Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I apologize, I did not hear the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you. Mr. President, first I will chime in and praise the Senator from Minnesota. He is a fighter. As all the residents of Minnesota know and people across the country know, if there is anybody who is fighting for people's interests and to help people in America--it is the Senator from Minnesota. He is particularly right, in this Senator's view, when it comes to the action taken last night by the agriculture appropriations committee and their failure to report out legislation that in some modicum way, in a bipartisan way, helps give some encouragement to American farmers. As the Senator knows even better than I, costs facing our farmers and ranchers have just continually risen over the years. Pickup trucks, combines, farm equipment is out of sight and so expensive. At the same time, the price that farmers get for their products, commodities has just plummeted. In fact, at least in my State of Montana--I am sure it is the same for the Senator's State in Minnesota--we face wheat prices of $2, $2 a bushel, with freight rates sometimes $1 a bushel, which has to come off of the $2, so that means the farmer is only receiving about $1 a bushel for wheat, which is nowhere close to breaking even. You need about $5, $6--at least these days--just to break even in farm country. I just want to again thank the Senator. He is a real champion when it comes to helping people. And I just want to let people know, who might be listening, just what a fine Senator he is and how he works so hard for people and people's interests. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Third, the amendment will have some unintended, and perhaps dangerous, effects. Not all changes to the operation of the Columbia/Snake river system are made for the purpose of protecting fish and wildlife. Often, there are other reasons. Recently, there were concerns about sabotage of the Grand Coulee dam. The water levels were lowered, so that emergency repairs could be made. This reduced power generating capacity, probably worth a few million dollars. Under the rider, the reduction in water levels would have had to be approved by Congress. Another example. In some situations, it may be appropriate to provide more water for irrigation, at the expense of power production. Or vice versa. Or to set more space aside for flood control. Each year, the planning process starts by measuring the snowpack and predicting the runoff. In a particularly wet year, like 1997, operational changes may be needed to prevent downstream flooding, by setting aside more storage space in upstream reservoirs. In a particularly dry year, operational changes may need to be made to allocate scare water among competing uses. In many of these cases, under the rider, the agencies could only act if they received specific Congressional approval. Mr. President, we all know how hard it is to get anything passed around here. Any change that is at all controversial can be at least delayed, and maybe stopped completely. Do we really want decisions like this, that may need to be made quickly in response to constantly changing circumstances, to require specific Congressional approval? To sum it all up, this is no way to run one of the world's largest and most complex river systems. That's why we have expert federal and state agencies, like the Northwest Power Planning Council and BPA. Congress should set clear legal standards. When necessary, we must improve those standards. That's why I support S. 1180, a bill to improve the Endangered Species Act. Congress also should conduct careful oversight. But we should not require Congressional approval of the complex decisions that managers must make so that the river system functions smoothly. By requiring Congressional approval of any changes that diminish the use of the system below ``present operational plans,'' the rider goes too far. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. One last rider I will mention. This rider is section 343 of the Interior appropriations bill which limits Federal and State actions to manage the Columbia/Snake River system. I note that the chairman of the subcommittee is the present occupant of the Chair. In dealing with this subject, I have the utmost respect for what he is doing, particularly the great job he did in the Interior appropriations bill, which has many, many good features in it. He has worked very, very hard. It is a very complex bill, with NEA, the Forest Service, and Indian lands. I compliment the Chair. With respect to this provision, we have a difference of opinion. I state that with all due respect. The Columbia/Snake River basin covers about 259,000 square miles, including large parts of the State of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. It is home to several endangered fish species, including several stocks of salmon. The number of salmon has fallen dramatically from an estimated 10 million fish in the historical runs to about 1 million today. For several years, we have been trying to bring salmon back, in part by improving the operations of the river system. We have improved fish screens; we have improved fish ladders. We have barged salmon around dams. We have modified water flows to help juvenile salmon migrate downstream and adult salmon migrate upstream. These modifications have been controversial because they sometimes restrict other uses of the river, such as power generation, irrigation, transportation, and recreation. Like many others in the Northwest delegation, I have not been particularly happy with every decision that has been made. In fact, I supported a cap on the amount of fish-related expenses that is passed along to BPA ratepayers. We had to have that cap or else I believe the Federal agency would have gone too far. I also oppose some of the drawdowns at the Libby dam and Hungry Horse dams in northwest Montana because of the effects on recreation and the adverse effects on the bull trout. I have maintained, however, that we should work within the framework of our environmental laws. There are a lot of competing considerations, and