Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Rhode Island that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program has been an effective part of the highway program. It's given construction companies owned by women and minorities a seat at the table. I also believe that the program is constitutional. Under the Supreme Court's Adarand decision, affirmative action programs like the DBE program must pass two tests. The first is that the program serve a compelling interest. The lower court decision in the Adarand case held that there is such a compelling interest. The Senate debate reinforced this point. There was discussion of discrimination in the construction industry, and of statistics showing the underutilization of women- and minority-owned businesses in that industry, such as evidence of dramatic decreases in DBE participation in those areas in which DBE programs have been curtailed or suspended. There also was discussion of the second test, whether the program is narrowly tailored. As I explained in my statements during debate on the McConnell amendment, I believe that the program is narrowly tailored, both under the current regulations and the new regulations, which emphasize flexible goals tied to the capacity of firms in the local market, the use of race-neutral measures, and the appropriate use of waivers for good faith efforts. As I said during the Senate debate, the DBE program is fair. It is necessary. And it works. I am pleased that, in rejecting amendments that would have undermined the DBE program, the Senate has reaffirmed its commitment to equal opportunity.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to my very good friend, the Senator from Oregon, I strongly agree with the Senator. In States that have already made a substantial investment in intelligence transportation tests and deployment projects, nothing in this bill before us, the new TEA-21, the old ISTEA II bill, will interfere with ongoing deployment and system implementation in these States.

Mr. BAUCUS. The bill clarifies that it does not affect EPA's authority to provide for state implementation of the agreements and recommendations set forth in the June 1996 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report on a schedule consistent with the Commission's Report. This was a critical issue for the conferees. The conferees recognize that the Commission's Report was the product of several years of debate and analysis, and reflects broad consensus on control strategies and measures that should proceed with implementation. The conferees added specific language so as not to preclude the Administrator from providing for earlier state implementation of the Commission's agreements and recommendations, consistent with the implementation schedules in the Commission's Report.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to first compliment the chairman of our committee, Senator Chafee, who has done, I believe, an extraordinary job. I wish Members of the Senate who were not in the conference committee could have watched the proceedings. They would have seen the chairman set a very civil, gracious, and respectful tone. That was the tone of the conference. Sometimes conferences get pretty acrimonious. This one was not at all. Just a brief summary of the bill, Mr. President, on where we are. This is truly a historic bill. That is a term that many Members of Congress use somewhat loosely around here. But this one really is. And I think even compared to the last ISTEA bill, this is historic. Let me tell you why. For the first time, all the dollars that we as citizens pay in fuel taxes when we put gasoline in our cars, or diesel fuel in our pickups, will go into the highway trust fund. And all the dollars that come out of that trust fund will go back in the form of highway allocation, or mass transit allocation. We are not changing the distribution between mass transit or highways. But, again, all the dollars that come into the trust fund paid for by gasoline taxes will come out of the trust fund through to the State's allocation for their various highway programs, or, in the case of the mass transit account, to the mass transit account. That is a major change from the current practice. The current practice, for those of us who fill the gas tank and put dollars into the highway trust fund through our gasoline taxes and are not sure that those dollars are going to come back in the form of highway allocations, sometimes those dollars at the will of the Congress and the President are used for other purposes. That will no longer be the case. Dollars in, dollars out. We also wrote into this legislation a guarantee called a ``firewall'' to make sure that happens. It is not totally 100 percent guaranteed, but for all intents and purposes, it might as well be. After that huge increase, we have a lot more highway dollars coming out, not only because of the guarantee I mentioned but also because just recently Congress enacted legislation to ensure that the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gasoline tax previously used for deficit reduction is now going into the highway trust fund, which means 4.3 cents more than previously was the case. The rule of thumb basically is that 1 penny of gasoline tax--about $1.6 billion, or $7 billion--goes into the highway trust fund. This is a big increase. On average, States will receive about a 43-percent increase in highway funds for each of the next 6 years compared with what they have received in the past 3 years. It is again for those reasons. I might also say that the attempt of the conferees, which I think was met, was for regional balance. This process started in the Senate about a year ago. Senator Warner from Virginia, myself, Senator Chafee, and Senator Moynihan, also for all intents and purposes, introduced separate bills representing different parts of the country, each part having generally a different point of view. Senator Warner was essentially concerned proportionally more about the donor States; that is, those States which historically have been receiving from the trust fund considerably fewer dollars than they have been putting in. Then there are the Western States, and small States which have unique circumstances because of low population density, and sometimes wide spaces, which also have a certain point of view. Then, third, there are the Northeast States by and large--I grant you these are very rough estimates and a very rough explanation. But the Northeast States, which are more densely populated historically, receive quite a bit of highway funds as well as mass transit funds. We try to give balance in this bill, first by ensuring that the donor States, those that would put so much into the highway trust fund but receiving a lot less, are guaranteed essentially 90 cents on the dollar--90.05 cents. There are some adjustments. That is basically it. In addition, small States receive what small States believe would be a fair share. It is true that the Northeastern States don't get the same, on average, percent increase. But that is, to be honest about it, because those States in the previous ISTEA bill got quite a large chunk of money compared with other portions of the country. So this is a guarantee to even things out. For those who are concerned about the environmental provisions, let me say that this bill is environmentally sound. There is the congestion mitigation account, which has more dollars in it than the previous ISTEA bill. So the dollars are there for cities which do not meet the Clean Air Act standards--additional dollars--to undertake the various expenditures to reduce air pollution in their cities. That is there. The enhancement provision is still fully funded. Those who are concerned about bike paths and trails are also going to be, I think, happy with the provisions in this bill. We also rejected in the final hours some provisions which I think would have been very harmful to the environment. There has been some talk about the PCB problem in New York. That was rejected. It is not in here. I can list other attempts. I know some of the environmental conservation committees are worried about what was attempted to be put in this bill and the conferees rejected. I might also just outline and remind us that each of us, as a Senator, is worried about fighting for our respective States. That is our job, that is what we ran for office for, and that is what we hired out to do--to represent our States the best we possibly can. As you know, Mr. President, most Senators are not wallflowers. Most Senators are good advocates for their States. They are fierce advocates for their States, which obviously means that it is hard to get 100 points of view all accommodated, particularly when each State thinks it has a unique point of view that makes it a little bit different from other States. Add to that the further complication that there is another body; there is a House of Representatives. We in the Senate pass what we think is the best legislation for our States. The highway bill that passed the Senate passed by a very large margin. Senators liked the bill. It was good for our respective States and was a good compromise for all our States. But House Members have a very different view on the highway program compared to Senators. It is, very simply, because we Senators represent entire States; House Members don't represent entire States, except for a very few. There are about five or six very-low-populated States, like my State of Montana, which has only one Member of Congress. But most Members of Congress, who tend to be from populous States, such as New York, California, and Florida, for example, are really much more interested in their districts; what is the highway bill going to do for their districts, rather than for their States? Of course they care about their States. They care deeply about their States. But I dare say they probably care a little bit more about