound judgement and a well respected legal scholar, Mr. Fletcher's nomination is certainly deserved and given that five judgeships remain vacant on the Ninth Circuit, his confirmation is well past due. Mr. Fletcher's qualifications for this position are truly remarkable, Mr. President. He is a graduate of Harvard University and a Rhodes Scholar. William Fletcher earned his law degree from Yale, clerked at the United States Supreme Court, and has dedicated himself to a career of exploring legal theories as a professor and as an esteemed author. Fletcher has been a professor at Boalt Hall since 1977 where he was awarded the Distinguished Teaching Award in 1993, an honor bestowed annually upon the five finest faculty members on the Berkley campus. Fletcher has also served as a visiting professor at the University of Michigan, Stanford Law School, Hastings College of Law, and the University of Cologne, and he has served as an instructor at the Salzburg Seminars. Professor Fletcher's scholarly works include influential law review articles that have been immensely useful to both academics and practitioners. His works include published articles relating to the topics of civil procedure and federal courts, such as standing and the Eleventh Amendment, sovereign immunity and federal common law. In exploring the law and authoring these esteemed articles, Fletcher demonstrates his uncanny powers of analysis and steadfast objectivity. In addition to my support Mr. President, William Fletcher's nomination enjoys broad support across political and ideological spectrums. He has been endorsed not only by an extensive array of his peers throughout the country, but also by a number of non-partisan observers and the American Bar Association, all of whom comment on the centrist, pragmatic approach he brings to the law. I am completely confident that Mr. Fletcher is the best possible candidate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. So again Mr. President I would like to express my unequivocal support for William A. Fletcher as a highly qualified nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I will conclude by quoting one of Mr. Fletcher's colleagues in saying ``If Willy Fletcher presents a problem [for the Judiciary Committee], there is no academic in America who should get a court appointment.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not managing time on our side. Did the Chair say the minority has 2 minutes 21 seconds remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator for 1 minute on the time of our side.

Mr. BAUCUS. I will use some of my time to praise you because that is very generous of the Senator from Mississippi, and it is typical of his generosity and his graciousness. He is a very, very fine man. Mr. President, sometimes we have to disagree with one another, and I am about to say that as much as I respect and admire the Senator from Mississippi, I have a different view than he has on this issue. Mr. President, I rise toady to express my profound disappointment in the conference report before the Senate. The words of our forefathers speak volumes about many topics, including this one. ``Blessed is the man who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.'' These words were written in a letter from Alexander Pope over 270 years ago. They paraphrase biblical verse. I believe they speak to rural America today about the farm relief provisions included in this conference report. But more accurately they speak to the matters excluded from this package. This package should include meaningful relief for farmers in the worst economic crunch of this decade. Instead, it includes a pittance. While the conferees could have adopted a package that provided roughly 60 cents per bushel on wheat in addition to what farmers get now, which is virtually nothing in the market, the conferees did not provide that 60 cents. Instead, the bill provides 13 cents per bushel. That is how it works out. Frankly, I am stunned. I assumed that when the conferees met they would work out some kind of compromise. The Democratic package had eliminated the loan caps, it had the country of origin labeling, a provision providing for price reporting on a pilot project basis of fat cattle bought by packers. It included several provisions which would have helped farmers just a little bit. On the other side of the aisle, on the Republican side, there was not much at all; as I said, 13 cents as opposed to 60 cents, with respect to wheat. Mr. President, this package could only satisfy a farmer who expects nothing. I fear, as I hear from disillusioned producers across Montana, far too many producers expect this Congress to fail in the effort to help out. They believe instead that their pleas are falling on deaf ears. Their disaster is being seen in academic terms. Their future--the survival of their farms and ranches has become little more than a laboratory test of the farm policy enacted a couple years ago. I still believe in our producers--the top industry in our state. But that very industry that generated about $2 billion in sales last year will lose nearly $200 million this year. The Republican package will short Montana producers another $100 million. Then multiply it by our treacherous rank--46th in the Nation for per capita income--and you get a grand total of $300 million that Montana can't afford to lose--not on the farm and not on Main Street. Thus, what we do now portends what will happen in the next year in our rural communities. I think it is very irresponsible to end this Congress without meaningful relief for our farmers and ranchers. We need to eliminate the loan rate cap for this year and provide the funding to make it work. We need to mandate country of origin labeling on meat. And we need to require price reporting on the livestock sold each day. We need to treat this