Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the important campaign finance reform legislation that is before us today. Today very wealthy special interest groups can pump unlimited amounts of money into a political campaign. In fact, one individual or group can attempt to buy an election. After this bill passes, that will not longer be true. This is the one reform that will do the most to give an ordinary person an equal say in who they send to Congress. I support this legislation because I believe it represents the right kind of change. While not a perfect solution, it will help put our political process back where it belongs: with the people. And it will take power away from the wealthy special interests that all too often call the shots in our political system. Let's be clear of our goal today: we must ensure that political campaigns are a contest of ideas, not a contest of money. We need to return elections to the citizens of states like Montana and allow them to make their own decisions, rather than letting rich Washington, DC groups run attack campaigns designed to do nothing but drag down a candidate. Yet, ironically, by failing to act; by failing to pass this legislation; we will also be opening the door to change--the wrong kind of change. Our political system will continue to drift in the dangerous direction of special interests. Since the 1970s, when Congress last enacted campaign finance reform, special interest groups supporting both political parties have found creative new ways, some of questionable legality, to get around the intent of our campaign finance laws. Things like soft money, independent expenditures, and political action committees all came about as a consequence of well-intended campaign finance reforms. montanans want reform During my last campaign, I walked across Montana--over 800 miles across the Big Sky State. One of the benefits to walking across Montana, in addition to the beautiful scenery, is that I hear what real people in Montana think. Average folks who don't get paid to fly to Washington and tell elected officials what they think. Folks who work hard, play by the rules, and are still struggling to get by. People are becoming more and more cynical about government. Over and over, people tell me they think that Congress cares more about ``fat cat special interests in Washington'' than the concerns of middle class families like theirs. Or they tell me that they think the political system is corrupt. effect on working montanans Middle-class families are working longer and harder for less. They have seen jobs go overseas. Health care expenses rise. The possibility of a college education for their kids diminished. Their hope for a secure retirement evaporate. Today, many believe that to make the American Dream a reality, you have to be born rich or win the lottery. Part of restoring that dream is restoring confidence that the political system works on their behalf, not just on behalf of wealthy special interests. Now it is time for use to take a real step to win-back the public trust--it is time for us to pass a tough, fair, and comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform bill. That bill must accomplish three things. First, it must be strong enough to encourage the majority if not all candidates for federal office to participate. Second, it must contain the spiraling cost of campaign spending in this country. finally, and most importantly, it must control the increasing flow of undisclosed and unreported ``soft-money'' that is polluting our electoral system. reform must reduce costs of campaigns Under the current campaign system, the average cost of running for a Senate seat in this country is $4 million. I had to raise a little more than that during my 1996 race. That is an average of almost $2000 a day. When a candidate is faced with the daunting task of raising $12,000 a week--every week--for six years to meet the cost of an average campaign, qualified people are driven away from the process. If we allow ideas to take a back seat to a candidates ability to raise money--surely our democracy is in danger. The numbers are proof enough. As campaign costs have risen, voter turnout has drastically fallen. Think about that. People are spending more and more, while fewer people are voting. Since 1992, money spent on campaigns has risen by $700 million dollars. In the same time period, turnout has dropped from 55% to an all time low of 48%. Mr. President, less than half the country now votes in elections. What does this say about our political system? It says, quite simply, that people no longer believe that their vote counts, that they can make a difference. They believe that big corporations and million dollar PACs have more of a say in government than the average citizen. That perception is the most dangerous threat facing our country today. Let me be clear--my first choice would simply be to control campaign costs by enacting campaign spending limits. However, the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, made what I believe was a critical mistake. They equated money with free speech--preventing Congress from setting reasonable state-by-state spending limits that everyone would have to abide by. what's right with the bill While I must admit this bill is not perfect, it will take several crucial actions to reign in campaign spending. First, this is the first bi-partisan approach to campaign finance reform in more than a decade. Second, the bill establishes a system that does not rely on taxpayers dollars to work effectively. The McCain-Feingold substitute would prohibit all soft money contributions to the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. The bill offers real, workable enforcement and accountability standards. Like lowering the reporting threshold for campaign contributions from $200 to $50. It increases penalties for knowing and willful violations of FEC law. And the bill requires political advertisements to carry a disclaimer, identifying who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad. Every election year, in addition to the millions of dollars in disclosed contributions, there are the hundreds of millions in unreported, undisclosed contributions spent by ``independent expenditure'' campaigns and ``issue advocacy'' advertisements. These ads are funded by soft-money contributions to national political parties. Out-of-state special interest groups can spend any amount