one is the framework of our environmental laws. The rider that I am referring to, section 343 of the Interior appropriations bill, would change that. It would override the Endangered Species Act, it would override the Clean Water Act, the Northwest Power Planning Act, and the Federal Power Act. To put the issue in perspective, let me briefly explain how the Columbia/Snake River system is managed now. In 1995, under the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion describing the actions that the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration must take, consistent with their other obligations, to save the wild salmon from extinction. The biological opinion includes both short and long- term measures. In the short-term, it requires several changes. For example, it requires increased flows during fish migration seasons, better use of spills, improved methods of barging fish, limits on ocean fishing, and the use of more effective fish screens and fish ladders. By 1999, it requires the Corps to assess the effect of a major drawdown of dams on the lower Snake River. This could include the breaching or removal of up to four dams. Those four dams are Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite. They can be seen on this map of the Columbia Reserve Basin. What does this rider do? How would it affect current operations? It would have two main effects. The rider provides that the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Corps of Engineers and other agencies must receive specific congressional authorization before breaching or removing any federally operated or licensed dam on the Columbia/Snake system. In addition, the rider says that Federal and State agencies must get specific congressional authorization before taking any action that would ``diminish below present operational plans the Congressionally authorized uses of flood control, irrigation, navigation and * * * energy generating capacity of any such dam.'' Let me address these effects one at a time. The first issue is breaching or removing dams. As I said earlier, the Corps is studying the breach or removal of four dams on the lower Snake River--Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite. I understand the argument that over time, over the long term, breaching or removing the dam is the best way to protect and recover salmon. After all, if you return a river to its natural condition, you don't have to manage water levels to mimic the river's natural condition when fish migrate up or down stream. But we are not living in the abstract. In most cases, removing a dam is a big step with major consequences for power production, for irrigation, for transportation, and for recreation. For example, breaching or removing the lower Snake River dams would most likely eliminate Lewiston, ID, as a river port. Many farmers from Idaho, Montana and elsewhere ship grain by truck or rail to Lewiston and barge to Portland for export to Asia. I believe an action of this kind should definitely require congressional approval. But that is already the case. In testimony earlier this year, the Commander of the Corps' Northwest Division said, It is our opinion that the Corps cannot use its existing legal authority to remove lower Snake projects . . . New statutory authority would be required to undertake these actions since the proposed actions would eliminate or significantly affect specific project purposes provided for in the authorizing legislation. That is the commander of the Corps' Northwest Division. So there is not an issue here with respect to removing or breaching dams. The rider is unnecessary in that respect. Congressional approval already is required. This takes us to the second part of the rider. It requires congressional approval before an agency can take any action that will ``diminish below present operational plans'' the congressionally authorized uses of any dam on the Columbia/Snake system. As I read the amendment, there would have to be specific congressional approval before a Federal or State agency makes any operational or management change that would reduce power production, irrigation, flood control or recreation. I believe that goes too far for three main reasons. First, it is impractical. It would tie the management of the river system in knots. The management of the Columbia/Snake system is a very complex undertaking. It involves at least four Federal agencies: Bonneville Power, National Marine and Fisheries Service, Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. It also involves the Northwest Power Planning Council, the States of Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, the government of Canada, many Indian tribes and scores of public and private utilities. There are hundreds of people involved. To coordinate operations, the Federal agencies develop at least three operational plans each year: A flood control plan, a hydropower plan and a water management plan. During the spring and summer, a technical management team meets each week in Portland to review operations and make any necessary changes. By locking everything in and providing that Congress must approve any action that diminishes other uses of the system below ``present operational plans,'' we would be micromanaging one of the largest and most complex river systems in the world. The second problem is the congressional management may put several endangered species at risk of extinction. If changes are necessary to protect a newly listed species or further protect a species already listed to prevent it from being wiped out, the change would require congressional approval. Even minimal changes to provide specie protection may require Congress to act. For example, new scientific evidence indicates that spills are more effective at protecting fish if they are conducted gradually over a 24- hour period rather than only at night. This approach slightly reduces power-generating capacity. So under the rider the agencies would need to get congressional approval before they can make a change. The rider would not only threaten Federal efforts to protect the environment, but it would also threaten State efforts to protect the environment. Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, when a Federal dam is being licensed or relicensed, States can impose conditions on the license in order to protect water quality. Many States do. For example, several States in the West have imposed conditions necessary to prevent dams from generating elevated levels of dissolved oxygen which can harm fish. Utilities have questioned whether States have this authority, but the Supreme Court has held that they do. The Gorton amendment would change all that. As I read it, a State agency could not impose any license condition that diminished power generation, unless it received the approval of the licensee or Congress. That would, in effect, eliminate the section 401 authority that States have fought so hard to maintain. The directors of the Western Governors' Association and the Western States Water Council share this view. In a joint letter, they say that, although their organizations do not take a position about breaching or making operational changes at any dam, the rider ``appears to clearly have the potential of diminishing State prerogatives under section 401, with regard to the rivers and streams identified in the amendment.'' The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also takes this view. In a letter, the FERC Chairman says that the rider ``would bar, absent specific congressional approval, State and Federal agencies from requiring or authorizing certain actions affecting the authorized uses of any Federal or federally-licensed dams on the Columbia or Snake rivers or their tributaries.'' I ask unanimous consent that both letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Cole, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to mention another anti- environment rider in the Interior appropriations bill. I have already discussed two of them. One is Glacier Bay and the other is Izembek. This will be the third. Mr. President, this amendment deletes the rider that limits the Forest Service's ability to close roads on National Forests that threaten public safety or the environment. Let me explain. The Forest Service has constructed over 370,000 miles of roads on National Forests across America--370,000 miles of roads. These roads, the ones that Forest Service has constructed, are called authorized roads; another name given to them is systems roads. Most of these are single-lane roads. They are relatively low quality, often built to harvest timber. They are just basic roads built to meet basic needs. Many of these roads, though, have outlived their intended purpose. They are no longer needed. That is, they are built essentially to harvest timber, a lot of them, or built for a specific purpose and that purpose is no longer in use. So the roads therefore are no longer needed. About 40 percent of the 370,000 miles of authorized roads are maintained to public safety and environmental standards. The remaining 60 percent are in poor condition and in many cases are a threat--a real threat--to the public safety or a threat to water quality or often a threat to wildlife habitat. In addition to these authorized roads, the Forest Service estimates that there are at least 60,000 miles of additional roads. These unauthorized roads are sometimes referred to as ghost roads. This is a photograph, Mr. President, of typical ghost roads. These are created when somebody decides that he or she wants to drive a pickup, a car, or a four-wheeler to a stream, or whatnot. After a while, a few people drive back and forth and we end up with an unauthorized road or a ghost road. Another example is here. Here is a young fellow on a bicycle. It is close, perhaps, to a stream. It is hard to tell from this photograph, but basically after a bit more use it becomes kind of a road--a ghost road. There are about 60,000 miles of these kinds of ghost roads that the Forest Service thinks exist out in the National Forests--roads caused by people, not roads that the Forest Service has planned or built. Again, Mr. President, just to recapitulate, there are about 370,000 miles of roads the Forest Service has planned on building. Most of these are deteriorating. Many of these roads were intended to be used as logging roads to harvest timber, and the timber harvest is gone; that is, the timber has been harvested so they are no longer in use. Then there are 60,000 miles of ghost roads not planned by the Forest Service and which are created by people who drive around in pickups or other off-road vehicles. Mr. President, the Forest Service cannot safely manage all of the authorized and the unauthorized, so-called ghost roads that cover our National Forests. It just cannot do it. There are too many roads. Too many miles of roads. As a result, many of these roads are safety hazards, and some cause significant environmental problems. Mr. President, let me show you these two photographs. These are photographs of authorized roads, of system roads, of roads the Forest Service planned--not the ghost roads. In this top photograph of this road, you can tell the road is washed out. It is just washed out. Here is another photograph of another authorized road, the kind the Forest Service plans on. What happened here? The bridge went out. Some poor unlucky fellow did not realize the bridge had gone out until he caused it to go out. The bridge just collapsed. This guy's pickup went down on the collapsed bridge on the authorized road. Obviously, the bridge has rotted out. In other cases, the authorized roads create environmental hazards. I might tell you what the top road is. This is a road on the Mount Baker/ Snoqualmie National Forest that has washed out. These types of washouts often clog streams, as you might guess. They kill fish. That is pretty obvious. And in the middle of the night, they can be one heck of a pothole. When roads such as these are unsafe, or cause environmental problems, we have two options. One is to fix the road; and the other is to decommission the road. Just a fancy way of saying closing it. In deciding which roads to upgrade or close, the Forest Service sets priorities, obviously, based on public safety, based on environmental concerns, on a forest-by-forest