situation like the crisis it is to producers across Montana and across our country. Mr. President, I assumed the two sides would get together and work out some kind of compromise. That is not what happened. Instead, the majority party--I do not like being partisan about this stuff but I just have to be accurate--the majority party did not compromise at all. They just stuck with their 13 cents and also stuck with rejecting country of origin labeling on beef, stuck with rejecting entirely the pilot project on mandatory price reporting, instead replacing it with a study--essentially totally agreed to a pittance to farmers. I must say, Mr. President--this is no exaggeration, I am not exaggerating--farmers find this an insult. They find it a slap in the face. They cannot believe that the U.S. Congress is sitting here in many respects worried more about Ken Starr--certainly the majority side--than they are about paying attention to farmers and what is happening in the country. I have to tell you, Mr. President, it is really a bad situation in farm country. Bankers are not going to be able to extend loans. Worse than that, they are going to begin to call in loans. Implement dealers, car dealers, grocery stores, hardware stores in farm communities are finding their sales way down. That means they have to start digging deeper into their pockets. This is the worst situation I have seen in at least 10 or 12 years. And 10 or 12 years ago, in the late 1980s when farmers were facing about the same situation--again, through no fault of their own, because of drought and because of world conditions--Congress spent about $16 billion to help farmers. Mr. President, 10 or 12 years ago we spent $16 billion. Today the Democratic side is asking for, not $16 billion, $7 billion; and the Republican side said no, no, not even $7 billion, but $4 billion. We are saying, we on our side of the aisle: Hey, $4 billion is an insult. It is a slap in the face. I plead with Senators to go back again and see if we can figure out some way to agree, if not to the full 7, to virtually the 7. Another point: I have been in the Senate a few years. I voted for the New York City bailout, I voted for the Chrysler bailout, I voted for California disaster assistance. Guess what. All those efforts have been repaid--in spades.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my very, very good friend from Tennessee-- Mississippi----

Mr. BAUCUS. I was going to speak maybe 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. When we loaned money to New York City a few years ago, New York repaid that loan with interest, ahead of time. When we loaned Chrysler Corporation money to get its feet back on the ground, that loan was repaid ahead of time. I am just saying, today, if we can help farmers a little bit today with the conditions they face through no fault of their own, because the world market supply is so large and the price is so low, and the Asian economic crisis, at the very least that will be repaid back again in spades. I urge my colleagues, please show a little bit of statesmanship and vote to help this part of our country. It is going to come back and help all of us as a nation. I thank very much my very good friend from Mississippi, again, for his very generous offer to give me some time.

Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if my very great, good friend, the Senator from Mississippi, would yield me some time, although I must upfront say that I am arguing against the conference report.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BAUCUS. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BAUCUS. What is the pending order?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, in my 20 years in the Senate, I have scarcely experienced a more politically trying time than this. As the nation decides how to cope with an unprecedented political crisis, Congress must not only consider impeachment proceedings but pass spending measures to keep our government running. More important, a number of serious foreign policy crises demand our attention. From Kosovo to Iraq and Tanzania to Latin America, the need for American leadership has never been greater. To the extent that we can deal with these issues in a reasoned, bipartisan fashion, the world and the United States stand to gain. america's role Mr. President, we Americans have a unique role. More than at any time since the early years of the cold war, the world looks to us as a guarantor of peace in regions from Kosovo to Central Africa to Cambodia and the Persian Gulf; as a leader in the quest for prosperity, as we look toward more fair and open trade and an effective approach to the financial crisis; as the pace-setter in science and technology; and as an example of effective democratic government and respect for human rights. This is a demanding role. We may not have sought it. Some of us may not entirely welcome it. But it is a role that in this post-cold-war world nobody else can fulfill. Japan is in the midst of a deep financial crisis; Russia and China still in the process of economic reform; Europe concentrated on deepening and expanding the EU. Only the United States can lead. As the world's largest economy and most trusted trading partner, the United States is unique. I find this sentiment continually reinforced as I travel to Asia, Europe and South America. My counterparts there tell me that there is no one with whom they would rather do business than Americans. Our openness, respect for the rule of law and willingness to innovate mark the United States as the global leader. It's why we won the cold war, and it's why we are viewed as a relative safe haven in these times of global financial instability. Mr. President, we are also the world's foremost cultural power. America is the birthplace of the Internet and more than 80 percent of