of money they choose, none of which is disclosed, all in the name of ``educating'' voters--when in fact their only purpose is to influence the outcome of a election. More times than not, the see-sawing 30 second bites do more to confuse than to educate. This lack of accountability is dangerous to our democracy. These independent expenditure campaigns can say whatever they wish for or against a candidate, and there is little that candidates can do--short of spending an equal or greater amount of money to refute what are often gross distortions and character assassinations. To close, Mr. President, America needs and wants campaign finance reform. The Senate should pass comprehensive legislation right now. That legislation should accomplish one clear goal: we must ensure that political campaigns are a contest of ideas, not a contest of money. An oft-quoted American put it this way: ``Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with.'' That statement wasn't made this year or last year, or even during our political lifetimes. Will Rogers said that in 1931. He was right then, and he's even more right today. I remain committed to this cause and will do everything in my power to ensure that the Congress passes meaningful Campaign Finance Reform, this year.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to reauthorize programs within the Economic Development Administration. It is with great pleasure that I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Lieberman, Kempthorne, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Lautenberg, Collins, Johnson, and Kennedy. Mr. President, programs under the jurisdiction of the Economic Development Administration have not been reauthorized for almost two decades. Despite the uncertainty and instability this has created, EDA has become the cornerstone for efforts to strengthen and diversify the economies of our nation's communities. Since its inception in 1965, the EDA has established an impressive track record of helping communities help themselves. These ``bootstrap'' efforts have allowed communities to meet economic challenges in a variety of ways--making public works improvements to attract new businesses and providing technical assistance and planning grants that allow a community to plan for their future for example. In my home state of Montana, EDA has been a powerful force in responding to the changing economic conditions in communities that have relied on one industry--only to see that industry shut down and move away. EDA's planning and public works assistance has allowed these communities to attract new companies, retain companies already in place and diversify their economies. EDA has also been instrumental in responding to and assisting areas affected by natural disasters. In Florida and Louisiana, EDA was there to help businesses affected by the devastation of Hurricane Andrew. And EDA is still working with those areas of the Midwest devastated by the disastrous floods of 1993 and those areas recently impacted by floods in the Pacific Northwest. The programs within the EDA have become even more critical to Congress' efforts to alleviate and address job losses due to the closure and realignment of military bases around the country. The EDA's programs are effective tools that are used on the local level--working hand-in-hand with local governments and businesses to develop future economic investment strategies. By acting as a catalyst, economic development funds are used to attract significant private contributions and support. Despite efforts to dismantle the EDA, the agency has matured in its approach to local economic development efforts. But the lack of authorization has not allowed Congress to make necessary changes to the statute and mission of the EDA. As with any program, there are some areas that are working well and other areas that need to be refined. The lack of authorization has left some aspects of EDA's programs outdated or unnecessary. That is why I am introducing this bill today-- a bill to streamline and advance EDA's successful programs. Mr. President, our country is faced with many challenges. Many of our communities are in economic transition and need to strengthen the diversity of their economies. We need to reauthorize EDA. It is high time we recognize the important role that EDA plays in the future of this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record, along with a brief section-by- section.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota is much too kind in his compliments of this Senator. The real credit goes to the Senator from North Dakota. We have seen many task forces appointed by various leaders on both sides of the aisle. I think we know that most task forces basically do their work. They meet, they have several meetings, and are earnest in trying to come up with a good solution assigned to them by the leader. In this case, the Senator from North Dakota added new meaning to the definition of task force. First of all, they tasked; they worked very hard. I have not seen any effort since the days I have been in the Senate where a task force, a group worked so hard at so many meetings, called in so many outside experts in such a wide variety of fields to make sure they came up with a very solid, comprehensive, near bullet- proof proposal in an area that is as complicated as this, whether it is taxation issues, whether it is health issues, whether it is judicial issues, whatever they may be. All of us who have any knowledge of the degree to which the Senator from North Dakota put this group together salute him. I have never seen anybody work as hard, as diligently and come up with such a fine product as the Senator from North Dakota. I hope that future task forces use his as a model, because if they do, the people of our country will be very, very well served, just as the Senator from North Dakota's task force has served America with his efforts and his work. He has done the best job of any Senator I have ever seen on any kind of task force or group effort trying to come up with a solution to a very complicated problem. Again, I salute him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters of support for the Healthy Kids Act be submitted into the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to my very, very good friend, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia who is the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and has held more titles around here than I can think of. It is an honor to yield to him.