their district. After all, they run for reelection every 2 years. They want to show, legitimately and properly, to their constituents, the people who voted for them--or perhaps didn't vote for them--that they are doing the best job they possibly can for their district, which means the formulas, as the allocations, somewhat clash. Senators are worried about Senate distribution. Senators are worried about State distribution. House Members are worried a little bit about State distribution, but quite a bit about how much their districts get. Hence, we have this phenomenon called demonstration projects. It is difficult to meld these two competing points of view together. I mention all of this because as we in the Senate are here, now, voting on this conference report which is about to be before us--as we look at it, we might find it is not exactly what we would have preferred. It is not exactly the bill that passed the Senate. But when Members of the Senate look closely at what is in this conference report, I think they will find it is very close to the provisions that passed the Senate and should not be distressed. Certainly, it is important to point out that every State but for one, which is a very, very special case, will receive a significant increase in dollars per year allocated to the State. The average increase, and I must underline the word average, is about a 43-percent increase for all the States. That is not a small number. It is a large number. It means, for example, that it is increased from 28----

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I make a point of order.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank all Senators very much for accommodating me. First of all, I hope that the bill to be offered by the Senator from California and the Senator from New York will be brought up quickly and passed. I think every Member of the Senate does. I very much favor it. At the same time, I very strongly believe the Patients' Bill of Rights, the basic protection bill, we have to pass that. It is very regrettable, frankly, that we are at loggerheads. We need to get that bill passed. I think we should work that out fairly soon. Frankly, it is in the interest of the American people we get this passed very quickly. But it is not going to be resolved right now. By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to ``Montana Pole Vaulters'' are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to take a moment to share with the Senate the remarkable accomplishments of some truly ``high fliers.'' All of us in this body travel to schools and encourage tomorrow's leaders to ``aim high.'' Last week, three Montana pole vaulters did just that and the result was that collegiate and high school records fell. Three extraordinary women, all from my hometown of Helena, made a bit of history. On the collegiate level, Helena High Graduate and University of Montana freshman Nicole Zeller twice set new Big Sky Conference records in the pole vault, first by clearing 11 feet 10 inches, and then, improving her own record with a vault of 12 feet, \1/2\ inch. Meanwhile, two Helena high school students--one from my and Senator Roth's alma mater, Helena High, the other from Capital High--were registering the two best vaults in the nation this year. One of them set a new national record for high school pole vaulters. Not only did Shannon Agee of Helena High set a new national record. She beat the old one by a mile. She vaulted 13 feet and eclipsed the old record by a full incredible five inches. On the same day, Capital High senior Suzanne Krings cleared 12 feet 6 inches, giving her the second-best vault in the nation this year. So today, Mr. President, I extend my congratulations to Shannon, Suzanne and Nicole for showing all of us how to soar.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. At long last, this important piece of legislation is before the Senate for consideration and passage of the Conference Report. This Act is the result of more than a year of hard work and can boast broad bipartisan support. By providing $1.7 billion in agricultural research and extension activities at institutions of higher learning across the nation, this Act commits the U.S. government to supporting a strong future for agriculture in Montana and across the nation. I would like to recognize four areas that affect Montana: The Montana State University Agriculture Extension Service. We have one of the finest examples of an ag extension service in the country, centered at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. The College of Agriculture, led by Dean Tom McCoy, has produced numerous innovative projects worthy of recognition. Research at Montana State University has led to more pest-resistant, higher yielding varieties of barley and wheat. MSU scientists have improved the value of barley as a feedstock for cattle. And they are using the remarkable power of biotechnology to develop the answers to the ag challenges of the next century. The agriculture research bill provides the funding necessary for our scientists to carry out, continue and build upon their mission to serve our agriculture industry. This bill will also continue funding for the good work demonstrated by our country extension agents. Their efforts on behalf of Montana's agricultural industry go above and beyond to provide resources that help our producers meet their bottom line, improve their yield, and enhance their competitiveness in the world marketplace. Crop Insurance. Today, while we debate the passage of this bill, several counties in Montana are under severe drought and fire alert. Farmers have waited helplessly for rain while their crops wither and die. This is surely a make it or break it year due to low prices, a dry winter, and unfair grain dumping from our foreign competitors. The mere threat of crop insurers canceling policies is an obstacle that many producers simply cannot overcome. For that reason, I am pleased that this Act contains provisions to strengthen crop insurance--just when our producers need it most. Clearly, we must take the final step and pass this conference report. Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database. I would like to thank Chairman Lugar for including my bill, the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database, more commonly known as FARAD, in this Act. I am pleased that the Conference report authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make three-year grants to colleges and universities to operate the FARAD program. FARAD is critical in our food-safety regime. Its database provides invaluable information about dangerous residues that affect our food supply. The FARAD program successfully links producers, veterinarians and the general public to an informational resource network that enables us to produce the safest food in the world. Agricultural Research Service. I am most proud of the work conducted at the Agricultural Research Service stations in Sidney, Montana and Fort Keogh at Miles City. I strongly believe that their efforts are of tremendous importance to our food industry as well as our agricultural trade. The future of agriculture is in their very capable hands. They enjoy strong support from the agricultural community because they are a part of that community. Whenever I am in these towns, I stop by and visit these facilities because the people that work there, and the community that supports them, are very proud of the great work that they do for our ag industry. This bill will continue the critical work at these locations. I would also like to recognize that this bill supports many other worthy projects, including the National Food Genome Strategy, an assistive technology program for farmers with disabilities, the important Fund for Rural America, Precision Agricultural research, and research of wheat and barley diseases caused by scab. This Act is worthy of our immediate action. I urge my colleagues to pass the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 and recommend that President Clinton sign it without hesitation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Senior Citizen Protection Act of 1998. The legislation aims to protect our nation's seniors from patient and elder abuse. The bill also protects our federal health care programs, most notably Medicare, from fraud. In the past two years, we have made great strides against fraud and abuse by passing new initiatives. These initiatives include closing loopholes, improving coordination between Federal, State, and local law enforcement programs, and enhancing the powers of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services to combat fraud and recover lost money. These measures are helping, but there is another vision which I think will help us stay ahead of those who endlessly scheme to defraud our health care programs. The Senior Citizen Protection Act deputizes Medicaid investigators and enables them to weed out fraud and abuse in our federal health program. Currently, when a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigates a state Medicaid fraud case and finds a similar violation in Medicare, the Unit cannot investigate the Medicare infraction. Common sense will tell you that an unscrupulous actor defrauding Medicaid will likely do the same to federal health programs. In Montana, for example, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit routinely finds co-existing cases of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in patient records. While the Unit has the documents right in front of them, they can not pursue the Medicare abuses. Federal authorities must conduct a new and separate investigation. Unfortunately, these violations may be too small to justify a federal investigation. The majority of health care fraud recoveries, 62%, are more than a million dollars. Even more striking, only 6% of federal fraud recoveries are in an amount lower than $100,000. Thus, the