World Wide Web material is in English; our movies dominate over 70 percent of the European market, more than half that of Japan; and there are increasingly few countries where one cannot order a Big Mac in English, pay for it in U.S. dollars and wash it down with a Coke or Pepsi. Mr. President, I may sound biased, but I think it appropriate that if there is to be a world superpower, the United States should be it. We are not an imperialist country; we respect human rights; we have open markets; and we are the foremost example of this experiment called democracy. It has been said that our Founding Fathers envisioned a governmental system that is fragmented and dispersed of power. Our Founding Fathers succeeded. Neither the President nor the Congress nor the Judiciary has an inordinate ability to effect change, and that sets us apart from parliamentary systems of government. But this is the system we have, and while we must accept its limitations, we must also praise its virtues for making us the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world. We must also work especially hard to facilitate more contact between Congress and the Executive, and between the parties that make up our unique political system. And we must accept that despite the current political crisis, Bill Clinton is still our President. Whatever the outcome of impeachment proceedings, crises the world over will not wait. Americans have a duty--bipartisan, bicameral, and bi-institutional-- to lead. Like or not, this is a role we must fulfill--for the sale of our own people, because if we do not lead, Americans will pay the price in a more turbulent, dangerous world. So while we may at times have differences, as individuals or as Democrats and Republicans, we must also at times put these differences aside and remember our larger responsibililities. asian financial crisis We see this very clearly in the Asian financial crisis. In the past eighteen months, an event which began with the devaluation of the Thai currency has become a crisis threatening nations all over the globe. It has brought cataclysmic change to Indonesia, a nation of 200 million people. It has threatened the stability of Russia--a nuclear power whose efforts toward reform will help determine the future of Europe. It has shaken the economies of South America and South Africa. And this year, it has come home to the farms and the farmers in our country. And I can say that particularly of my State of Montana, as our export markets have dropped. Asians are not buying our wheat. Prices have fallen and families have faced the worst threats they have faced in recent years to their future in farming. On such an occasion, the United States must lead, both in long-term reform and in short-term emergency action. In the long run, we need to carefully examine our international financial policies. This includes the question of whether the international financial institutions have enough capability to monitor the health of foreign financial systems. And it includes the search for ways to improve our ability to predict financial crises and thus prevent them from spreading around the world. That must be a careful, deliberate process. In the short run, however, we need to do two things. First, the Administration should speed up and perhaps augment food relief to Indonesia and other countries that may be threatened by hunger. The President has committed to provide 2.5 million tons of wheat to these people, and the Administration has now disbursed about 25 percent of that. We need to do better. We are already hearing reports of malnutrition in Indonesia; and our farmers are watching prices decline by the week. When people need food and farmers need relief, we need to act fast and we need to act boldly. Second, we in Congress ought immediately to pass our contribution to the International Monetary Fund. results of imf programs Last year, the IMF organized recovery programs for Thailand, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines, and Russia. And while even the best- off among these countries still face difficult times ahead, it's clear that those which have implemented IMF programs most efficiently now have the best prospects for early recovery. The Philippines, which under Presidents Aquino and Ramos carried out financial reform monitored by the IMF, has suffered less than any other affected country. Thailand, where the present Democrat Party government has overseen the closure of 56 finance companies and the nationalization of four banks, has seen the baht recover from a low of 57 to the dollar this February to a stable band around 40 since March. This means a reduced debt burden for Thai companies and an earlier recovery. Korea, where President Kim Dae-jung has committed to breaking up the monopolies and closed markets many of us have protested in the past, has also seen currency rates rise. By contrast, those countries which did not implement reforms early-- in particular Russia and Indonesia--now face a far more difficult future. The Indonesians--including the government as well as the citizen movements which sparked last spring's ``reformasi''--have on the whole peacefully changed a 30-year-old government; and moved on to open the press, set an election time-table, and begin economic reform. They deserve our support. criticisms of imf funding Some of course have criticised the IMF programs on the merits. And it is true that these programs have not always been flawless. For example, some have criticised them as ``austerity programs'' requiring too much economic sacrifice. To some extent I have shared that criticism. For example, I said last February that their Korea and Southeast Asia programs were mistaken in asking for budget cuts during a deep recession. But they have learned and improved over time. In Thailand, the initial IMF requirement for