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, to urge the Senate to begin the debate on the ISTEA reauthorization bill. That is important for a number of reasons, that I will get to in a moment. But first let me comment on why we find ourselves in this position. As my colleagues know, the current ISTEA legislation expired on September 30th of last year. The Environment and Public Works Committee, under the leadership of our chairman Senator Chafee and our subcommittee chairman Senator Warner, reported the 6-year reauthorization bill on October 1. About that same time, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported a stop gap 6-month extension. Unfortunately, as we all recall, the Senate bill got caught up in an unrelated debate over campaign finance reform. So, regrettably, last session ended with the Congress--both House and Senate--unable to complete action on a long-term bill to reauthorize this important legislation. The best we could do was to extend the funding until May 1 of this year. Now, there is plenty of blame to go around for this unfortunate situation. Whether it was the failure to invoke cloture, or the filling of the amendment tree, which prevented Senators from offering amendments, there were lots of reasons for our failure last year. But that was then, and this is now. And the plain fact is that pointing fingers at one another about what did, or did not, happen last year will not help us move a reauthorization bill this year. So let us stop blaming one another for last year and let us start figuring out how to get the ISTEA legislation reauthorized quickly this year. Now, Mr. President, let me talk about why we need to move quickly with ISTEA. The simple fact is that without quick action, highway projects, safety programs, and transit projects will begin to lose the ability to meet our country's transportation needs. Already State highway officials tell us that they are beginning to delay projects. Why should this be so? Why are States slowing down, or stopping, some projects--even though there are still 42 days of funding left until the May 1st deadline? The reason is that most highway projects take a long time to complete. It is not unusual for even relatively simple projects to take three, four or five years to finish. Sometimes even more. And complicated or controversial projects, such as the Central Artery in Boston, can take a decade or two to go from conception to completion. In the highway business, you don't start a project unless you know you will have the funds to complete it. After all, these projects cannot be turned on and turned off like a faucet. Doing so wreaks havoc on the construction itself, on the neighborhood, on traffic congestion, and so on. Because these projects extend over many years, they require a certainty in funding that extends over a comparable period. That is why highway bills need to last for several years. ISTEA ran for 6 years. The Senate-reported bill also lasts for 6 years. This time provides a good sense of stability to the financing of projects and allows states and communities to plan their transportation programs efficiently. But a short-term extension gives you uncertainty, not stability. Especially for large projects, if states cannot assure that Federal matching funds will be available to finish it, they won't even start it. So they delay projects, even if there may be a few weeks of funding left. At the end of my remarks, I will list a few of the States that are beginning to delay projects. I hope my colleagues will pay close attention to it. Because the longer we delay a reauthorization bill, the longer this list will grow. Now, let me talk for a few minutes about how the highway program works on the ground. And the process I will describe is essentially the same in every State. Each project normally has three distinct stages--planning, development, and construction. Each stage can last from weeks to years, depending on the specific project. The charts I have here today focus on the project development stage, that is, the process of taking a project proposed by local government and getting it ready for construction. As my colleagues can see, it is not simple. A highway project goes through a very complicated process. The chart on my right shows the first phase--the ``survey phase''. This is the part of a project where State Departments of Transportation do such things as prepare for public hearings; begin to draft environmental documents; collect soil samples; begin preliminary engineering; assess traffic noise impacts; begin subsurface utility relocation; and assess wetlands and water quality impacts. The second chart, on my left, shows the ``design phase''. Here, States must prepare the design documents for a project. These documents include traffic access plans; wetland mitigation plans; review of soil samples for hazardous materials; and applications for water quality permits. Of course, it also includes preparation of final construction drawings, route alignments, schedules of materials, and the like. The third chart covers the ``right-of-way'' phase. In this phase, States prepare the final environmental documents; determine where rights-of-way must be acquired; determine utility relocations; determine final traffic access controls; obtain wetlands permits; and review all of the documents from the previous design phase. And as I said before, all this must be done before one shovelfull of dirt is turned. Now, Mr. President, I explain this process to my colleagues so that they can begin to understand the complicated nature of the highway program. Every project in every State must go through this type of process. In Montana, we have over 450 projects going through it. In States with larger transportation budgets, there can be as many as 1,500 projects in the pipeline. No project can be ready to go to construction if it has been held up at any point in the development process. And States will not obligate funds to prepare a project for construction if they are uncertain they will actually be able to construct it at some point. For some projects that are large and complicated, the project development process can be longer than others. But the typical development time for a major construction project can range from five to seven years. That is, it can take five to seven years for a project to reach