Federal Government is doing a good job of weeding out the big actors in the anti-fraud war, but the smaller actors--which still cost money-- continue to ride scot-free. That is where our legislation can help. If a fraud Unit is investigating a fraudulent doctor, for example, and finds some Medicare claims that look false, currently the investigator has to call the Inspector General's office and report their suspicions. In many cases, however, they hear back from Washington that the claims may be fraudulent, but the fraud is not widespread enough to justify the expense of a federal investigation. Under our legislation, the Units will now be able to wrap the Medicare case into their own investigation and the Federal Government will be able to continue spending their resources on larger fraud operations. The Senior Citizen Protection Act allows state Fraud Control Units to investigate federal violations which come to their attention during an existing state Medicaid investigation. By giving the Units this discreet authority, we can take another step toward reducing fraud and abuse. While most fraud cases are the result of overbilling, false billing, or a provider performing unnecessary services, almost 25% of health care fraud cases are due to poor quality of care or care not provided. And that is when these problems cross over from health care fraud to actual patient abuse and neglect. It alarms all of us when we hear stories of older individuals being harmed by unscrupulous persons. What upsets me so much about elderly abuse is how vulnerable these victims are, especially since they depend so much on their health care providers for actual daily activities. Some Senators may have heard about the egregious case in Arizona where two defendants pled guilty to three counts of aggravated assault for sexually assaulting, intimidating and abusing patients. Their crimes included spitting at and kicking patients, and threatening to give a pill to a patient so he would never wake up. Some patients were so afraid they would not eat or drink. This is a modern tragedy. Other stories include incidents of physical abuse, verbal ridicule and mockery, and neglect, such as depriving patients of food, water and the opportunity for communication. Under current law, state Medicaid Fraud Control Units can only investigate and prosecute cases of elder abuse in state-funded facilities. However, more and more seniors are moving into assisted living and residential treatment settings that receive no state funds. Let me be clear: I support this trend, as it gives seniors more choices about the type of long-term care they receive. I am concerned, however, that assisted living facilities have little oversight to prevent patient neglect and abuse. Local authorities often lack the resources and skill to investigate health care cases. In Montana, our state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit routinely receives calls from local law enforcement agencies, local public health departments, and even Adult Protective Services requesting assistance with elder abuse cases. However, the Fraud Unit's hands are tied; they lack the jurisdictional authority to offer help. The Senior Citizen Protection Act will enable state Medicaid Fraud Control Units to investigate cases of patient abuse and neglect in residential facilities that do not receive state reimbursement. Medicaid investigators have the experience and expertise to assist local authorities with this job. Allowing the Medicaid Fraud Control Units to lend their expertise to cases in non-Medicaid facilities makes good sense and is right for our seniors.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have very much appreciated listening to the arguments for this amendment. However, I think it is important for us to step back a little bit and look at this issue a little more broadly. The first point I would make is to remind my colleagues that the IRS Restructuring Commission recommended that the Treasury Secretary serve on the Board, as well as recommend there be a representative of an employee organization. The Restructuring Commission spent a lot of time thinking about this. This is not something they willy-nilly recommended to the Congress. Just as we in the Senate voted to honor the Restructuring Commission's inclusion of a representative of an employee organization, I submit it makes sense for us to honor the Restructuring Commission's recommendations to continue to include the Treasury Secretary. The Restructuring Commission spent a lot of time thinking about this, and they did conclude that the Treasury Secretary should be a member of the Board. Why did they do that? I think for a number of reasons. First, the Treasury Secretary has responsibility for the IRS. After all, that is a large part of his job. In fact, 80 percent of Treasury's resources and people are in the IRS--over 100,000 employees. Second, there is an analogy with corporations. Corporate boards include chairmen. Corporate boards include CEOs. Why do they do so? Because they want communication between the governing board on the one hand, and the operation management on the other. You have to have direct communication; you have to have guidance. If the Treasury Secretary is not on the Board, that certainly diminishes communication between the Board and the Treasury Secretary. It is just obvious and also does something else which is the exact opposite of what we are trying to do here. It tends to create an adversarial relationship between the Treasury Secretary and the Board. The analogy which someone alluded to earlier of having `the fox guard the chicken coop' to have the Treasury Secretary on the Board, is totally inapplicable. Why? Simply because the other board members, the six private board members, are going to be pretty strong-willed people if they are going to agree to serve on this Board. Any President who wants to make IRS restructuring work is going to get pretty strong people. These are not people who are going to roll over willy- nilly at the insistence of the Treasury Secretary. First of all, they don't work for the Treasury Secretary. These are private sector people. The only working relationships between the Secretary and Board members is with the Commissioner, Mr. Rossotti, and in some indirect way, the employees representative. There are six private sector people on the Board who are going to be strong-willed, strong-minded people. They are not going to roll over and play dead. In addition, the Treasury Secretary is going to want to be a two-way messenger, both to and from the Board, to the President's Cabinet, to the President himself. If we want IRS restructuring to work, we want him to participate in the Board's deliberations. He will be able to share information with the other members of the Board that they might not otherwise know about, and that no one else would know. At the same time, he would learn things about the IRS by serving on the Board that he might not otherwise discover. Another way to see that we have ensured independence of the Board is that each of the six private sector members is subject to the confirmation process in the Senate. When we are talking to these nominees as they go before our committees in the Senate, we have ample opportunity to insist upon the independence of these board members. We have ample opportunity for commitment from these nominees. They are not going to kowtow to any Secretary. To sum up, Mr. President, the Restructuring Commission recommended the Treasury Secretary. It makes sense to keep the communication flowing between the Board and the Treasury Department and the President's Cabinet. The private sector Board members are going to be strong-willed people. They are not going to just acquiesce to the suggestions of the Treasury Secretary. In fact, there are provisions in this legislation to help assure that independence. One is having the Board send a separate budget to the Congress, for example, independent of the Treasury Secretary. It makes good sense to follow the recommendations of the Restructuring Commission on this matter. I urge my colleagues to keep the Treasury Secretary on the Board. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I too thank the Chairman for his work on these issues. I am concerned that the Senate bill contains a provision, Section 7612(b)(3) that makes it easier for the IRS to gain access to software source code in the event that a taxpayer refuses to provide his own financial data to the IRS. Since the sofeware publisher can neither provide this data themselves, nor compel a taxpayer to provide it, I believe this provision is unnecessary. The bill should not punish a third-party software company when the IRS fails to use those tools against an uncooperative taxpayer. I hope the Chairman will reconsider this issue in conference.