a budget surplus at 1 percent of GDP has been dropped and replaced with a deficit of 3.5 percent GDP. And in a larger sense, had the IMF not been there to provide loans when Thailand and Korea were threatened with default, we would be much worse off today. Others have expressed fears that these programs will create a ``moral hazard.'' That is, emergency IMF loans will encourage other countries to make the same types of mistakes later. I find this theory completely untenable. A glance at daily papers--let alone a visit to Southeast Asia or Korea--will show you families pulling their children out of school because they can't afford to pay tuition; men spending all day in local parks because they are ashamed to tell heir families they have lost their jobs; governments choosing between money for schools and money for food relief. No country anywhere in the world will want to repeat their experience. need to act now Thus, our experience with these programs is clear. Those countries which have implemented reforms are by no means in good shape, but their situation is much better than those which have not. And as we face the prospects that the crisis may spread beyond Asia, we must make sure the IMF has the resources it needs to address any new emergencies. If we do not, we run a tremendous risk. Imagine how much worse, for example, the crisis in rural America will become if we do nothing in the face of threats to Mexico, Brazil or other critical Latin American markets. The pressure we are under because of the decline in our Asian markets could double overnight. After bailing out Russia, the Fund's coffers are nearly empty, the IMF having had to draw on a credit line not used since 1978. If the House does not act soon, it risks jeopardizing global and American economic viability by rendering the IMF broke and unable to deal with future crises. To quote the Economist Magazine: If the Fund runs out of money--a real possibility if Congress remains obdurate--the next emerging market collapse could trigger a default that would spill over, fatally, to all other emerging markets. And since rich countries now account for barely half of world output, that could easily mean a global slump. Even the most isolationist congressman would hardly welcome that. Madam President, it should be noted here that allocating funds for the IMF has no budgetary impact. A capital increase in the IMF is paid for with an exchange of assets, not cash. Any country has a right to demand that its contribution to the Fund be returned--at any time. So we need to act now. We need to put political disputes aside and focus on our larger responsibilities. Thus, on a bipartisan basis and with particular credit due to Senator Hagel, the Senate has now twice voted to approve our full IMF quota. The House, however, has approved only a bill providing $3.4 billion for the IMF's New Arrangements to Borrow. This is very disappointing in itself. And I am even more troubled that some in the House have apparently decided to link this issue to support for family planning overseas. That goes beyond disappointing to irresponsible. Abortion is, as we all know, among the most heated and emotional issues we have. We can debate our views and the right way to support family planning on its own merits. But to link this question to IMF funding threatens our ability to address a financial crisis of world magnitude. u.s. responsibilities Madam President, those affected by this crisis are democracies and treaty allies: Thailand, the Philippines, and Korea. They are countries attempting to build democracy in the face of enormous challenges: Indonesia and Russia. They are Montana farmers and factory workers. And we must do the right thing. As Surin Pitsuwan, the immensely capable Thai Foreign Minister, said in his recent visit to Capitol Hill: ``We look to Washington for leadership. We need the dynamism, the energy, the focus from Washington. There is a need for leadership, and that leadership is only here.'' That is the United States. ``That is the expectation of the world.'' Madam President, let us prove him right. It is time to act; it is time to lead. Let us search, carefully but seriously, for financial reforms that will create a more stable world economy. Let us push ahead more quickly and globally with food relief, pay our U.N. dues, pass fast track, and, above all, I urge the House to act without any further delay to pass our IMF quota. That is the very least we can do now in exerting responsible American leadership in the world.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I stand before you today with a heavy heart. Why? Because I am extremely disappointed and terribly frustrated that despite our best efforts, the Agriculture appropriations conference report has completely missed the mark in responding to the crisis in farm and ranch country. As I see it, we had four issues that were worthy of bipartisan support in this conference. Proposals that would have delivered immediate support to our producers suffering from unusually low prices and natural disasters. Disaster assistance is necessary; uncapping those market assistance loans is necessary; mandatory price reporting; and, improved meat labeling--all would have helped just a little but would still have helped tremendously in view of the depths of the situation. Perhaps we've come to a meeting of the minds on natural disaster assistance. And, we should. No one can argue that drought, disease, flooding, and now hurricanes have devastated crops across the board and across the country. But what brought us to this point in the first place; that is, the crisis facing rural America? Extraordinarily low prices, prices rivaling the disaster of the 1980s, with no end in sight. And what did our Republican ag conferees deliver? Thirteen cents a bushel for wheat. To be honest, it is an outrage, it