the point that it is ready for construction. Once a project is ready for construction, States must still advertise the project--which can take 3 to 4 weeks. Then States must receive bids, open the bids and award the contracts. That can take an additional 4 weeks. And workers, equipment and materials must be mobilized and brought to the construction site. More time. Finally, there is the time spent on actual construction. With such a complicated, time consuming process, it is important that Members of the Senate understand that even brief interruptions during project development can cascade into lengthy delays in construction. That is why the ISTEA bill runs for six years, to give the States some assurance they will not face wasteful delays and disruptions caused by funding uncertainties. That is also why a short-term extension, or worse, a series of short term extensions, is so disruptive. I have heard many Members ask ``what does it matter if we wait until late March or April to do this bill?''. I hope that once Members and staff become more familiar with this program, that will be a simple answer. If we wait to begin the debate until ``later'', this bill will not be done by the May 1st deadline. That means more projects will be delayed. It means thousands of workers will lose jobs. And I am afraid that such job losses will begin to happen soon. I have heard of one contractor who plans to lay off his construction workers on May 1st and will not rehire them until at least 30 days after the final conference report is agreed to. That same contractor will not be placing any orders with his suppliers until 45 to 60 days after a new bill is in place because he is uncertain he will have construction contracts to work on. And I am confident there are more contractors throughout the country making the same business decision. Mr. President, the hardworking Americans who lose their jobs because of these delays will do so through no fault of their own. These folks will be ready to show up for work every day and do a good job. And yet they will be told they must find other work because Congress couldn't resolve its differences and get the ISTEA bill reauthorized in time. Every State will feel this pain. Yes, some will hurt more than others. But every State will have to delay projects. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, some States have already listed the projects that will most likely be delayed if a reauthorization bill is not signed into law by May 1st. These are real projects. These are projects that communities were counting on. These are projects that are important for the safety and mobility of drivers and pedestrians and to relieve congestion in these States. The States that have already made plans to delay projects include: Kentucky, South Dakota, Maine, Wyoming, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, New Hampshire, Indiana, North Dakota and Utah. More States are expected to announce their plans soon. Mr. President, let's not treat the reauthorization of ISTEA as a political football. The consequences for all of our States are very real. For those Senators who doubt the impacts, I simply ask that they call their State Department of Transportation. Ask them what they plan to do in the coming weeks. I can assure you that it will not be good news. So we have a very important job to do--to reauthorize ISTEA. Let's get to it. I stand ready to work with the Majority Leader, with Senator Daschle, with my committee leadership, with Senators Byrd and Gramm, with the Budget Committee and all my colleagues to find a way to bring this bill up as soon as possible.

Mr. BAUCUS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend from West Virginia. Nobody has worked harder on this issue than he. We all owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude for his very fine work. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I join my colleague in congratulating our friend, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, on his 68th birthday. I have watched Senator Specter over the years, and I can say I do not think there is a Senator with a finer legal mind than the Senator from Pennsylvania, particularly from a criminal law perspective, constitutional law perspective, and a prosecutorial perspective as a former prosecutor in Pennsylvania. He brings to this body tremendous experience and tremendous judgment. And I join my colleague in wishing our colleague from Pennsylvania the very best returns on his 68th birthday.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota is much too kind in his compliments of this Senator. The real credit goes to the Senator from North Dakota. We have seen many task forces appointed by various leaders on both sides of the aisle. I think we know that most task forces basically do their work. They meet, they have several meetings, and are earnest in trying to come up with a good solution assigned to them by the leader. In this case, the Senator from North Dakota added new meaning to the definition of task force. First of all, they tasked; they worked very hard. I have not seen any effort since the days I have been in the Senate where a task force, a group worked so hard at so many meetings, called in so many outside experts in such a wide variety of fields to make sure they came up with a very solid, comprehensive, near bullet- proof proposal in an area that is as complicated as this, whether it is taxation issues, whether it is health issues, whether it is judicial issues, whatever they may be. All of us who have any knowledge of the degree to which the Senator from North Dakota put this group together salute him. I have never seen anybody work as hard, as diligently and come up with such a fine product as the Senator from North Dakota. I hope that future task forces use his as a model, because if they do, the people of our country will be very, very well served, just as the Senator from North Dakota's task force has served America with his efforts and his work. He has done the best job of any Senator I have ever seen on any kind of task force or group effort trying to come up with a solution to a very complicated problem. Again, I salute him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters of support for the Healthy Kids Act be submitted into the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Might I ask that the 30 minutes allotted to me be immediately following Senator Domenici?