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Senior Citizen Protection Act of 1998. The legislation aims to protect our nation's seniors from patient and elder abuse. The bill also protects our federal health care programs, most notably Medicare, from fraud. In the past two years, we have made great strides against fraud and abuse by passing new initiatives. These initiatives include closing loopholes, improving coordination between Federal, State, and local law enforcement programs, and enhancing the powers of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services to combat fraud and recover lost money. These measures are helping, but there is another vision which I think will help us stay ahead of those who endlessly scheme to defraud our health care programs. The Senior Citizen Protection Act deputizes Medicaid investigators and enables them to weed out fraud and abuse in our federal health program. Currently, when a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigates a state Medicaid fraud case and finds a similar violation in Medicare, the Unit cannot investigate the Medicare infraction. Common sense will tell you that an unscrupulous actor defrauding Medicaid will likely do the same to federal health programs. In Montana, for example, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit routinely finds co-existing cases of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in patient records. While the Unit has the documents right in front of them, they can not pursue the Medicare abuses. Federal authorities must conduct a new and separate investigation. Unfortunately, these violations may be too small to justify a federal investigation. The majority of health care fraud recoveries, 62%, are more than a million dollars. Even more striking, only 6% of federal fraud recoveries are in an amount lower than $100,000. Thus, the Federal Government is doing a good job of weeding out the big actors in the anti-fraud war, but the smaller actors--which still cost money-- continue to ride scot-free. That is where our legislation can help. If a fraud Unit is investigating a fraudulent doctor, for example, and finds some Medicare claims that look false, currently the investigator has to call the Inspector General's office and report their suspicions. In many cases, however, they hear back from Washington that the claims may be fraudulent, but the fraud is not widespread enough to justify the expense of a federal investigation. Under our legislation, the Units will now be able to wrap the Medicare case into their own investigation and the Federal Government will be able to continue spending their resources on larger fraud operations. The Senior Citizen Protection Act allows state Fraud Control Units to investigate federal violations which come to their attention during an existing state Medicaid investigation. By giving the Units this discreet authority, we can take another step toward reducing fraud and abuse. While most fraud cases are the result of overbilling, false billing, or a provider performing unnecessary services, almost 25% of health care fraud cases are due to poor quality of care or care not provided. And that is when these problems cross over from health care fraud to actual patient abuse and neglect. It alarms all of us when we hear stories of older individuals being harmed by unscrupulous persons. What upsets me so much about elderly abuse is how vulnerable these victims are, especially since they depend so much on their health care providers for actual daily activities. Some Senators may have heard about the egregious case in Arizona where two defendants pled guilty to three counts of aggravated assault for sexually assaulting, intimidating and abusing patients. Their crimes included spitting at and kicking patients, and threatening to give a pill to a patient so he would never wake up. Some patients were so afraid they would not eat or drink. This is a modern tragedy. Other stories include incidents of physical abuse, verbal ridicule and mockery, and neglect, such as depriving patients of food, water and the opportunity for communication. Under current law, state Medicaid Fraud Control Units can only investigate and prosecute cases of elder abuse in state-funded facilities. However, more and more seniors are moving into assisted living and residential treatment settings that receive no state funds. Let me be clear: I support this trend, as it gives seniors more choices about the type of long-term care they receive. I am concerned, however, that assisted living facilities have little oversight to prevent patient neglect and abuse. Local authorities often lack the resources and skill to investigate health care cases. In Montana, our state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit routinely receives calls from local law enforcement agencies, local public health departments, and even Adult Protective Services requesting assistance with elder abuse cases. However, the Fraud Unit's hands are tied; they lack the jurisdictional authority to offer help. The Senior Citizen Protection Act will enable state Medicaid Fraud Control Units to investigate cases of patient abuse and neglect in residential facilities that do not receive state reimbursement. Medicaid investigators have the experience and expertise to assist local authorities with this job. Allowing the Medicaid Fraud Control Units to lend their expertise to cases in non-Medicaid facilities makes good sense and is right for our seniors.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Essentially, the amendment offered by the Senator from Tennessee is an amendment to take an employee off the board. That is the point. The real question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we want this restructuring to work or not? We create a Board, give the Board certain powers, and the Restructuring Commission, led by Senator Grassley from Iowa and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, concluded there should be among board members an employee representative. That was their conclusion. They believed that would help restructuring work. Why? Because so many of the problems that we have with the IRS, most of the problems that were documented at the Finance Committee hearings, are employee problems--that is, rogue employees, employees who were covering up, employees doing this or that. Also problems with managers--some of them were doing their job, some were not. Obviously, an employee who is on the Board will be able to tell the Board what is going on, what is not going on, what the views of the employees are, and so forth. Now some suggest that the Board should just consult with employees. That will not work. You need somebody there on the Oversight Board who will be able to not only report to the employees what is going on, but be able to send back to employees what board policy is if we are going to get restructuring to work. We need teamwork here. We don't need an adversarial relationship. We are not talking about Board versus employees. We are talking about a Board which will make restructuring work. Just think about it. An employee on the Board will help make this work. If you want an employee, you want a good employee; right? You want a good representative on the Board. How do you make sure you get a good, solid employee on the Board? First, you have the President appoint the employee. That is the what the bill provides. Obviously, the President will appoint somebody he or she thinks is a person who will do a very good job because it is in his interest to make IRS restructuring work. What is another check? Confirmation by the Senate. I say to my colleagues, if you don't like the employee representative that the President nominates to the Board, you can vote against him or her. During the confirmation process, you have an opportunity to check into the background of this appointee. You can check to see whether this is a good or bad person. That is a real good check which will enable you to get a sense whether this is a person who has conflicts or who will be a public servant--who will be narrowly representing his or her private interests or his or her organization. You can get a sense of these matters through the confirmation hearings. In addition to that, the President can remove any Board member, including the employee representative, at will--that is, without cause, at will. Finally, the employee representative is subject to the same restrictions as the private life Board members; examples are the disclosure requirements and the 1-year restriction after service on the board. Now, the main point here is: If you are going to have an employee on the Board, how do you make sure that there are no conflicts of interest? I remind my colleagues, when this bill passed the House 426- 4, there were no restrictions; there was no waiver provision in the bill. They just said, OK, have an employee. Well, we have improved the bill by rewriting this provision. I remind my colleagues, all the conflict of interest statutes apply to the employee representative, except for the very narrowly tailored situation where conflicts arise because of his status as employee representative. That is, because the employees he represents work for the IRS and he or she is compensated by the employee organization. Otherwise, all conflict of interest statutes apply. The comparison was raised about these waivers being like waiving violations for bribery, a criminal offense. Of course, bribery is a criminal offense. That is irrelevant. Murder is a criminal offense too. There are all kinds of criminal offenses in our criminal law. That is totally irrelevant to what we are talking about here. The narrow, technical question here is: Are the provisions and the safeguards that are written into this statute, in the committee report, sufficient to make sure that the employee representative does a good job and represents the public interest? Of course, that assumes you want an employee on the Board in the first place. Frankly, I do believe that most of those who are arguing to remove the waiver are really arguing to remove the employee. It is a back-door way to get the employee off the Board. That is what is going on here. That is what the argument is really all about. It is just a back-door way to accomplish an objective instead of dealing with it frontally, instead of saying, ``We don't want an employee representative on the Board.'' I feel very strongly that if we want this restructuring Board to work, it makes sense to have an employee representative on it. There are lots of checks to make sure this employee is performing public service instead of some private interest. The amendment before the Senate, if it passes, will make it very, very difficult for any employee to serve on the Board. I don't think that is what we want to do. It is not good for the country.

Mr. BAUCUS. I checked with the minority side. It is my understanding this has been agreed to by both sides, and his request is consistent with the understanding on this side as well.