is an insult, it is a slap in the face to every hard-working, struggling, desperate grain farmer. And the so-called ``relief'' is equally inadequate for every commodity. The agriculture conference committee looked at the options, including a package offered by Senators Daschle and Harkin that would have lifted loan caps and extended the term of the marketing loan. But they shot it through the heart. We should have laid aside our partisan politics and done what was right for folks back home--giving them relief enough to make it through the crisis so they don't lose their family farm this year. The Daschle- Harkin plan to lift loan caps would give our producers roughly 60 cents a bushel--not 13 cents but 60 cents--a far cry from the pittance included in the conference report. I think we can do better. We must do better. In the 1980s we spent nearly $16 billion in just 1 year to get through that agriculture crisis. Now we are asking for half of that on a one-time, 1-year bases. Is that too much to ask? Too much to ask to help provide some relief? In Montana, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the Daschle-Harkin plan would provide Montana producers with $100 million more than the plan of 13 cents proposed by the other side. Every precious dollar counts to those in Montana's largest industry. What happened to the other parts of the package that passed the Senate--price reporting and mandatory imported meat labeling? We lost the fight to the House--an easy fight, a bipartisan fight. The result now is that we have a 6-month study on both price reporting and meat labeling--just a study. You tell me how I can tell folks back home that they have to wait for a report when they already know things aren't right in the market. They see it every day. I hear it every day in telephone calls I make to home. When I go home and talk to producers worried about holding onto the farm, or the ranch, or passing it on to their children, these people aren't complainers, they are hard workers who believe in the land and doing what is best for their community. If we do not help them, no one will. We don't need to study the problem more. Rather, we need to fix it. What will this conference report send home? It will send home rhetoric, not help them as they need help. Madam President, we still have time. The clock is ticking. But I say let's get to work. We have to work together on both sides of the aisle to help people in our country, people who are not Democrats, people who are not Republicans, people who are not Independents--people who are America's farmers. A decent cash influx for bad prices should be part of a bipartisan package; adequate disaster assistance and real price reporting and meat labeling. That is not asking much at all. That is what we should together agree to. Then together we can send a message from both sides of the aisle that we won't go home emptyhanded; that we are here to help our people; that this Congress did something right. It is simple. We should have sent this bill back to conference and crafted a package that would have really done something to halt this crisis. That is no longer an option. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the conference report which will be before us. If the report is not adopted, that is, the vote is not successful, then I say let's go back to work and do the right thing. On the other hand, if the vote on the conference report is successful, as it may well be, then I expect the President will veto it, as he should. Maybe then we can sit down and roll up our sleeves and figure out a way to adequately help our people. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator Chafee and a bipartisan group of our colleagues from the Finance Committee including Ms. Carol Mosley-Braun in introducing the Structured Settlement Protection Act. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House (H.R. 4314) by Representatives Clay Shaw and Pete Stark. The House legislation is co- sponsored by a broad bipartisan group of Members of the House Ways and Means Committee. The Treasury Department supports this bipartisan legislation. I speak today as the original Senate sponsor of the structured settlement tax rules that Congress enacted in 1982. I rise because of my very grave concern that the recent emergence of structured settlement factoring transactions--in which factoring companies buy up the structured settlement payments from injured victims in return for a deeply-discounted lump sum--completely undermines what Congress intended when we enacted these structured settlement tax rules. In introducing the original 1982 legislation, I pointed to the concern over the premature dissipation of lump sum recoveries by seriously-injured victims and their families: In the past, these awards have typically been paid by defendants to successful plaintiffs in the form of a single payment settlement. This approach has proven unsatisfactory, however, in many cases because it assumes that injured parties will wisely manage large sums of money so as to provide for their lifetime needs. In fact, many of these successful litigants, particularly minors, have dissipated their awards in a few years and are then without means of support.--Congressional Record (daily ed.) 12/10/81, at