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that I may follow Senator Byrd for 30 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a Bill that would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to exchange oil and gas leases in the Badger Two-Medicine area, in the State of Montana, for credits that could be applied toward bidding or royalty payments in Montana and the Gulf of Mexico. The area involved in this legislation is located along the Rocky Mountain Front, an area whose rich natural beauty I care deeply about. It lies south of one of the ``Crown Jewels'' of the National Park system, Glacier National Park. Also adjoining this area is the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and the uniquely wild and pristine Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. The Badger Two-Medicine area is undeveloped wilderness and contains many sites sacred to the Blackfeet Nation. The location of this area, its cultural value, and its undeveloped natural condition has been the focus of the decade-long debate over whether or not the oil and gas resources of the area should be developed. I myself believe that we should protect this special place for our children and grandchildren, and I have fought to do just that. We are no closer today to resolving the question of development of the resources of this area than we were a decade ago and it is time to resolve these conflicts. During this time the ten leaseholders in the area have made investments in anticipation of being able to exercise the option of developing wells under their leases. The time has come to break this stalemate that only costs the leaseholders, the citizens concerned with protecting the area, and the government time and money without resolution. The bill that I am introducing today is fair for the landowners, the citizens of Montana and the Nation, and fair for the leaseholders. Chevron, the largest leaseholder in the area, stated ``While we would have liked to have developed our well in the Badger Two-Medicine area, we understand that the public had concerns about our proposal. Senator Baucus' bill breaks the deadlock and allows everyone to get on with their business''. Today I am introducing this legislation, a common sense solution to a long-standing controversy, to allow all the parties to leave this dispute as winners. The Secretary of the Interior would work with leaseholders, who have made investments over the years, to determine credits for their expenses. These credits, allowing for reinvestment in Montana, can be applied to lease bids or royalty payments in other locations where they already have active wells or where development is more likely to occur. The citizens who are concerned about the cultural and resource effects of development would see the integrity of this area maintained. The government would be able to refocus the use of its limited financial resources on management activities that have a more direct positive result than continuation of the current disputes. This bill focuses on resolving Montana problems while looking out for the economic and natural resource interests of this State. Creating and maintaining jobs in Montana is very important to me. This bill helps save jobs. As Richard Jackson, owner of an outfitting business in the Badger Two-Medicine recently said, ``This bill isn't just about saving some of our most precious wildlands; it's about saving our wildlands and Montana jobs''. Montana has a unique recreational industry that has sustainable jobs that are dependent on wild untamed lands. We need to care for this wildness. I look forward to continuing work with the Governor and the Montana Delegation on innovative ideas to stimulate appropriate development of the State's rich mineral heritage while protecting its wildness and uncomparable natural beauty. I encourage my esteemed colleagues to support this bill and look forward to working with them in their consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a Bill that would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to exchange oil and gas leases in the Badger Two-Medicine area, in the State of Montana, for credits that could be applied toward bidding or royalty payments in Montana and the Gulf of Mexico. The area involved in this legislation is located along the Rocky Mountain Front, an area whose rich natural beauty I care deeply about. It lies south of one of the ``Crown Jewels'' of the National Park system, Glacier National Park. Also adjoining this area is the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and the uniquely wild and pristine Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. The Badger Two-Medicine area is undeveloped wilderness and contains many sites sacred to the Blackfeet Nation. The location of this area, its cultural value, and its undeveloped natural condition has been the focus of the decade-long debate over whether or not the oil and gas resources of the area should be developed. I myself believe that we should protect this special place for our children and grandchildren, and I have fought to do just that. We are no closer today to resolving the question of development of the resources of this area than we were a decade ago and it is time to resolve these conflicts. During this time the ten leaseholders in the area have made investments in anticipation of being able to exercise the option of developing wells under their leases. The time has come to break this stalemate that only costs the leaseholders, the citizens concerned with protecting the area, and the government time and money without resolution. The bill that I am introducing today is fair for the landowners, the citizens of Montana and the Nation, and fair for the leaseholders. Chevron, the largest leaseholder in the area, stated ``While we would have liked to have developed our well