Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from New Jersey and my fellow member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Lautenberg. This amendment will allow the Congress to increase funding for important natural resources and environment programs without increasing the deficit or lowering the surplus. That is an important point. We would be able to address additional needs in these areas without affecting the overall deficit or surplus. The amendment would do this by allowing the excess receipts from a reinstated Superfund taxes to offset the cost of the programs. What kind of programs might be funded through in this amendment? We could hasten the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. We could provide assistance to states to protect waterways from polluted runoff. We also could fund construction and maintenance for our deteriorating national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. These priorities were included in the President's proposed Environmental Resources Fund for America, but they are not included in Senate Concurrent Resolution 86. The amendment would allow the authorizing committees, including the Environment and Public Works Committee on which Senator Lautenberg and I sit, to set direct spending levels for environmental and natural resources programs. Furthermore, it would allow any excess funds from an extension of the Superfund tax to offset the added costs. The Republican budget assumes that if a Superfund tax is reinstated, $200 million would be used to pay for that portion of the cleanup that is attributable to parties that are bankrupt or otherwise cannot pay their share. The balance of $1.5 billion each year could be used to offset the cost of unspecified spending or tax breaks. By contrast, the Lautenberg amendment would direct the money from the Superfund tax to needed environmental improvements--investments in the future of our natural resources and sustained health of our environment, not just for us, but for our children. Directing more resources to states to help address the problem of polluted runoff will be an investment in the future of clean water. Cleaning up Superfund sites is an investment that can protect public health and foster economic redevelopment. Maintaining our national parks--our national treasures--is an investment that we must make, or see that part of our heritage fall apart. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Jersey for his amendment and urge my colleagues to support it for the future health of our citizens and the environment.

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.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1998'' along with my colleague Senator Burns. This bill represents the culmination of sixteen years of intensive technical studies and six years of negotiations involving the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the State of Montana, local governments, water districts and ranchers as well as the United States Departments of justice and Interior. The 108,000 acre Rocky Boy's Reservation is located west of Havre, Montana in the Bears Paw Mountains with portions extending onto the plains between the mountains and the Milk River in north-central Montana. Historically, the area was part of the large territory north of the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers designated for the Blackfeet Nation in the treaty of 1855. In 1880 the Fort Assiniboine military reservation was established. In 1916 Congress set aside 56,035 acres for the Chippewa and Cree Bands of Chief Rocky Boy. In 1947 it was expanded by 45,523 acres bringing it to near its current size. None of the land has been allotted although some individual assignments have been made. The reservation is home to over 3,000 tribal members and has an annual population growth exceeding 3%. While unemployment is estimated at nearly 70% the tribe has made important progress in economic development. Production of cattle and grain, development of timber and tourism provide solid sources of tribal income. The reservation is located in an area of scarce water supply. Studies have demonstrated that the reservation could not sustain tribal membership without additional supplies of water for drinking, agricultural and municipal purposes. Since 1992, the tribe, state and federal government have worked hard to reach an equitable water rights settlement. The tribe and state reached tentative agreement on the compact in January 1997. The tribal Council passed a resolution supporting ratification of the agreement shortly thereafter. In the spring of 1997, the Montana State Senate unanimously ratified the compact and the State House gave its approval on a 91-9 vote. It was signed into law by the Governor of Montana on April 14, 1997. This legislation ratifies the compact and settles the tribe's claims against the United States. The bill provides for: (1) quantification of the tribe's water rights including 10,000 acre feet from surface and groundwater sources on the reservation as well as reserving 10,000 acre feet for the tribe from Lake Elwell, a US Bureau of Reclamation Project located approximately 50 miles from the reservation. The settlement does not provide for transport of this water to the reservation; (2) mitigation of impacts on off-reservation water use including designating two pools of water stored in Bonneau Reservoir on the reservation for irrigation, stockwatering and maintenance of water quality on Box Elder Creek. Additional water will also be made available for protecting the Brook Trout fishery in upper Beaver Creek; (3) authorization of two feasibility studies by the Bureau of Reclamation to examine water and related resources for both reservation and off-reservation water supplies in the area, and; (4) authorization of $25 million in Federal funding for development of reservation water supplies including enlargement of Bonneau, Towe, Brown and East Fork Reservoirs; a $3 million dollar economic development fund for the tribe and $15 million for future importation of drinking water to the reservation, a much needed project in north central Montana. Additionally, $3 million will be provided for tribal administration of the agreement. This legislation would never have become a reality without the hard work and cooperation of many people. I would especially like to recognize the staff and tribal council of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the staff of the Montana Water Rights Compact Commission, the Department of Interior and the Native American Rights Fund. I am particularly grateful for the efforts of David Hayes, Special Counselor to Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Hayes' involvement was like a breath of fresh air, he moved forward when others were ready to give up on negotiations. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Burns to expedite passage of this historic settlement. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1998'' along with my colleague Senator Burns. This bill represents the culmination of sixteen years of intensive technical studies and six years of negotiations involving the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the State of Montana, local governments, water districts and ranchers as well as the United States Departments of justice and Interior. The 108,000 acre Rocky Boy's Reservation is located west of Havre, Montana in the Bears Paw Mountains with portions extending onto the plains between the mountains and the Milk River in north-central Montana. Historically, the area was part of the large territory north of the Missouri and Musselshell Rivers designated for the Blackfeet Nation in the treaty of 1855. In 1880 the Fort Assiniboine military reservation was established. In 1916 Congress set aside 56,035 acres for the Chippewa and Cree Bands of Chief Rocky Boy. In 1947 it was expanded by 45,523 acres bringing it to near its current size. None of the land has been allotted although some individual assignments have been made. The reservation is home to over 3,000 tribal members and has an annual population growth exceeding 3%. While unemployment is estimated at nearly 70% the tribe has made important progress in economic development. Production of cattle and grain, development of timber and tourism provide solid sources of tribal income. The reservation is located in an area of scarce water supply. Studies have demonstrated that the reservation could not sustain tribal membership without additional supplies of water for drinking, agricultural and municipal purposes. Since 1992, the tribe, state and federal government have worked hard to reach an equitable water rights settlement. The tribe and state reached tentative agreement on the compact in January 1997. The tribal Council passed a resolution supporting ratification of the agreement shortly thereafter. In the spring of 1997, the Montana State Senate unanimously ratified the compact and the State House gave its approval on a 91-9 vote. It was signed into law by the Governor of Montana on April 14, 1997. This legislation ratifies the compact and settles the tribe's claims against the United States. The bill provides for: (1) quantification of the tribe's water rights including 10,000 acre feet from surface and groundwater sources on the reservation as well as reserving 10,000 acre feet for the tribe from Lake Elwell, a US Bureau of Reclamation Project located approximately 50 miles from the reservation. The settlement does not provide for transport of this water to the reservation; (2) mitigation of impacts on off-reservation water use including designating two pools of water stored in Bonneau Reservoir on the reservation for irrigation, stockwatering and maintenance of water quality on Box Elder Creek. Additional water will also be made available for protecting the Brook Trout fishery in upper Beaver Creek; (3) authorization of two feasibility studies by the Bureau of Reclamation to examine water and related resources for both reservation and off-reservation water supplies in the area, and; (4) authorization of $25 million in Federal funding for development of reservation water supplies including enlargement of Bonneau, Towe, Brown and East Fork Reservoirs; a $3 million dollar economic development fund for the tribe and $15 million for future importation of drinking water to the reservation, a much needed project in north central Montana. Additionally, $3 million will be provided for tribal administration of the agreement. This legislation would never have become a reality without the hard work and cooperation of many people. I would especially like to recognize the staff and tribal council of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the staff of the Montana Water Rights Compact Commission, the Department of Interior and the Native American Rights Fund. I am particularly grateful for the efforts of David Hayes, Special Counselor to Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Hayes' involvement was like a breath of fresh air, he moved forward when others were ready to give up on negotiations. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Burns to expedite passage of this historic settlement. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Six minutes 44 seconds. I have two strong supporters here. I see my colleague from Montana on the floor. I yield to my colleague, since I have only 6 minutes, 3 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is to give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to extend the marketing assisting loans until September 30 of this year. Why are we doing this? Why am I offering this amendment? It is very simple. The northern tier U.S. farmers are suffering dire economic consequences for a lot of reasons. No. 1, the price of grain, particularly wheat and barley, is very low. We have had very depressed prices for a lot of years. Second, a lot of grain from Canada is shipped down to northern tier States. More grain trucks are coming, it is anticipated, and I believe, frankly, that Canada is beginning to fudge on an agreement it reached with the United States several years