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has taken up and passed S. 1719 and H.R. 3381, the Gallatin Land Consolidation Act of 1998. S. 1719, a bill that I have sponsored and that my good colleague Senator Burns has cosponsored, is identical to H.R. 3381, a bill sponsored by Montana Congressman Rick Hill that has already passed the House. These bills complete the Gallatin Land Exchange process--an effort that began almost ten years ago. In 1993, I had the pleasure of sponsoring the Gallatin Land Consolidation and Protection Act that completed phase 1 of this exchange. Like S. 1719, that bill was co-sponsored by Senator Burns. The House companion in that case was carried by my good friend and colleague, former Representative Pat Williams from Montana. Together, these bills represent a bipartisan effort where members from both sides of the aisle have worked in a cooperative spirit for the good of Montana. And these bills represent a broad community consensus in Montana about the needs of the Gallatin area for today and for tomorrow. Mr. President, let me tell you why these bills are good for Montana and good for America. In the early 1990s when we first began this process, the federal government owned every other section of land in the Gallatin Range. As people in the area were fond of saying, you could play checkers from Bozeman, Montana to the Yellowstone border. And while this pattern might be good for checkers, it was bad for just about every other purpose. The Forest Service could not manage this unwieldy land ownership pattern. Imagine the frustration of trying to manage every other section of land for elk habitat as houses and subdivisions spring up in the middle of your forest. And this pattern kept the public from even being able to access their public lands. Mr. President, this pattern may have made sense when it was created as part of the railroad land grants over a hundred years ago, but it does not make sense today. And that is why I am pleased that we have put our backs into this effort and, after ten years, are finally poised to complete this project. The pending legislation is supported by Montanans from all walks of life. Hunters and fishermen support the exchange because it will protect important habitat for elk and moose and will protect important fisheries. Conservationists support the exchange because it protects important grizzly bear habitat in the Taylor Fork. Loggers support the exchange because it will help deliver trees to the local mill in Livingston, Montana. And local homeowners, from the Taylor Fork to Bridger Canyon, all have endorsed this exchange. This consensus did not just happen. It was the result of a lot of hard work. I met personally with representatives from each of these groups and walked the lands involved in this exchange. I heard the concerns of Mike Liebleson from the Bridger Canyon Property Owners Association and I heard the concerns from George and Patricia Leffingwell. And we addressed their concerns. And we addressed the concerns of Montana small mills represented by the Independent Forest Products Association. And we met the concerns of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, The Wilderness Society and other local conservation organizations. And last, but certainly not least, we worked closely with the Forest Service and the Administration to try to make sure that this bill reflected their needs. Throughout this process, the private party to this exchange, Big Sky Lumber Company, has acted in good faith. They have made numerous unilateral concessions to increase the environmental benefits of this exchange and to address public concerns. Their attorney, Joe Sabol, has been instrumental in pulling this package together. Without his efforts and those of Bob Dennee, Lands Specialist for the Gallatin National Forest, and Kurt Alt, Wildlife Biologist for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, none of this would have been possible. Mr. President, this has been a community effort. And, as a result, it reflects a community consensus. This is the way that we should resolve issues in the West.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I begin by first thanking my good friend from Alaska for bringing this up as a freestanding bill. One of the objections I had earlier with some of the riders in the Interior appropriations bill first on the merits of those provisions of the bill which I think in many cases were ill-advised. A second objection I had to the riders were just that, they were riders on an appropriations bill; that is, measures which have very significant public policy implications and very significantly affect our country, many of which had no hearings. It is true one or two may have had hearings, but, by and large, the riders did not have hearings. Here we are, taking them up and passing them without an adequate opportunity for debate. The American people, rightfully, get a little upset when Congress does not in the full light of day debate the pros and cons of issues, and fully air these issues. They don't like it when riders are slipped into an appropriations bill. I might add, there will be a lot more slipped in before this Congress adjourns in the next 10 days. I very much thank my good friend from Alaska for bringing this up as a freestanding bill. That is what we are supposed to be doing here, debating issues, what the pros might be, what the cons might be, and have a debate and see what makes sense and then vote. That is the legislative process, the way it is supposed to work, and certainly the way the American people would like it to work in our democratic form of government. Senator, I thank you very much. I want you to know that I very much appreciate your bringing this bill up as a freestanding bill. That is good. I wish, frankly, that the other riders in the appropriations bill would be brought up in the same manner. I might say at this point those who are opposed to the riders have not had an opportunity to move to delete them. That is because the appropriations bill has been withdrawn. It is no longer under consideration before the Senate. So at least we have an opportunity to debate one of those provisions, and that is the Izembek Wilderness issue of the King Cove--Cold Bay matter. I thank the Senator for doing that. Turning to the merits, on the surface, the argument of the good Senator from Alaska makes some sense. It has