in the Badger Two-Medicine area, we understand that the public had concerns about our proposal. Senator Baucus' bill breaks the deadlock and allows everyone to get on with their business''. Today I am introducing this legislation, a common sense solution to a long-standing controversy, to allow all the parties to leave this dispute as winners. The Secretary of the Interior would work with leaseholders, who have made investments over the years, to determine credits for their expenses. These credits, allowing for reinvestment in Montana, can be applied to lease bids or royalty payments in other locations where they already have active wells or where development is more likely to occur. The citizens who are concerned about the cultural and resource effects of development would see the integrity of this area maintained. The government would be able to refocus the use of its limited financial resources on management activities that have a more direct positive result than continuation of the current disputes. This bill focuses on resolving Montana problems while looking out for the economic and natural resource interests of this State. Creating and maintaining jobs in Montana is very important to me. This bill helps save jobs. As Richard Jackson, owner of an outfitting business in the Badger Two-Medicine recently said, ``This bill isn't just about saving some of our most precious wildlands; it's about saving our wildlands and Montana jobs''. Montana has a unique recreational industry that has sustainable jobs that are dependent on wild untamed lands. We need to care for this wildness. I look forward to continuing work with the Governor and the Montana Delegation on innovative ideas to stimulate appropriate development of the State's rich mineral heritage while protecting its wildness and uncomparable natural beauty. I encourage my esteemed colleagues to support this bill and look forward to working with them in their consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, earlier today this body passed legislation to rename Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan National Airport. I rise today to express my opposition to that legislation. My opposition is in no way meant to dishonor President Reagan. Recently, we have named the nation's second largest federal building after President Reagan and have named a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier after him as well. Clearly, Ronald Reagan accomplished a great deal during his Presidency, and he deserves to be recognized for that contribution to our country. However, I do not believe that we should seek to honor President Reagan by diminishing the honor that we have bestowed upon President George Washington when we named the Washington National Airport--truly one of our nation's greatest founding fathers. Mr. President, I recently finished reading a biography of George Washington. I recommend everyone in this body do so also. It is important to remember and recognize the many contributions that he made to this country. For it is largely through his efforts that the United States is a world leader in every sense of the word. Because of his leadership, the thirteen individual colonies united to become the United States--a sovereign, independent nation. After the Revolutionary War, George Washington took a lead role in crafting our constitution and in the campaign for its ratification. The success of Washington's campaign was assured by 1797, at the end of his second presidential term, and his legacy continues to be the basis of law today. President Washington acted with Congress to establish the first great executive departments and to lay the foundations of the modern federal judiciary. He directed the creation of a diplomatic service. Three presidential and five congressional elections carried the new government, under the Constitution, through its initial trials. His policies procured adequate revenue for the national government and supplied the country with a sound currency, a well-supported public credit, and an efficient network of national banks. Above all, he conferred on the presidency a prestige so great that political leaders afterward esteemed it the highest distinction to occupy the chair he had honored. His work and leadership as President is a benchmark by which we should measure all those who serve in that high office. Most of the work that engaged Washington had to be achieved through people. President Washington found that success depended on their cooperation and that they would do best if they had faith in causes and leaders. To gain and hold their approval were among his foremost objectives. He thought of people, in the main, as right-minded and dependable, and he believed that a leader should make the best of their good qualities. As a national leader he upheld the right of everyone to freedom of worship and equality before the law, condemning all forms of bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, and persecution. Throughout his public life, Washington contended with obstacles and difficulties. His courage and resolution steadied him in danger, just as defeat steeled his will. His devotion to his country and his faith in its cause sustained him. Averse to harsh measures, he was generous in victory. ``His integrity,'' wrote Thomas Jefferson, ``was the most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known. He was, indeed, in every sense of the word, a wise, a good, and a great man.'' Therefore, Mr. President, despite the respect and admiration I have for President Reagan, I cannot in good conscience support a bill which will diminish the great contributions President George Washington has made to our nation. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for just 15 seconds?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. President, who has time?