basis. Let's face it, road closures can be a big issue in some parts of the country. I know that is very much the case in my State of Montana; people have strongly held views as to which roads should be closed and which roads not. These are not easy decisions for the Forest Service to make. But the Forest Service personnel by-and-large do the very best they can. And they do so after talking with the public. And they make their decisions based on what they think the public wants and based upon safety and based upon environmental needs. Well, this is where the rider comes in. This rider prevents funds from being used to remove any authorized road until the regional forester certifies that all the ghost roads have been either upgraded to U.S. Forest Service standards or closed. That is, the Forest Service cannot look at any of the authorized roads in a region until it looks at all the ghost roads and either closes or upgrades each of them. What does that mean? That means the Forest Service could not close any authorized road no matter how great a safety hazard it is until the Forest Service can certify that every single mile of the ghost roads, that is these kinds of roads--the little pathways--who-knows-where- they-are in the forest, have been either upgraded to either system standards or have been removed. For starters, this is virtually impossible. The Forest Service does not even know where many of these ghost roads are. More important, this rider does not take into account whether these roads pose the greatest immediate threat to public safety or the environment. In sum, this simplistic one-size-fits-all approach would wreak havoc on the ability of the Forest Service to sensibly manage roads in our National Forests. As I mentioned early, the Forest Service now sets priorities for closing roads on a forest-by-forest basis, based on what the public wants, based on public safety, based on environmental protection and restoration needs. A whole host of considerations go into it on a forest-by-forest basis or perhaps a district-by-district basis, not a one-size-fits-all national standard imposed on a Washington, DC, basis that you can't do anything with your system of roads until you either upgrade or close the ghost roads. This rider would force the Forest Service to inventory thousands of miles of ghost roads and spend limited taxpayers' money upgrading or removing the roads, even if they are not causing safety or environmental problems. Here is an example. Assume that the Deer Lodge National Forest in my State of Montana has an authorized road built to harvest timber, a very common occurrence. The timber has been harvested and the road is no longer needed, also very typical. Soon, the road is sliding down the mountain and it is unsafe for travel because of slippage and erosion and the road is clogging a stream, choking the fish in that stream, which often happens, too. If this rider passed, the forest managers could not remove that road until it had inventoried the entire forest and found where each of the ghost roads were located and then either closed all those ghost roads or upgraded all to system standards. Let me repeat that. If this rider passed, the Forest Service could not remove the road I mentioned that is clogging up a stream until it has inventoried all ghost roads, and either upgraded the ghost roads--that is, the paths--to road standards, or closed them. Plain and simple, this rider does not make sense. It does not meet the ``common sense'' test. It prevents the Forest Service from closing roads that now pose a very significant threat to public safety and the environment. It would prevent the Forest Service from doing its job. I believe the Forest Service should be able to close roads based on public needs, not on an arbitrary distinction of whether the road is authorized or unauthorized. To protect public safety and the environment, I believe this rider on the Interior appropriations bill should be deleted. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to my friend, he can mention the name because he knows more than I do. I don't know the name.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of another Democratic Senator, I must respectfully object.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The State of Alaska is already evaluating various alternatives and there is provision in the current transportation appropriations bill, that the Senate passed in July, that adds $700,000 for the Corps of Engineers to study rural access issues in Alaska. That is already in there. Alaska is now studying various alternatives that affect rural access issues. With these two studies out there, one by the State of Alaska and the other by the Army Corps of Engineers, now is not the time to jump to conclusions and pass a rider which authorizes the construction of a road through a wilderness area. I say, let's let the studies examine the evidence, let the studies weigh the alternatives. Let's see if the road is, in fact, the best way to meet the stated needs. It may be and may not be. But the fact of the matter is, when you look a lot deeper into this, the real impetus behind the road may not be emergency medical evacuation. That is not the real driving force here. Really, it is that the folks there have an economic interest in having a road. I might say, too, that is true of many communities--not only in Alaska, but other parts of the country. I understand those needs. People move to and live in King Cove because they want to live there. That is their home. That is their choice. There are ways to deal with the medical needs that may arise, but I do not think it makes sense to put in an appropriations bill a requirement that a road be built when there are two outstanding studies looking at this issue to see what the best way is to solve the access issue, particularly with respect to emergency medical services. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor. I see my good friend from Missouri on the floor. I cannot, for the life of me, have any idea what he is going to talk about, given the State he is from and given the magnificent feat of one of his local citizens in the last few days, with the number 70 behind it. I very respectfully yield the floor so my good friend from Missouri can address the Senate.