some merit. After all, we are talking about two very remote rural communities, Cold Bay and King Cove. They are not very far apart in miles, but they are quite far apart in terms of weather. There is a big bay between the two. They are different also because of the weather. When people are injured in King Cove, sometimes they may need to get to a hospital up in Cold Bay. It is very understandable. I appreciate that. In my State of Montana, we face the same problem. Very often in rural parts of my State people want access to medical care. They don't have good access. I might remind my good friend from Alaska he and I cosponsored a bill to grant telemedicine capability to rural States. In fact, we have both stated that Montana and Alaska desperately need better rural health care access. We have the same problem Alaska does. We also have crashes of medevac helicopters in Montana, just like the Senator from Alaska referred to in his State. We have mountains. Health care access is very important. I deeply sympathize with people in King Cove, as well as those in Cold Bay--particularly those in King Cove, who need access to health care. As I understand it, 11 people have died in plane crashes in the general area. In one case, four people were killed in one emergency medical evacuation. The other people lost their lives due to reasons other than medical evacuation. We have the same problems in my State. Many times, in Montana--and I am sure this would be true with respect to the proposed road, and it is true in Alaska where there are roads--the snow drifts. In the State of Montana, we don't get a lot of snow, believe it or not, Mr. President. There is a general myth in the country that, in Montana, it is cold and we get all kinds of snow. Our average precipitation, including rainfall and snow, is about 14, 15, 16 inches a year. We don't get a lot of snow. We are not like Buffalo, or like the snowbelt up in northern New York. We don't get a lot of snow. But when it does snow, it very often blows and drifts, as I am sure is the case in the State of Alaska. It is those drifts that stop the traffic, that cause people in smaller communities great difficulty in getting to a hospital. For that reason, we have a lot of medical assistance facilities around the State. They are small facilities to help people get better health care when they cannot immediately get to a hospital because they are so far away, because of bad weather, or whatever the cause. Sometimes we try helicopters and the medevac, but often in bad weather that is dangerous; it is not always a sure thing. We are also adding a lot of telemedicine, as many States are, for rural areas. Telemedicine has a very significant role in helping to provide better health care to our rural communities. Is it the sole answer? No, by no stretch of the imagination. But more and better telemedicine will provide better health care to a lot of areas. So I want to say to the Senator that I do sympathize with the need for health care in rural areas. It is a problem. But we have to ask ourselves, as almost always is the case, what is the best way to get health care to rural areas? In the first place, it is not clear that the road is the only option for providing better health care to the residents in King Cove, or even the best option for providing medical emergency services. A few years ago, the State of Alaska began a comprehensive study of transportation between King Cove and Cold Bay. It was a major study. That study is now examining three major alternatives to tie the two areas together. One is improved air transport. Another is better marine facilities. The third is a road. I have a copy of it here. It is the King Cove/Cold Bay Transportation Improvement Assessment, prepared by an Alaskan company in Anchorage in cooperation with Northern Economics, Anchorage, AK, dated November 1997. This is a draft assessment of transportation needs conducted by the State of Alaska, to determine better access to rural areas in Alaska. When it comes to emergency medical transportation, I must say that even this preliminary study shows that there is no single silver bullet. There is no panacea that is going to solve the problem the Senator addresses. After all, bad weather is bad weather--whether it is high winds blowing to make air transportation difficult, or whether it is wind blowing snowdrifts over a road. And I must say, many days of the year on this proposed stretch that we are talking about here, it may be impassable; there are snowdrifts. Sure, we have to get more highway equipment out there to open up the roads in the winter. Sometimes that can be done quickly, but sometimes not. An emergency is an emergency. Many times, in my State, roads have been impassable for long stretches of time--close to a day--because of snowdrifts. I would guess that the same could probably happen along the road we are talking about here. Indeed, if you talk to residents who live in the area and who have written letters opposing this proposed road, that is just what they say. It is very hard during certain times of the year to get a road open because of drifting snow. I have a letter here. (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BAUCUS. When I finish this letter. This is a letter from a resident of Cold Bay. She says: ``As a lifelong resident of this area, I have some great concerns with the proposed legislation . . .'' She talks about the 25 mile proposed road. ``When we are having inclement weather, are we to believe a vehicle could drive 27 miles in whiteout conditions, drifting snow, and winds?'' She says that she lived 3\1/2\ miles out of the town of Cold Bay for 4 years with so-called ``road access'' to Cold Bay. During the winter, she says she spent many months stranded at home, or in town, depending upon where she was when the storm came. She says that the