ago. Prior to that time, Canada shipped about 2.5 million metric tons of wheat to the United States. We brought the Canadians to the negotiating table, and Canada agreed to limit its shipment to the United States to 1.5 metric tons. That was several years ago. It is clear to me that Canada is at least fudging that agreement and is increasing shipments of grain to the United States. After that, with the problems we have in dealing with Canada with respect to trade in agriculture, we lost one of the main levers. We had section 22 to say to Canada, ``You are disrupting our markets.'' That was the purpose of section 22 of the Agriculture Price Stabilization Act, not too many years ago. But we negotiated that away in the last GATT round. In return, all countries promised to reduce their subsidies, particularly their export subsidies. But Canada still retained the Canadian Wheat Board. Not only Canada but other countries--Australia--have their wheat boards, which is a monopolistic control over that country's billing and selling of grain, particularly wheat. After that, Americans placed limits on exports that other countries don't have. For example, I cite the various countries. The total amount is about 10 percent. Our exports are limited by the sanctions that we imposed preventing exports to certain countries. Canada doesn't have those sanctions, Argentina doesn't, the European Community doesn't. We are limiting our farmers. A couple of years ago, we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. You recall under that act we basically decoupled agricultural price support payments from production. From that point on, farmers had more freedom in the production of their crops, the crops they could choose. At that time, too, the price of wheat was very high. As I recall, it was around $6 a bushel, almost as high as $7 a bushel. Now it is down, in many cases, below $3 a bushel. At that time, farmers realized that they had a bit of a Hobson's choice here: On the one hand, support Freedom to Farm--at that time, corn was high and the price support payments were decoupled but were quite high at the time even though they had been coming down gradually--so now it is not much less. Farmers could either vote for that--support Freedom to Farm--or keep the present program. Most farmers decided they would gamble on Freedom to Farm, basically because prices were good at the time. But in exchange, American farmers expected--in fact, they were promised--that the United States would fight vigorously to open up foreign markets--fight vigorously to open up foreign markets. I might say, I do not think anybody in this Chamber thinks the U.S. has fought very vigorously to open up foreign markets to the sale of wheat and other grains. We have talked about it. There has been a lot of talk about it but not a lot of action. So all I am saying is, in exchange for the U.S. Government's failure to fight to open up markets for American products, particularly wheat now--exports of wheat--at the very least, we can extend the loan provisions of the current law 5 months, to September 30, 1998. It just seems to me, because the farmers now are suffering so severely, bankers are starting to call in loans, bankers are not giving farmers additional operating capital--at the very least, we can extend the marketing assistance loan period for 5 more months to the end of 1998, to give farmers a chance, a little longer into 1998, before their loan is called and they have to pay back their loan at the current loan rate. What you are going to hear is this. You are going to hear: ``Oh, gosh, there we go. We are opening up the Farm Act, Freedom to Farm.'' That is not true. In no way does this amendment open up or revisit the Freedom to Farm Act. We are also going to hear this sets a bad precedent--here we are, after passing Freedom to Farm, where the Government is coming in. But I say that, first, our goal here is not to be rigidly consistent and mechanically steel-trap logical and just rigidly sticking to something. Rather, our charge here, our obligation, is to do what is right. I think it is right just merely to extend marketing assistance loans to the end of the year. We are not going back from Freedom to Farm; not any other change. I might say, too, it has absolutely zero effect on the budget, and that is because it is not scored. It is not scored because the loan is extended only to the end of September of this year. So this has no budget effect. It helps farmers by letting them decide when they want to sell their grain. If they have held it so far, they can sell at a later date. In addition, we are handcuffing farmers because of the limitations we have placed on the export of a lot of our products; that is, 10 percent of our exports are sanctioned; we cannot go to various countries. And on top of that, our Government has not fought vigorously enough to open up markets in other countries. One example is China. China does not take any Pacific Northwest wheat--none, not one kernel--because they have come up with this phony argument that it has a fungus. It is a phony argument. Anybody who looks at the question knows it is phony, yet they do not buy any. How hard has our Government worked to say, ``Hey, you have to play fair. President Jiang Zemin came to the United States. The least you can do is open up your markets a little bit.'' Our Government has not worked nearly as hard as I think it should. Let me just finish by saying it is a very small matter in terms of what we are doing here on the supplemental appropriations bill. We are not opening up Freedom to Farm. It has zero budget effect. We are just saying give farmers, particularly northern tier farmers, a little bit of a break for the next several months. And the break is only a longer period within which they have to decide whether to sell their grain on the market or not. That is all it is. I think it is a very fair amendment and should be adopted.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this side?