Mr. BAUCUS. Three minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for 3 more minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I mentioned, the State of Alaska is currently evaluating various alternatives to improve transportation between these two communities. One of the alternatives being studied is construction of a 30-mile road that would cut through 8 miles of the Izembek Wilderness and 3 miles of nonwilderness refuge lands. You can tell from the map here, this is where the road would be. And this is the area of wilderness that would be affected. From King Cove, around the bay, up to Cold Bay. That is one alternative to be considered. Again, it would cut through 8 miles of wilderness and 3 miles of nonwilderness refuge lands. Section 126 of the bill establishes a 60-foot-wide swath through the refuge for this road. In exchange, the bill adds 664 acres of adjacent lands to the refuge. The avowed primary purpose of this rider is to improve public access to emergency medical services for the residents of King Cove. It is a serious problem, one that affects people's lives and health. I do not deny that. But this is also about increasing convenience for local residents and enhancing regional economic development. My State also has vast distances and remote communities, although not as large a scale as in Alaska. So I am very sensitive to the concerns of the people of Alaska and certainly of the views of the Senators from Alaska. However, I believe that the Izembek rider is the wrong solution to the problem that occurs between King Cove and Cold Bay. First of all, the rider establishes a very troubling precedent. Congress has never authorized the construction of a road through a wilderness area, certainly not as a rider to an appropriations bill. If we do so in this case, it will be more difficult to hold the line in the future. Second, this road would have serious environmental consequences. The importance of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is internationally recognized. It provides vital habitat to hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, to brown bears, and to caribou. Its location on the Alaska peninsula makes the Refuge a critical resting and feeding ground for migratory waterfowl that pass through Izembek each spring and fall. This is a map which shows the migratory patterns of various waterfowl and other birds, such as the Black Brant--the purple line here. They stop here at Izembek. 100,000 Emperor Geese stop here in the spring and fall; 150,000 Black Brant, 85,000 Canadian Geese, 150,000 Steller's Eider, and about 31 species of shore birds. These are the Arctic breeding grounds in the summer, and parts of the year they go south to winter. It is a very important refuge. This rider, I might say, would cut this Refuge in half. It would fragment the coastal wetlands and tundra that are considered essential to many of these species. It would destroy the character of the wilderness area. This, Mr. President, is the picture of a typical road in Alaska that would be contemplated by this amendment. You can see what condition it is in. This is a very good road. In comparison, this is a road that now exists in part of the wilderness area. This is what is there now. This is what would be contemplated. As you can tell, it is a pretty good size road. It is no small little cow path. Third, and perhaps most significantly, there are many ways to address the legitimate transportation problems at King Cove without violating the Izembek Refuge: Coast Guard air evacuation is one; better port facilities and special marine ambulances are another; as well as telemedicine and other medical advances. After all, in bad weather, with high winds and blowing snow, a road can be very risky and often impassable. In fact, I might read a letter from the Anchorage Daily News. It is a citizen, Tara P. Fuller, who is from Cold Bay. I will put it in the Record, but her basic point is that this is ridiculous, this amendment, this rider, which would allow this road. Because, she says, often this road would be totally impassable with snowdrifts. When storms come, the road would have to be plowed. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue the Senate addressed yesterday, amendment #3616 by Senator Harkin. While I cast my vote against tabling this Sense of the Senate, I must admit I did so with great personal reluctance. I respect the independence of the Federal Reserve Board, and I particularly respect the judgement and ability of its Chairman, Alan Greenspan. Our country has experienced an unprecedented period of economic growth and stability. Congress took the politically difficult step of putting our financial house in order by enacting the 1994 budget reconciliation legislation. But the steady hand of the Federal Reserve Board and its Open Market Committee has helped that seed grow. With the able leadership of Alan Greenspan, the Fed has helped guide our country from the brink of recession to an unprecedented period of economic growth. But even the Fed is looking at the current economic conditions and re-evaluating its interest rate policies. We have a problem with liquidity of capital in this country, which makes it harder for other countries to stabilize their currencies. As they try to acquire dollars, two things happen. First, our foreign trading partners find it increasing more difficult to purchase American goods. Just ask any farmer in Montana whether this has negative economic consequences for our country and you will get an earful. If farmers can't sell their products in the export market, they cannot survive economically. Communities that are economically dependent upon farmers find themselves in their own downward spiral, as businesses who rely on farmers to buy their goods are also squeezed economically. This same pattern can be repeated in other communities around the country, whether their economic health is tied into farm exports or any other kind of exports. The second consequence of tight capital is that it can lead to what is