Mr. BAUCUS. How long will the Senator from New York speak?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I very much thank the Senator from North Dakota for drawing the Senate's attention to the Wall Street Journal article, and, more importantly, to the plight of our farmers in the northern Great Plains. The article mentioned Montana and Minnesota. The Senator is absolutely correct. I have never seen it this bad. Just last weekend when I was home a banker pulled me aside and said virtually what you said, Senator; namely, it is getting so bad the bankers are getting worried about their loans and whether they will be repaid. It is true, the farmers can't cash flow. It is grim. I urge farm organizations to dig down deep, put their heads together and come up with a solution that we, the Congress, can help with. We passed Freedom to Farm. Most farmers in my State supported it at the time because the wheat price was high and the initial payments were high. We all knew the day would come when we would be paying the price for adopting that bill but it has come a lot earlier. It has come this year rather than a couple, 3 years from now and with much more strength. It is hurricane force and will drive more farmers off the land. Small towns in eastern Montana are drying up. People are leaving. You see shops on the main street boarded up. It is because the price of wheat, barley, and durum is so low and has been so low at a time when our Government has not done what it should be doing. This is true of all administrations--to open up foreign markets, get those countries to reduce their barriers so we can sell more overseas. I am thinking particularly of China. China does not take Pacific Northwest wheat. It has not for years because of a bogus claim. That is one of the many examples of countries erecting trade barriers that make it difficult for us to sell a product. I very much thank the Senator for raising this issue. I urge Senators to listen to the Senator's statement because we are going to be facing this issue here in the Senate fairly soon. I hope this is constructive in addressing the problems that the Senator mentions. It is happening in spades, today, in Montana, particularly eastern Montana. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nebraska. I strongly support the Kerrey amendment for several reasons. First, the funding mechanism provided for in the manager's amendment to the underlying bill, while creative and it meets the technical requirements of the budget rules, it is also very misleading. The rollover provisions in the managers' amendment do raise $8 billion in the first 5 years that the provision will be in effect, but that same provision loses $7 billion in the second 5 years--a clear revenue loss. Here we are in the underlying amendment saying, ``OK, early on, we'll raise the revenue,'' but we don't tell the rest of the world, particularly the Congress and Senators who are voting on this, that we are going to lose $7 billion in the next 5 years. Part of our efforts in the Congress, I hope, have been truth in budgeting not just in the first 5 years, but also beyond, in the next 5 years. Too often, this Congress has, unfortunately, hoodwinked people-- the President has been part of it, both administrations, in the last 10 to 15 years--by saying, ``OK, we will meet the budget requirements in the first 5 years, but we won't tell everybody what we are doing in the next 5 years,'' and often in the next 5 years, if not disastrous, it is inimical to the American people because it tends to increase deficits rather than decrease. That is a fact. To the credit of this administration, it has tried to be truthful not only in the first 5 years, but also the next 5 years, and so has the Congress. Here we are with an underlying amendment which goes totally against that effort on the part of good, solid statesmanlike Senators to be truthful not only in the first 5 years, but the next 5 years. This amendment increases the deficit because it costs $7 billion more in the next 5 years. That is not right. We shouldn't be doing that. That is what this amendment does. This is a gimmick. It is purely and simply a gimmick, and that is why it is a bad idea. The Kerrey amendment, on the other hand, raises revenue in several ways. One is by postponing some of the effective dates of the provisions. Why is that important? Not only because it raises revenue, that is only of minor importance, but the major reason is because we all know, Mr. President, this country faces a massive problem in the next year or two with the fancy term Y2K. It is computer conversion to the next millennium. We know that most computers in our country, whether it is in the IRS, whether it is in the companies, have a system where they have two digits for the date, two digits for the month, and two digits for the year. What is today? Today is May 6, 1998. So it would be 05-06-98. That is how the computers record today's date. All computers do that. So we get to December 1999--12-30-99, 12-31-99, and next is 01-01-00. Now, we like to think that is January 1, 2000, but most computers today will record that as January 1, 1900, because two zeros are treated as 1900, not 2000. Massive problems. It is going to cost the IRS, to convert these computers just to meet this conversion problem, $1 billion--$1 billion just to convert. That is to say nothing of all the other costs to comply with new changes in the law. So the Kerrey amendment is very, very logical. It is safe. Maybe a little on the conservative side. It says, let us delay the effective dates of some of these new provisions. Why? Because we do not want to further complicate the conversion problem. This IRS restructuring bill is going to further complicate the conversion problem--further complicate it--not lessen, but further complicate it. So Senator Kerrey says, well, let us not do the gimmick, let us delay the effective date a little bit, and let us also delay the effective date to take care of the Y2K problem, the conversion problem. The underlying amendment, the manager's amendment--I have the highest regard for my friend from Delaware, the chairman of the committee--does not delay, therefore, further causes a problem for the IRS to convert and is much more expensive. It also comes up with a way to get revenue, which is a gimmick. Some on the floor have said that extending the Superfund tax will prevent the enactment of Superfund. That is not true, just basically is not true. What is the advantage of using the extension of the Superfund tax? I will give you several. One, it is not a gimmick. It is straight. It is right there. People know what it is. It is not a gimmick. Second, it is a tax that everybody knows about, is comfortable with. Sure, it expired a couple years ago, but everybody knows who pays the tax, what the tax is; and it would be extended I think to the year 2000, which means that the revenue is there. Let us say Congress does enact Superfund. And I sure hope it does. I say, Mr. President, we have been working on Superfund for a long time. Let us say we enact Superfund. I hope we do. That does not mean it cannot be enacted because previously we extended the Superfund tax. Not at all. The Superfund tax we talk about here is not offset against the Superfund. It is not offset against--it is there. It is revenue and held in a pot to pay for the bill. We can still enact Superfund. And, frankly, the underlying tax bill still pays part of Superfund. The Superfund bill will still go to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is pretty creative in figuring out ways to find the additional revenue, which will not be very much, basically to pay for the orphan share, the effect of the later date. There is no rocket science in the choice of the standards we have before us. On the one hand it is the underlying amendment, which is a gimmick, which is deceiving the taxpayers, which will require this body to come up with $7 billion more revenue than otherwise is the case because we are widening the budget deficit, not decreasing it in the second 5 years. Also, on that amendment--let me say it again. First is the underlying amendment. It further complicates the conversion problem. It is a gimmick. That is one choice. The other choice is to enact a revenue measure which is not a gimmick and which will not further complicate the conversion problem. That is the case. Mr. President, I think the choice is pretty simple. I think it is pretty straightforward. I think, accordingly, we should put politics aside. I know the majority party is going to vote for the amendment because that is what they are told to do. That is the drill. You vote for that one. But if you step back and think a little bit about what is really going on here, I hope both parties can find a way to come together, find a way not to further complicate the conversion problem and to pass a revenue-raising measure that is not a gimmick. Believe me, Mr. President, the Kerrey amendment is certainly the beginnings of that. Maybe with further modifications we can come together to finally get this thing passed. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, during the last couple of months, in every household across the country, Americans went through an annual rite. They sat down at the kitchen table, pulled all their financial records together, and figured out what they owed the Government in taxes. Nobody likes doing their taxes. And people dislike paying them even more. Yet the vast majority of our citizens do pay their taxes. And they pay them honestly. In short, Americans expect their money to be used to pay for all of the things that help make this nation great. In return, though, the American people want their Government to do two things. First, the American people want their Government to treat them with respect and dignity as the revenue is being collected. They expect to have their privacy respected, and to be treated fairly. Second, Americans expect that everyone else who enjoys the benefits taxes pay for will shoulder their share of the burden. That their neighbor down the street isn't hiding part of his income, and thus avoiding paying his fair share of the tax. That everyone is filing returns, and that the amounts claimed on those returns are accurate and true. Mr. President, I truly believe the American people have the right to have both of these expectations met. And I believe we here in the Senate shoulder a great deal of the responsibility for making sure of it. Chief Justice John Marshall said: ``The power to tax involves the power to destroy.'' It is our duty as Senators to make sure this country does not use its power in that fashion. Running the IRS is a study in careful balances. And I believe that the IRS has somehow lost its ability to maintain one side of the equation over the years. Many tax