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I inquire, is there a time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I can't but be bemused by this debate, because the Senator from North Dakota said this isn't just a trivial step. In fact, the Senator from Indiana, the very distinguished chairman of the committee, quietly admitted that he doesn't think it is going to do much, and if that is the case, I don't know why we don't just do it. It is also true one of the tenets of Freedom to Farm is more flexibility. I remind my colleagues that we in the North do not have a lot of flexibility, because of our weather and soil conditions, and so forth. There is not near the flexibility in planting different kinds of crops that farmers in other parts of the country might have. A major answer to this problem, obviously, is a greater effort to knock down trade barriers. That is clear. A greater answer to this problem, too, is much more executive branch and congressional effort to make sure that other countries are not taking unfair advantage of American producers. Mr. President, I will withdraw the amendment, but in so doing, I would like the assurance of the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Indiana of efforts that we can undertake on a bipartisan basis to actually do something about this. We talk a lot about knocking down trade barriers; we talk a lot about GSM programs; we talk a lot about P.L.-480; we talk a lot about NAFTA; we talk a lot about fast track, and so forth. But it is time to do something about this. I will not press for a vote, but I do urge my friends and colleagues to make the effort, to be sure, again, on a bipartisan basis and with the White House, that we can finally stand up for our producers and work harder and more effectively together than we have thus far. One example is appropriations, whether it is EEP or whatever it is. We can authorize programs, but we also have to have appropriations. I would like to ask my friends if they could respond.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Safeguard of New Employee Information Act of 1998. This bill will ensure that the mechanisms created in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) to enhance our child support enforcement system will not lead to a misuse of personal information. I believe that my bill will assure that new employee information is kept confidential without compromising the usefulness of the National Directory of New Hires. The legislation provides clear safeguards against the abuse of personal employee information, and makes sure that the information is erased two years after entry. As we all know, child support is a critical part of welfare reform. I strongly support the measures in PRWORA that help states track and crack down on parents who fail to pay court-ordered child support. In response to the fact that over 30 percent of child support cases involve parents who do not live in the same state as their children, a National Directory of New Hires was created to assist states in locating parents who reside in other states. Thus far, the new data base has been very successful in enabling states to locate delinquent parents, enforcing payment orders and reducing the number of welfare families. However, many folks are concerned about the confidentiality of the registry, and the fact that this information is never deleted. Last year, for example, the Montana State Legislature passed a child support bill to comply with the new federal regulations. I must add, this bill was passed in the final hours of the legislative session and under the threat of losing $52 million a year in federal funds. At that time, the legislature was hesitant to pass the bill because of concerns regarding confidentiality. Mr. President, the Safeguard of New Employee Information Act of 1998 makes needed changes to the National Directory to alleviate these fears and ensure the registry's continuation. The bill provides penalties for misuse of information by federal employees. Specifically, it establishes a fine of $1,000 for each act of unauthorized access to, disclosure, or use of information in the National Directory of New Hires. The bill also establishes a 24-month limit on retention of New Hire data. This two year limit gives Child Support Enforcement agencies the necessary time to determine paternity, establish a child support order or enforce existing orders. A shorter period of data retention would impede enforcement activities, and a longer period of retention increases the potential for abuse. Mr. President, in my state of Montana, 90 percent of families on welfare are headed by single parents. That is why it is so important to require that the absent mothers or fathers provide money to feed, clothe and care for their children. The National Directory of New Hires is a good idea--we just need to ensure new employee confidentiality. I urge my colleagues to protect new hire confidentiality and support this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Safeguard of New Employee Information Act of 1998. This bill will ensure that the mechanisms created in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) to enhance our child support enforcement system will not lead to a misuse of personal information. I believe that my bill will assure that new employee information is kept confidential without compromising the usefulness of the National Directory of New Hires. The legislation provides clear safeguards against the abuse of personal employee information, and makes sure that the information is erased two years after entry. As we all know, child support is a critical part of welfare reform. I strongly support the measures in PRWORA that help states track and crack down on parents who fail to pay court-ordered child support. In response to the fact that over 30 percent of child support cases involve parents who do not live in the same state as their children, a National Directory of New Hires was created to assist states in locating parents who reside in other states. Thus far, the new data base has been very successful in enabling states to locate delinquent parents, enforcing