known as deflation. It has been a long time since we have had to worry about a deflationary spiral in this country, but it certainly seems to me that this time has regretfully arrived. Our foreign trading partners need dollars desperately because of the devaluation of their own currencies, so they try harder to sell their goods to American consumers. The lower price of these goods drives down the price of domestically produced goods too. American companies cut production, which forces them to also cut employment. As unemployment begins to edge up, consumer confidence and purchasing drops, which causes further drops in price. So whether we can't sell our products abroad, or too many lower- priced foreign goods are being sold here, the result is the same--a deterioration of our own domestic economy. I believe the signs all point to an inevitable lowering of interest rates by the Fed. Whether it is done at this next meeting or at some future one, I cannot see another alternative. So while this is a hard vote for me, because of my natural inclination to defer to Mr. Greenspan and the other members of the Federal Open Market Committee, I truly believe it is the right answer not only for our domestic economy but for our global economy as well.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to report briefly on the effort to bring up the Endangered Species Recovery Act, S. 1180. When we were debating the Interior appropriations bill on Wednesday, Senator Kempthorne, the Senator from Idaho, indicated that he planned to offer an amendment that would largely embody the substance of S. 1180. I strongly support S. 1180. But we are no longer considering the Interior appropriations bill, and it is not clear whether we will again. I think the far better approach is to take up S. 1180 as a freestanding bill. After all, that bill was reported on October 31, 1997, almost 1 year ago. It is a solid bill, it is balanced, it is good for endangered species, and it is good for private landowners. It has bipartisan support. The vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee was 15-3. The bill was supported by every Republican member of the committee and by a majority of the Democratic members. The bill is also strongly supported by the Clinton administration. To my mind, there is no good reason why we cannot bring up S. 1180 for debate on the Senate floor. Moreover, that approach has two important advantages over trying to attach it to the Interior appropriations bill. First, we do not have the Interior appropriations bill. That is one big difficulty. In addition, bringing up S. 1180 as a freestanding bill assures full and fair debate and an opportunity for amendments. We are likely to get amendments from the left, from the right, from the middle, and who knows where. I am sure that we can work out most of them. Of course, I will oppose amendments that would disrupt the balance of the bill. That is the agreement I reached with Senator Kempthorne and Senator Chafee, Interior Secretary Babbitt, those of us who put this bill together; that is, oppose amendments that would disrupt the balance achieved in the bill. But every Senator should have a shot. In the end, such a process, I believe, will increase support for the bill. In addition, this approach--bringing it up as a freestanding bill-- assures that the bill will be taken up under the leadership and jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and that includes any conference with the House. Members of the committee have worked long and worked hard--over several years, I might add--to develop this legislation. We should follow through rather than hand the bill off to an Appropriations Committee that is already bearing such heavy burdens as the fiscal clock winds down. S. 1180, I say to my good friend, the Presiding Officer, is on the calendar. Here is the calendar. S. 1180 is on it. It has been on the calendar for almost a year. It is a good bill. We can be proud of it. We should take it up as a freestanding bill. So where do things stand today? Yesterday, both Cloakrooms asked Senators whether they wished to offer any amendments. On our side there are about 20. I am now beginning to review the amendments and discuss them with Members and their staff to see if we can reduce that number. The majority is doing the same. It is my hope, Mr. President, that, working with the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, and the majority and minority leaders, we will be in a position to bring the bill up, for debate and for amendment, within a matter of days. For my part, I will do whatever I can to make this possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Very, very short, I say to my friend from New Mexico--4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from New York. First let me say that I have a great deal of sympathy for the problem that the Senator is attempting to address. When banks first began to install ATM machines, I remember the reluctance many consumers expressed about this new technology. They were worried about whether their deposits would be safe, whether strangers would find it easier to get into their bank accounts and steal their money. The banks initially sold consumers on the use of the machines by calling them a cost-saving measure--ATMs were supposed to help banks cut costs by allowing them to serve more people for longer hours, without the need for high employee salaries or costly new branches. In those early years, it appeared that these claims were paying off. And consumers became addicted to the convenience. No longer did you have to spend your lunch hour at the bank's drive-in window to deposit a paycheck--you could do it after work at the ATM instead. Consumer demand also led to an unexpected growth of ATM machines located in businesses other than banks. Now you can do your banking at the grocery store, the convenience store, the airport--any other place where there is demand. But the economics of operating ATMs in those remote locations are not the same as operating them in the bank building itself. It is a lot more expensive to service the machines, collect and process deposits every day, or to provide