drifting snow would be so bad that it would take days--that is probably a slight exaggeration--to get the 3.2 miles plowed enough to be passable. That is not the only letter we have received. Here are some more letters from citizens from Cold Bay, AK. They say that in poor weather conditions, such as blowing snow and freezing rain, road travel becomes equally treacherous. On the Alaska peninsula they could only make the road passable seasonably. That is their view, and they live there. They talk about an alternative, which is mentioned in the Alaska report--a small ferry system--and improving the dock facility at Cold Bay. They go on to say that this has been studied for a while, and with state-of- the-art navigational aids, marine transport is probably more reliable. I might say, that is probably true in one respect. That is because, actually, the weather in the bay is not as locked up with ice or as cold as we might be led to believe. I will get to that in just a second. I have now a letter from a doctor. He comments on the road alternative. He is commenting from the point of view of medical services in King Cove. Basically, he says that while flying is obviously potentially hazardous, the proposed road in an Aleutian storm or blizzard could be equally hazardous when one considers nearly zero visibility, the absence of other traffic, the long distance through very isolated country and, of course, the ever-present winter danger of avalanches. He went on to say that he is strongly recommending several measures which would result in a marked decrease in the number of medevacs. What he thinks would be more reliable in the event of emergencies necessitating medevac would be, foremost, the implementation of state- of-the-art telemedicine. He goes on to say that another option that would circumvent the hazard of avalanches and of isolated highway transportation would be a state-of-the-art ferry system. That is just one view of one doctor who lives in Alaska. I am not saying it is conclusive or determinative, but it is a view of a doctor in Alaska. I think we all agree telemedicine helps. I think we all agree that telemedicine is not the total solution. In fact, just in June of last year, I was very proud to have had the Senator from Alaska join me when we introduced the Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Act. We want HCFA to spend up to $2 million, if we can find the funds, for computer-assisted medical information for Alaska and Montana, two rural States that contain most of the remote and frontier health care locations. Senator Murkowski says that telemedicine has already proven to be cost effective and a practical answer to the Alaska dilemma of how to provide modern health care in a vast geographical area, an area completely unconnected by roads and with access only by airplane, snowmobile, or dogsled. Telemedicine is helpful. It is not the total solution, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is very helpful. There is no single bullet. There are problems with all forms of health care assistance in very remote rural areas. The State of Alaska, I might say, is studying different options right now. They have not reached a conclusion as to what the best option would be between King Cove and Cold Bay. One option is Coast Guard air evacuation helicopter. Helicopters work sometimes; they don't work sometimes; it depends upon the weather. Another option is improved port facilities and special marine ambulances. This doesn't always work, but it works very well sometimes. And another is telemedicine. We all know that advanced telemedicine is going to be quite helpful in more rural areas. I want to underline that this study by the State of Alaska on what the best transportation option would be between King Cove and Cold Bay is not complete. It is underway right now. The State of Alaska is trying to determine, itself, what the best way would be to provide the best access between those two communities. They are looking, obviously, at effectiveness. They are looking at cost. They are looking at the environmental impact. You don't need to pass this bill before us to complete the evaluation process. You only need to pass the bill if you have already decided to build the road. But we should wait to see what the study says before we go ahead and build this road. In addition, there is another study going on to address this same problem. In the transportation appropriations bill passed by this body, the senior Senator from Alaska included a provision for another study of transportation access. This is a study that would be done by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Senator from Alaska provided about $700,000 for a study by the Army Corps of Engineers to determine transportation access needs and solutions in Alaska. That means we have two studies going on. One is the State of Alaska study, and the other is the Army Corps of Engineers study. At the very least, I think it is premature at this point to authorize a road. Rather, we should wait and see what the studies come up with. Otherwise, I just think we are wasting taxpayers' money, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers money, if we are going to decide what the solution is in advance. It reminds me of ``It's Your Money'' on TV. We spend $700,000, and the State of Alaska spends State money, to study a solution. But, before the studies are done, the money is down the drain because Congress steps in and decides what the solution is going to be.

Mr. BAUCUS. Sure.

Mr. BAUCUS. If I might respond to the Senator from Alaska, we do have more time required on our side in the sense that we are not ready for a vote for about a half hour or later. If that is the case, it probably makes sense for the Senator from Massachusetts to proceed.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might.