payment orders and reducing the number of welfare families. However, many folks are concerned about the confidentiality of the registry, and the fact that this information is never deleted. Last year, for example, the Montana State Legislature passed a child support bill to comply with the new federal regulations. I must add, this bill was passed in the final hours of the legislative session and under the threat of losing $52 million a year in federal funds. At that time, the legislature was hesitant to pass the bill because of concerns regarding confidentiality. Mr. President, the Safeguard of New Employee Information Act of 1998 makes needed changes to the National Directory to alleviate these fears and ensure the registry's continuation. The bill provides penalties for misuse of information by federal employees. Specifically, it establishes a fine of $1,000 for each act of unauthorized access to, disclosure, or use of information in the National Directory of New Hires. The bill also establishes a 24-month limit on retention of New Hire data. This two year limit gives Child Support Enforcement agencies the necessary time to determine paternity, establish a child support order or enforce existing orders. A shorter period of data retention would impede enforcement activities, and a longer period of retention increases the potential for abuse. Mr. President, in my state of Montana, 90 percent of families on welfare are headed by single parents. That is why it is so important to require that the absent mothers or fathers provide money to feed, clothe and care for their children. The National Directory of New Hires is a good idea--we just need to ensure new employee confidentiality. I urge my colleagues to protect new hire confidentiality and support this important legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand that the USDA is working toward the release of funds relating to the competitively awarded Smith Lever 3(d) Food Safety grants program. An eligible activity of this program is the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database (FARAD). The American people are demanding higher levels of food safety, and the FARAD program will help develop better methods of assuring the safety of food products from our livestock sector. The Smith Lever 3(d) Food Safety program contains a total of $2,365,000, but it has been suggested that only $195,000 would be available for the FARAD activities. However, I understand that FARAD is not limited by the suggested amount of $195,000 and that additional funds under the Smith Lever 3(d) Food Safety grants program could be directed to FARAD as a competitive award. I further understand that no funds under this program have been obligated for the current fiscal year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allow Angela Marshall of my staff to be on the Senate floor during the introduction of the Emergency Marketing Assistance Act.

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

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emergency Marketing Assistance Act of 1998. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the rest of the Montana delegation--Senator Burns and Congressman Hill. The Emergency Marketing Assistance Act is the product of cooperation between our Montana delegation, local communities, and agricultural producers in our state. Farming is never easy. It is a challenge that requires work, knowledge, faith and courage. But this year has been a particularly difficult time for producers. A large number of wheat growers in our state and across America are facing a bleak market year. Many have not even sold their 1997 crop. Instead, they have taken out nine-month USDA Marketing Assistance Loans which will soon come due. But unless there is a dramatic upsurge in our current prices, they will be forced to sell at a low price, inadequate to cover their debts. Currently, the total volume of grain under loan in Montana is 43.5 million bushels. This is not an unusual figure during normal marketing years when farmers know they'll get a fair price for their product. Two years ago we could get over five dollars a bushel for our wheat. But today the current price languishes under the three dollar mark. Couple that with our abnormally high shipping rates, and it is no wonder our farmers are reluctant to sell. They would a serious hit. And some might lose the farm. However, it is important to remember, Mr. President, this difficult situation is temporary. In time, prices will rebound and wheat producers will be able to sell their grain at a fair price. That is why we are asking the Secretary of Agriculture to extend these loans for up to six months. Our producers would be able to weather the storm of these dreadful prices. For many of our farmers, this is a make-it or break-it year. They have survived tough winters and dry summers. They compete with the monopolistic practices of the Canadian Wheat Board. They struggle to overcome the high cost of shipping. And they are completely shut out of China's market. But we expect them to somehow go into the field day after day, season after season, to make certain that we have an abundant supply of food at a fair price. A six-month marketing assistance loan extension is a partial solution to the problems our farmers are facing. And that is why I am speaking here today. We also need to take immediate action to ensure that this price depression does not happen again. As we give our producers this tool to stay on their farms, we must also work to improve markets and stimulate prices. I am constantly reminded that many of our producers got behind the Freedom to Farm bill with the express understanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would aggressively seek export markets. Clearly, we need to do a better job of moving our products, especially wheat. I believe that by using a combination of the Export Enhancement Program, food aid and credit programs available through the USDA, we can assist our farmers during this difficult period. If we do not take action now, the results will be disastrous in farm country. I would like to thank my Montana colleagues for their assistance in this endeavor. I also want to recognize the efforts of our producers back home who have worked hard to make ends meet this past winter and brought this idea forward. You do a good job, and we are pulling for you. Mr. President, I strongly encourage my fellow senators to join me in supporting this important effort. 