security. And the networking banks have provided means more consumers are using ATM machines at banks other than their own--again with higher operating costs. The convenience of banking virtually any place at any time has its cost. ATM fees allow banks to recoup at least some of those costs from the consumers using the services. I know that ATM fees rankle those of us who don't appreciate having to pay a fee to have access to our own money. And I also understand the arguments of the Senator from New York and others who claim big banks are making large profits from their fees. However, I also believe that ATM fees represent the purest form of user fee. If consumers don't want to pay the fees, they don't have to use the ATMs. But for those who are willing to pay, the fees allow banks to provide ATMs in more locations, making it more convenient to do our banking. If the D'Amato amendment is approved, two things will happen. First, banks will immediately re-evaluate the economics of all their ATMs, and those that are the least cost-effective will simply be removed. Rural areas, like those in my State of Montana, will be particularly hard hit. The low volume of usage, combined with the higher cost of maintenance because of the distances involved, will make many rural ATMs unaffordable for the sponsoring banks. Let me give you just one example sent to me by the 1st Bank of Sidney, Montana. Sidney is a town representative of a lot of towns throughout Montana and other rural parts of our country. 1st Bank has an ATM machine at a 24-hour gas station and convenience store located on the main street through town. Even with the current ATM fee, 1st Bank lost almost $8,000 on that machine in 1997. Now $8,000 doesn't sound like a lot of money, but in states like Montana, believe me it can be. I don't know whether 1st Bank will close this particular ATM if they are not allowed to recoup at least part of their costs by charging a fee. I do know that right now, hundreds of Montanans who used that machine in 1997 had a choice--if they didn't think the convenience of the machine was worth the $1.00 fee, they didn't have to use the machine. If the ATM is removed because the bank decides it isn't worth the cost, we have legislatively taken from these consumers the ability to make that choice. They won't be able to decide on their own whether the convenience is worth the cost. We will force them to find other ways to do their banking. Approval of the D'Amato amendment will also have a second consequence, that I believe we need to consider. Right now, those who use ATMs pay for the convenience. In places where the fees don't cover the costs of operating the machines, those of us who don't use ATMs, or don't use them frequently, help subsidize those who do. Eliminating the ability to charge those who benefit from the convenience of an ATM simply makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us to avoid these charges. The old adage ``there is no free lunch'' is very applicable here. Someone has to pay the cost of operating an ATM. If we prohibit banks from charging those who use ATMs, it simply means everybody else will end up picking up the tab. And it won't matter whether we discipline ourselves to do our banking inside the bank, through the drive-in window, or electronically in order to avoid the fees. Every transaction will carry part of the cost of operating that ATM, because it will be built into the banks' operating costs. Mr. President, I don't think those of us here in Washington, DC, should be dictating to consumers how to do their banking. I believe consumers should be allowed to continue deciding for themselves whether the convenience of an ATM is worth the cost. If enough consumers decide the answer is no, the marketplace will correct itself. Banks will be forced to reduce fees and cull out less profitable locations. But this will happen in response to consumer demand, not legislative fiat. I believe this it the right answer. I urge my colleagues to vote against the D'Amato amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public Buildings Reform Act of 1998. Let me start by expressing my thanks to the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and the Chairman of the relevant subcommittee, Senator Warner, for their support of this bill. Mr. President, the Public Buildings Reform Act will go a long way to helping Congress make wise decisions on public buildings construction. It will help Congress achieve some discipline with respect to the cost of new Federal buildings and courthouses. Specifically, the bill will bring some sanity to the Federal building and courthouse construction program. I have been working on Federal building issues for a number of years. And the more I have learned about the issue, the more concerned I have become. It is very important that we reform the Federal building and courthouse construction program. This bill will do just that. Why do we need reform? Because of the amount of funding that is devoted each year to new courthouse and other Federal building projects. We need to spend this money wisely and only on those projects that are truly needed. The Public Buildings Reform Act will help do just that. It accomplishes two major goals--prioritization of courthouse projects and other Federal buildings projects; and gaining control of the courthouse construction design guide. The Public Buildings Reform Act of 1998 is similar to legislation I introduced a few years ago. At that time, the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously passed this legislation--which then went on to pass the entire Senate. However, the House failed to act on this legislation. So we find ourselves in the position of trying again. I and my colleagues introduce this legislation at this time so that the debate on public buildings reform will continue. I have been pleased that GSA and the Administrative Office of the Courts have made numerous improvements to the public building approval process since 1995. But these improvements must be codified so that there is no question that they will be continued in the future. Also, there are further steps that need to be taken in the area of Federal Government asset management. It is my hope that in the coming months, Congress will look hard at the public buildings approval process and will prepare legislation that can be enacted in the next Congress. Working with GSA, the Courts and others, I am confident we can take the steps necessary to assure the taxpayers that there are appropriate cost controls in place. That is our job. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my leader from South Dakota. Mr. President, I think many minds on this amendment are already made up. I, just for a couple of minutes, would like to speak to those Senators who have not yet made up their minds. The point very simply is this: There are a good number of farmers and ranchers. I daresay most of them are in dire straits through problems and conditions that are no fault of theirs. They didn't cause them. Prices for their products are way below cost of production, whether it is wheat, cattle prices, whatnot. For example, in my State of Montana, farmers are getting $2 a bushel. They subtract from that $1 a bushel for freight costs and that ends up $1 a bushel. The price of a loaf of bread in the supermarkets is pretty close to that. There is no way in the world a farmer can begin to make ends meet in these conditions, and that is true for most farmers. The amendment before us is very simple. It just says take the cap off the loan rates just for crops that are harvested in 1998--not for next year, just 1998--to put a little bit of cash in farmers' pockets to help them pay the loans, to help them make the payments to the bank, to help them just a little bit. I must tell you, raising the caps is nowhere close to solving the problem. It is just a little bit. Why are prices so low? Very simply, because of worldwide production, countries are subsidizing producing wheat. Second, we are in dire straits because of the Asian crisis. Asia is not buying anymore. Third, because the U.S. dollar is so high. Farmers didn't cause those problems, but farmers are facing those problems, and in some parts of the country, there is a drought, there is flooding, there is infestation of insects. They are stuck. The only argument of any credibility I have heard against this amendment----

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. The only credible argument I have heard against this amendment is it breaks open Freedom to Farm and it might raise worldwide prices because you are raising loan rates. The short answer to that is we are not opening Freedom to Farm. This is just a 1-year, temporary payment to meet an emergency. And secondly, we have no idea what the prices are going to be next year. We have no idea. We can't let perfection be the enemy of the good. At least adopt this amendment to help farmers right now. We will worry about next year, next year. This amendment is very much needed. Mr. President, I very much thank the Senator from South Dakota for yielding this time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Lisa De Land Financial Protection Act. The bill that I am introducing would allow the families of disabled persons to keep the money that they put in trust funds to care for their family members. Individual states would have the option of whether or not to recover those funds. Recently, Virginia De Land, a concerned Montanan contacted me regarding a problem that her family was facing. The De Land family is from Missoula, Montana. Their daughter, Lisa suffers from a genetic disease that has affected her since birth. It is called Williams Syndrome. Williams Syndrome is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 20,000 births. Those who suffer from the syndrome are missing genetic material on their seventh chromosome. They are excessively social people. They have low to normal IQ's, however they are often gifted musically and have great social interactions skills. People who suffer from Williams Syndrome are almost always extroverts. From the time that Lisa was small, her parents wanted to be able to assume some responsibility for her healthcare. At one point the family tried to buy an annuity. In order for Lisa to qualify for programs such as medicaid and SSI, the family's lawyer advised them to disinherit Lisa. If Lisa had other money set aside for her, she would have access to medicaid. For middle income families, it is virtually impossible to support a child with a disability on their finances alone. Self Sufficiency trust funds allow families to use money in a variety of ways. The money can be used for reasons as varied as the disabilities that individuals have. For example, if an individual has to live in a group home, money can be used to provide that person with a separate telephone in his or her room. In Montana, these trusts are great mechanisms that allow families help support loved ones. These trusts let families provide support without disinheriting a child and allow them to have ongoing participation in the healthcare process. For example, if Lisa had a self-sufficiency trust, she would still qualify for medicaid and her family would still be able to provide some assistance for her. With the implementation of the Medicaid Recovery Act, any trust that was set up would be recovered by the federal government when the medicaid recipient turned 55, or when that person passed away. Lisa's parent's had hoped that when she no longer needed the money from the trust fund, that money would go to the rest of their children. Current law requires the Government to recover that money, denying the other children access to it. Many people with disabilities have a short life expectancy. In this case, these families would not be affected by this law. However, Lisa has a normal life expectancy and with this law, the money that is set aside for her health care will be recovered by the government. It is important for individual states to have the option to choose whether or not these funds are recovered. Families across the country and in my home state of Montana are seriously affected by this problem. It is time to make a change in the system that will help out average families in extreme circumstances. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.