collectors, in their zeal to catch those among us who don't pay their taxes, seem to have lost sight of the most important truth about our tax system--that citizens have rights that must be protected. Anything less undermines our ability to make a system of voluntary taxation work. Here's a graphic example of how the system has gotten out of whack. It's contained in a recent letter from one of my constituents. It's a plea for help: The problem with the IRS started in 1997. John [not his real name] and I had just bought a house. I was a semester away from graduating from college, and we thought the [failed] business was behind us. The last week in July 1997, I returned home after a day of working at my part-time job to find a nasty note on my front door from [an IRS agent] stating that he had `tracked' us down and expected a phone call or action would be taken. I promptly called him to find out the reasoning behind the note. He was very rude and reluctant to give me any information, because I [was not my husband]. I explained that I was his wife and he began talking to me in a degrading manner. He said, ``Your husband owes tax, and I expect to collect it in full.'' When I asked him to explain, he very quickly said it was for [my husband's failed business] and began treating me as a criminal who was running from the IRS. We feel we have not been treated fairly in this situation. We have attempted to make good on all other situations regarding this [failed] business and have not been hiding from the IRS. [The IRS agent] has been extremely rude and unsympathetic toward us. He has put a tax lien on everything we own. He has also made comments to our accountant indicating that he has been tracking our personal lives and mentioning purchases and other personal matters. In [the IRS agent's] eyes we are criminals cheating the government. In our eyes the government is cheating us by never giving us a fair chance to make good. This whole situation has cost us over $700 in accounting fees and is still unresolved. We are turning to you as a final attempt to resolve this problem. We hope you can help us in making the government work for the people not against them. That letter sums up this issue in a nutshell: Make the Government work for the people, not against them. Make Government responsive to taxpayers' needs. Make service the priority of the Internal Revenue Service. Make the IRS treat taxpayers fairly--and with respect. That's what my constituent wants. And that's what I want. We certainly don't want to tie IRS's hands so much that tax cheats are encouraged. The rest of us end up picking up the tab when someone cheats. At the same time, we also can't have IRS harassing innocent citizens, assuming everyone is guilty the minute they walk in the door. I believe this legislation will help IRS find its way back to the reasonable balance that our tax system requires. The IRS has suffered from years of neglect and lack of focus. The spotlight that has been turned on the Service, by the IRS Restructuring Commission and by the series of hearings we have held in the Senate Finance Committee, has already had a positive effect on the IRS. The Service is expanding hours and people for its telephone answering service. Taxpayers got 13 million fewer busy signals this year when they called IRS to ask questions about their taxes. Toll-free calls are being answered 91% of the time--a huge improvement. Last year callers only got through 66% of the time, and only 39% of the time the year before. This year, phone lines are being answered 18 hours a day. And for the first time, the IRS is open on Saturdays. People answering the phones are also getting better. One group of Baltimore IRS workers gave correct advice to 100% of recent random test calls. Nationally, accuracy scores are up to 93% this year, from only 63% as recently as 1989. So more taxpayers are able to get through to the IRS when they have a question, and more of the answers they will get will be the right ones. IRS has a webpage where taxpayers can download documents and forms. Now taxpayers don't have to run all over town just to find the right paperwork. And the Service has had a series of ``Problemsolving Days'' around the country, where taxpayers can come in and get their problems taken care of. The last ``Problemsolving Day'' in my home state of Montana was in Billings in January. More than half of all the taxpayers who participated walked out with their problems taken care of on the spot. Many of the rest have been resolved in the succeeding weeks. But there are still problems at the IRS, as our hearings--and my constituent's letter and plea for help--have clearly identified. And many of the improvements planned by our new IRS Commissioner, Charles Rossotti, require legislative action in order to go forward. The bill before us is a very good beginning. It addresses the first expectation the American people share--making sure the Government treats them with respect and dignity as the revenue is being collected. It does this through a series of provisions. First, the bill creates a board, made up chiefly of private citizens, to oversee the direction the IRS is going. The Board will keep an eye on the Service's budget, to make sure enough resources are being dedicated to customer service. It will help define long-term goals, and make sure the Service stays on track to meet those goals. The Board will ferret out problems at the IRS, and help craft solutions to those problems. The bill creates significant new personnel flexibilities to make it easier for Commissioner Rossotti to get his own team on board and reward employees who are doing well. It requires the IRS to submit an employee training plan to Congress, to help employees improve the quality of their work. The bill requires IRS to tell Congress about taxpayer complaints of misconduct by employees, and to take disciplinary action against ``bad apples''. The bill also makes it easier for IRS employees to provide confidential information to the Finance and Ways and Means Committees to report allegations of employee misconduct or taxpayer abuse. The bill will reorganize the IRS, much as IBM was reorganized when they realized they couldn't compete against newcomers like Microsoft. Right now, IRS is organized horizontally, by function. This means every time a taxpayer has a question or a problem that crosses the Services' functional lines, they are handed off to a different person in an entirely different department. No one has final responsibility to getting the taxpayer's problem solved. There is no accountability. This bill reorganizes the agency by type of taxpayer. There will be a separate division for individuals, one for small businesses, one for large corporations, and one for tax exempt organizations. Employees within these divisions will be responsible for just about every type of problem their assigned group of taxpayers could have. They will stick with the taxpayer until his problem is solved. No more passing the buck. The bill also adds important new taxpayer protections to the law, to help protect citizens against arbitrary actions of IRS agents. The bill will allow taxpayers to sue for negligent actions by IRS agents. Today they must meet a very high treshold by proving any abuse was intentional. The bill expands the offers-in-compromise program. It makes it harder for IRS to turn down legitimate offers. The bill also requires IRS to leave taxpayers with more money to live on when they enter into repayment agreements. In our hearings, taxpayers complained about the difficulty of using innocent spouse protections. The House and Senate bills take different approaches to solving this problem. Both make it easier for truly innocent spouses to be protected from the tax debts their guilty spouses have accumulated. These are only a few examples of the taxpayer protections built into the legislation. Finally, the bill before us today takes a first step toward addressing what may be the biggest contributor to taxpayer problems with our Tax Code--Congress itself. Witness after witness at our hearings complained about the complexity of the Code. Witness after witness complained about how hard it is to keep up with frequent changes we make in the law. And they are right. This bill requires that every tax bill in the future be accompanied by an analysis of whether it will further complicate the Code. How hard it will be for taxpayers to comply with the new law. As we strive to achieve fairness in our Tax Code, we sacrifice simplicity. With this bill, we will be able to clearly understand the extent of that sacrifice. I believe that one of the hardest things to do when restructuring any agency, and particularly one as sensitive as this one, is to find that delicate balance between giving the Government too much power and giving it too little. Give it too much power, and innocent citizens will be abused. This is, obviously, unacceptable in a civilized society. Even one single instance of taxpayer abuse is one too many. Law abiding taxpayers should not fear the taxman. But clipping the Government's wings too closely presents its own dangers. Americans expect us to make sure everyone is sharing the burden of paying for the services our Government provides. And it is clear some of us are not. IRS estimates the ``tax gap'', which is the measure of tax avoidance, now is almost $200 billion a year. This amounts to more than $1,600 per year for every tax return filed by the rest of us. This, too, must stop. Our entire system of collecting revenue would unravel if taxpayers stop paying their fair share because they believe everyone else is cheating. The bill before us today is not perfect. It does not address the problem of tax non-compliance. We have left that challenge for another day. There are provisions in it that may seem good at first blush, but may cause more harm than good. We should try to fix these as the bill goes through the legislative process. But I firmly believe we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We must not let yet another tax season go by without the taxpayer protections this bill provides. Passing a solid restructuring bill will do more to get the IRS on track than a hundred hearings where we sit, posture, pontificate and play politics. It is our responsibility to the American people to get this job done quickly, and to get it done right. I want to be able to go back to the constituent who wrote me that letter and say, Yes, we fixed your problem. And, Yes, the Government works for you, not against you. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community and Postal Participation Act of 1998. This legislation aims to preserve the fabric of downtown American communities by giving citizens a say in Postal Service decisions to close, relocate or consolidate post offices. Mr. President, the Postal Service is near and dear to the people of the United States. Since its establishment over 200 years ago with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General, the Postal Service has dutifully delivered the mail to generations of Americans. In many towns across the U.S., the post office is still the center of the community, the very anchor of what we fondly refer to as ``small-town America.'' Nowhere is that more true than in my own state of Montana. In Livingston, people meet to collect their mail and talk about what flies are hatching on the Yellowstone River. In Red Lodge, folks come together at the post office not only to collect their mail but to discuss last weekend's track meet. And in Plains, Montana, the place where people receive their mail is as important a meeting-spot as it was when the first post office opened there more than 115 years ago. But sadly, Mr. President, America has seen a rash of post office closings, relocations and consolidations in recent years. From California to Connecticut, Montana to Maine, the Postal Service has proposed closing post offices located in the very heart of their communities. When the post office goes, often the central business district goes with it. And, more important, the local gathering place disappears. Mr. President, today Senator Jeffords and I are introducing legislation to change that. With passage of the Community and Postal Participation Act, downtown communities will have an increased say in their future. They will have input into Postal Service decisions that affect their communities, and they will be allowed the chance to offer alternatives to Postal Service changes. Under current law, communities have little say when the USPS decides to pull up stakes. Our bill would change that by: allowing those served by a post office to receive at least 60 days' notice before the USPS decides to relocate, close or consolidate a post office; giving those affected by the closing a chance to respond to the proposed changes by offering an alternative to the USPS proposals; providing for a public hearing before a final determination is made; allowing those affected by the relocation, closing or consolidation to appeal to the Postal Rate Commission (PRC); and requiring the USPS to comply with applicable zoning, planning or land use laws. Mr. President, I believe that with mutual cooperation, the interests of communities and the Postal Service can be served. The nature--indeed the very name--of this legislation is participation. I am confident that with its passage our communities and this important American institution may begin a new era of cooperation for the good of all involved. And we can put the community back in the Postal Service. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join Senator Jeffords and I in passing this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community and Postal Participation Act of 1998. This legislation aims to preserve the fabric of downtown American communities by giving citizens a say in Postal Service decisions to close, relocate or consolidate post offices. Mr. President, the Postal Service is near and dear to the people of the United States. Since its establishment over 200 years ago with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General, the Postal Service has dutifully delivered the mail to generations of Americans. In many towns across the U.S., the post office is still the center of the community, the very anchor of what we fondly refer to as ``small-town America.'' Nowhere is that more true than in my own state of Montana. In Livingston, people meet to collect their mail and talk about what flies are hatching on the Yellowstone River. In Red Lodge, folks come together at the post office not only to collect their mail but to discuss last weekend's track meet. And in Plains, Montana, the place where people receive their mail is as important a meeting-spot as it was when the first post office opened there more than 115 years ago. But sadly, Mr. President, America has seen a rash of post office closings, relocations and consolidations in recent years. From California to Connecticut, Montana to Maine, the Postal Service has proposed closing post offices located in the very heart of their communities. When the post office goes, often the central business district goes with it. And, more important, the local gathering place disappears. Mr. President, today Senator Jeffords and I are introducing legislation to change that. With passage of the Community and Postal Participation Act, downtown communities will have an increased say in their future. They will have input into Postal Service decisions that affect their communities, and they will be allowed the chance to offer alternatives to Postal Service changes. Under current law, communities have little say when the USPS decides to pull up stakes. Our bill would change that by: allowing those served by a post office to receive at least 60 days' notice before the USPS decides to relocate, close or consolidate a post office; giving those affected by the closing a chance to respond to the proposed changes by offering an alternative to the USPS proposals; providing for a public hearing before a final determination is made; allowing those affected by the relocation, closing or consolidation to appeal to the Postal Rate Commission (PRC); and requiring the USPS to comply with applicable zoning, planning or land use laws. Mr. President, I believe that with mutual cooperation, the interests of communities and the Postal Service can be served. The nature--indeed the very name--of this legislation is participation. I am confident that with its passage our communities and this important American institution may begin a new era of cooperation for the good of all involved. And we can put the community back in the Postal Service. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join Senator Jeffords and I in passing this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the second anniversary of National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day. Earlier today, I introduced with my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, along with many others from across the nation, a resolution marking this notable occasion. In 1964, Mike Mansfield of Montana, then majority leader of the United States Senate, ushered through this body the landmark Civil Rights Act. It is his tradition of integrity and foresight in both Montana and the nation that inspires us in our actions today. In the last several years, however, Montanans of a different generation have come under the microscope of less favorable scrutiny. The reputation of Montana as a state of forward-thinkers and tolerant individuals was marred by the standoff between the FBI and the so- called Freemen outside Jordan, and a series of hate crimes in some of our cities. What has frustrated me and many other Montanans, however, is the lack of attention to the vast majority of Montanans--the people who are willing to stand up to bigots and hate groups. It is these folks who provide us with stories of hope and courage and let us know that our communities and our neighbors will not stand for bias and hate- motivated behavior. It is important because these encouraging stories are becoming commonplace in Montana. Whether it is a community like Billings that stands up to a group of skinheads, or a Missoula high school class that devotes an entire project to studying the holocaust, Montanans are making a real and positive difference in our society. There is no doubt that we have come a long way as a nation. But with 8,000 hate crimes reported to the U.S. Department of Justice each year, it is clear we still have much more work to do. In addition to taking this day to recognize the importance of the fight, we must continue to support groups like the Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment, the Montana Human Rights Network, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the many other groups and individuals who continue this work every day. I know a simple Senate resolution, or even a national conference, will not end the problems we still have. A piece of paper alone cannot teach a child that hate is wrong. But I do believe a piece of paper can make people think. A conference will not end intolerance. But it can make people talk about hate crimes. Designating today as a day to address these important problems is a first step and it can light a spark of hope in people's hearts and minds. Again, perhaps our predecessor in the Senate, Mike Mansfield, when speaking about the task in 1964, said it best when he noted: What we do here in the . . . Congress will not, of itself, correct these faults, but we can and must join the wisdom-- the collective wisdom of this body--to the efforts of others in this Nation to face up to them for what they are--a serious erosion of the fundamental rock upon which the unity of the Nation stands. Tolerance and respect are our nation's bedrock. Today we can join together to renew the fight for a better America. And if we continue to look at the good, courageous, decent things our neighbors are doing, the sparks of hope we light just might catch fire, in Montana and all across the country.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with mixed feelings that I rise today to oppose, H.R. 2646, the A+ Education Savings Account Act. I am pleased to see that we in the Senate are discussing educational issues. It is an important debate that the American people need to hear. However, I simply don't believe this bill takes our nation's education system in the right direction. One of my highest priorities is preparing Montana's children for the challenges of the 21st Century. Education is the only way to improve our economy and keep our kids in-state working at good jobs that help them achieve the kind of future we want for all Americans. In the area of education I have taken it upon myself to do more than legislate. Because legislation can only accomplish so much. I have worked hard to put over 350 surplus computers in Montana schools. I've encouraged companies to donate funding for computer hardware and software. I've prepared a comprehensive guide on technology funding which has been distributed statewide. My office also conducted and compiled a survey of Montana schools' technology needs. And I hold weekly internet chats with students throughout Montana. In working toward ensuring that every child has strong technological, verbal, written , math and critical thinking skills, I have visited over 100 schools during the last year. A lot of these schools are barely making ends meet. Often times teachers and principals are put in the agonizing position of deciding between new books or computers. New desks or a new furnace. While our public schools are in such straits I believe it is unfair to subsidize attendance at private schools. These institutions are charged with educating all children, not just those who are able to pay or who meet certain requirements. Public education is a mainstay of our democracy. It is the great democratizer of the American people. Ninety-seven percent of children in America attend public schools. Public education is a promise to all children: if you work hard and commit yourself fully, you can receive a quality education. And you can achieve anything. Public education is a promise of opportunity--a promise of open doors. And that is a promise which should be our number one priority to uphold. Unfortunately H.R. 2646 will not open the doors of educational opportunity for the average American family. This bill would primarily benefit those who are already most able to afford a private education. Those making less than $50,000 per year, will receive a tax cut of only a few dollars from this bill. Wealthier families who are in a much better position to save money, will have much larger accumulations of tax-free earnings. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 52% of the tax benefit from this bill would go to the 7% of families whose children attend private schools. The other 48% of the benefits would go to the 93% of the families whose children attend public schools. The average benefit to a family with children in private schools would be $37 while the average benefit for families with children in public schools would only be $7. Expanding the definition of qualified education expense will result in revenue losses of $760 million over five years and $1.6 billion over ten years. That's money that could be better invested in improving crumbling school buildings, buying computer equipment, paying teachers more and making classes smaller in our public schools. Public education faces more challenges today than ever before. But rather than diverting precious resources and students from our public schools we need to face these problems head on. Simply abandoning public education does a disservice to every American--it breaks the promises that our country is founded on. By any measure, the schools in my own state are doing a good job. In 1997 Montana continued to top the nation in ACT scores (fourth highest in the country) and our state's SAT scores continued to be 37 points above the national average in math and 40 points above the national average in verbal skills. Montana, like nearly half (47%) of the states, has a policy prescribing class size. Since 1970 Montana and national student/teacher ratios have stayed virtually parallel, with Montana maintaining a ratio of about two fewer students per teacher than the national average. Beginning in the mid- 1990's Montana's statewide ratio of 14.8 students per teacher is only one fewer that the national average of 15.8 students per teacher. Class sizes in most of Montana's middle and larger sized school districts are roughly equal to the national average. Unfortunately the salary scale for Montana teachers has not kept pace with the national average. In 1996 our educators were paid 16% less than the national average. Federal funding plays an increasingly important role in public education. After stagnating in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, Federal revenues now pay more that 10% of Montana's public schools costs; or 2% more than in 1983. Unfortunately, during this period state revenues committed to education have declined. In 1993, state revenues paid for 53.8% of school costs but have now fallen to around 49% of total school expenditures. Montana is not willing to rest on its education laurels. Our State Board of Public Education is evaluating new standards for math and reading proficiency. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction recently stated that ``(i)t's time to raise the high bar on education'' by forging ahead with development of new standards for science and communications, English, writing, speech and debate. Rather than providing tax benefits for those who can already send their children to the best schools, we need to invest in education systems like Montana's that have a proven record of success while insuring that public schools that do not perform well are held accountable for their performance. We are called upon today to discuss our nation's education system. And I welcome the debate that all sides will give. However, I urge my colleagues to support public education--support the promise that we hold out to all children regardless of faith, race, income or ability. Oppose the A+ Education Savings Account Act. And hold open wide the door of opportunity for all America's children.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to join my friends and colleagues in paying tribute to Terry Sanford. I did not serve on any committee with Terry, but in the few years that we served together, he immediately struck me as a wonderful man, a good man, with a ready smile, a very thoughtful, very wise, very good, very deep person, the kind of Senator that not only North Carolina, I know, is very proud of, but the kind of Senator that I think most Americans would want their Senator to be. I cannot, as I am standing here thinking of Terry Sanford, think of another person whom I respected more and loved more and appreciated more, going through all the history, Research Triangle of North Carolina, the Governor, president of Duke University. But the main point I want to make is, working with Terry personally, and talking with him, and working through issues, he was a man who will be very difficult to replace. And, as I said, I can think of no Senator whom I would hold in higher esteem or regard than Terry Sanford.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of ``The Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998.'' I am pleased to be joined on this bill by my Colleague from Montana, Senator Burns. This bill will help protect important lands in Montana for the use and enjoyment of all Americans. It will protect our hunting and fishing heritage and ensure that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy our great wild lands, just as we do today. Canyon Ferry Reservoir sits just east of Helena, Montana. Along the north shore of the reservoir, there are 265 cabin sites that have been leased by the Bureau of Reclamation for over two decades. On these sites, families have built cabins and houses, car ports and garages, and planted lawns and gardens. Many families now live in these cabins year-round. These cabin sites have been a constant management problem for the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition to managing the reservoir, the Bureau of Reclamation has been forced to play landlord. Like all landlords, the Bureau of Reclamation has often been at odds with the cabin owners over rental payments and maintenance of the property. This conflict has damaged public good will and created administrative expenses for the government as appeals are filed to respond to the conflict of the day. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act establishes an equitable means of resolving these conflicts and, at the same time, provide substantial benefit to the public. This Act proposes to sell all 265 cabin sites through a sealed bid process with the minimum bid set at fair market value determined in accordance with federal appraisal standards. All existing lease arrangements would have to be honored by the purchaser of the 265 cabin sites, and each cabin owner would have to be given an option to purchase their cabin site from the successful bidder. In this way, the Act ensures that the public will receive a maximum return on the investment, while at the same time, fully protecting the interests of the current leaseholders. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998 would use the proceeds from this sale to establish two funds for the conservation of fish and wildlife and would return 10% of the proceeds to the U.S. Treasury. The first fund established by this Act, the Canyon Ferry-Missouri Trust, would be a perpetual endowment fund with 45% of the proceeds from the sale of the cabin sites. It would be used for the public acquisition of property at Canyon Ferry Reservoir and along the Missouri River and its tributaries upstream to the confluence of the Madison, Jefferson, and Gallatin Rivers. This trust would be managed by a board consisting of representatives of local and statewide sportsmens organizations and local landowners. The Canyon Ferry-Missouri River Endowment would be used to purchase public access to hunting and fishing sites and to acquire property and conservation easements to enhance public hunting and fishing opportunities at the reservoir and along the Missouri. All property acquired by this trust would be purchased from willing sellers. The second fund, Montana Hunter and Fisherman Access Fund would be a state-wide fund established with another 45% of the proceeds from the sale of the cabin sites. It would be used to acquire public access to federal lands in Montana and to acquire property and conservation easements to enhance public hunting and fishing opportunities across the state. This fund would be managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. This fund could be used to acquire property only from willing sellers. The remaining 10% of the proceeds from the sale of the cabin sites would be returned to the U.S. Treasury. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1998 presents an exciting opportunity for us to ensure that our children can enjoy hunting and fishing just as we do. This bill will improve access to public lands and will protect important fish and wildlife habitat for the benefit of all Americans. It does so by selling cabin sites which currently are providing very few benefits to the general public while causing significant management conflicts and expenses for the Bureau of Reclamation. This is a fair bill that is widely supported by cabin owners, local land owners, and sportsmen throughout Montana. There are a number of issues that still need to be ironed out with this bill. In particular, the Canyon Ferry Recreation Association (the association of cabin owners) has expressed concern that they may not financially be able to step into the role of landlord for those leasees who are unable to purchase the cabin sites should be Association be the highest bidder. We'll have to work through these and other issues as this bill moves forward. Nonetheless, Mr. President, I believe that this bill is a good start. I look forward to working with my Colleague from Montana and with all the members of the Senate to finalize and pass this legislation for the benefit of America's fish and wildlife heritage. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.