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 Emergency Marketing Assistance Act of 1998. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the rest of the Montana delegation--Senator Burns and Congressman Hill. The Emergency Marketing Assistance Act is the product of cooperation between our Montana delegation, local communities, and agricultural producers in our state. Farming is never easy. It is a challenge that requires work, knowledge, faith and courage. But this year has been a particularly difficult time for producers. A large number of wheat growers in our state and across America are facing a bleak market year. Many have not even sold their 1997 crop. Instead, they have taken out nine-month USDA Marketing Assistance Loans which will soon come due. But unless there is a dramatic upsurge in our current prices, they will be forced to sell at a low price, inadequate to cover their debts. Currently, the total volume of grain under loan in Montana is 43.5 million bushels. This is not an unusual figure during normal marketing years when farmers know they'll get a fair price for their product. Two years ago we could get over five dollars a bushel for our wheat. But today the current price languishes under the three dollar mark. Couple that with our abnormally high shipping rates, and it is no wonder our farmers are reluctant to sell. They would a serious hit. And some might lose the farm. However, it is important to remember, Mr. President, this difficult situation is temporary. In time, prices will rebound and wheat producers will be able to sell their grain at a fair price. That is why we are asking the Secretary of Agriculture to extend these loans for up to six months. Our producers would be able to weather the storm of these dreadful prices. For many of our farmers, this is a make-it or break-it year. They have survived tough winters and dry summers. They compete with the monopolistic practices of the Canadian Wheat Board. They struggle to overcome the high cost of shipping. And they are completely shut out of China's market. But we expect them to somehow go into the field day after day, season after season, to make certain that we have an abundant supply of food at a fair price. A six-month marketing assistance loan extension is a partial solution to the problems our farmers are facing. And that is why I am speaking here today. We also need to take immediate action to ensure that this price depression does not happen again. As we give our producers this tool to stay on their farms, we must also work to improve markets and stimulate prices. I am constantly reminded that many of our producers got behind the Freedom to Farm bill with the express understanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would aggressively seek export markets. Clearly, we need to do a better job of moving our products, especially wheat. I believe that by using a combination of the Export Enhancement Program, food aid and credit programs available through the USDA, we can assist our farmers during this difficult period. If we do not take action now, the results will be disastrous in farm country. I would like to thank my Montana colleagues for their assistance in this endeavor. I also want to recognize the efforts of our producers back home who have worked hard to make ends meet this past winter and brought this idea forward. You do a good job, and we are pulling for you. Mr. President, I strongly encourage my fellow senators to join me in supporting this important effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a few days, Washington's cherry trees will come into bloom by the Tidal Basin. As you may know, the Empire of Japan gave us these trees in the year 1912, as a gesture of thanks for President Theodore Roosevelt's role in ending the Russo-Japanese War. But with due regard for TR, no one in this century has done more for our relations with Japan than Montana's most accomplished and honored son: Mike Mansfield. Today Mike celebrates his 95th birthday. To honor this occasion, and with thanks for all that Mike has taught me and all of us over the years, I would like to offer some thoughts on our relationship with Japan as we approach the next century. The UNITED STATES-JAPAN ALLIANCE In the past fifty years, America and Japan built an enduring alliance. It is the work of statesmen like Douglas MacArthur and Yoshida Shigeru after the Second World War; Dwight Eisenhower and Kishi Nobusuke, who steered the US-Japan Security Treaty through the Senate and the Diet in 1960; and Mansfield himself in his years of service as Ambassador to Japan. It has weathered the Chinese Revolution and the Korean War. Crises in the Taiwan Strait. Vietnam and forty years of Cold War confrontation. Through it all, this alliance has helped prevent another broad Asian war. That in turn has helped all the nations of the Pacific--from the lonely islands in sight of the Antarctic coast across the equator to the snows of Manchuria--to grow, live peacefully with one another, and give their people better lives. And as we look to the new century, we must recognize that preserving and strengthening this alliance is our single most important foreign policy task in Asia.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is in the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. It is cleared by the committee. It will authorize a study to investigate the best methods of improving safety procedures that govern the transportation of hazardous materials, including linking the renewal of a hauler's Federal permit to an annual safety review. As I said, the Commerce Committee has cleared this. I urge its adoption.