Mr. BAUCUS. I might inform the Members there is a process. It is the Environment and Public Works Committee. If this bill had been referred to the proper committee, we would have gone through the proper process. That committee has jurisdiction over public buildings. We have rules as to naming and when not to name buildings after whom and under what circumstances. There is a process. One of the problems with this whole procedure here today is the process was skirted. The process wasn't used. Mr. President, this is a very difficult issue for me, but I am going to be voting against the underlying bill basically because I do not think we should displace George Washington, our Founding Father, with what we might be doing here, and a whole host of other reasons which I do not have time to get into. There is a process. We are not following it.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, may I have 2 more minutes?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is highways that are being postponed; it is transit being postponed; it is all the safety programs that are in the highway bill that are being postponed; it is the intermodal connections. My friend Senator Moynihan is the father of the ISTEA bill. All his good work will be on hold until we can reauthorize the program. Senator Dorgan has been very helpful in this matter, as has Senator Byrd, Senator Gramm, Senator Warner--many of us want the highway bill up now. Our basic point is let's just bring it up now while we have the time. Otherwise we are going to be caught in a situation where delay upon delay means the ISTEA bill is not reauthorized until September or October. So I close by asking the majority leader to again look at the consequences of delaying the highway bill and to reconsider his decision, because this is a very, very serious matter and I hope we can find a way to avoid these kinds of disruptions. I am willing to work with the leadership, with Senators Chafee and Warner, and other members to accomplish that objective. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise, with all due respect, to ask the majority leader to reconsider the schedule which he has set so that we take up the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, otherwise known as ISTEA, right away rather than deferring it as presently seems to be the case. I say this because our States, contractors, all of our people who depend on highways, very much depend upon the Congress to reauthorize the highway bill. Unfortunately, we have yet to do that. The current program, as we know, expired last year on September 30. However, despite the fact that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee favorably reported a six-year reauthorization in October, neither the full Senate or the House considered it. Instead, we were forced to pass a temporary, stopgap, 6-month extension, which expires May 1. Mr. President, if the current schedule holds, that is, if the highway bill is not brought up until after the budget resolution, there is a strong possibility that Congress may not pass a highway bill until shortly before it adjourns this year, which is in October. That result would be totally unacceptable. It would be unacceptable to our people, to our contractors, and to our highway workers. And it would be unacceptable to me. Frankly, it would not be a responsible way to conduct our Nation's business. Senators should understand just how long it takes a State highway commission and contractors to plan these projects. It certainly requires months and in many cases it takes years. Furthermore, State legislatures must set their budgets so they can come up with the funds to match the Federal highway funds. This takes time, especially if a legislature meets once every two years. Transportation projects are not something you just turn on and turn off like a spigot. Our current course is very disruptive. All this is critically important because States cannot obligate funds for highways unless obligation authority is provided by law. Our current 6-month extension expires May 1. After May 1, States will be unable to enter into contracts for their highway programs. That will bring hundreds of projects to a stop, with the resulting loss of jobs. We might ask, Why doesn't Congress pass another short-term extension? First, that is an on-again-off-again way of doing business. No business would operate like that. And government shouldn't either. We are playing with people's livelihoods if we continue this ``on-again-off- again,'' strategy by passing a series of short term extensions. Second, there is no guarantee that Congress can easily pass another short-term extension. That's because it would probably take unanimous consent in the Senate so that we limit amendments. We know some states like the current formula and others like the new formula. As we get closer to the election, it will be increasingly difficult to get Senators to refrain from offering amendments to change the formula. I'm sure most of my colleagues can appreciate how incredibly difficult it would be to quickly pass another simple extension under those circumstances. And even if we could, it would be continuing a bad on- again-off-again policy. We have only 49 days in session until May 1. The bill is going to take a couple or three weeks in the Senate. The House must pass its version of the bill. Then we have to go to conference. That is a lot to do in just 49 days. So it is all the more reason to start as soon as we can in the Senate. Furthermore, we don't have a lot of business before us right now. There is nothing that is so urgent, except the highway bill. The highway bill is urgent. It is just common sense that if something is both important and urgent, we should be devoting our attention to it. Well, the ISTEA legislation is both urgent and important. We should take it up now, not later. I know the majority leader has lots of competing considerations here. One is the budget and how to handle the expected surplus. Should we pay off the debt? Lower taxes? Increase spending for priority programs? Secure Social Security and Medicare? Invest in our transportation infrastructure? I understand the argument that some are making: Let's put the highway bill off so we do it all together, all at once. The problem with that is very simple, it means we will probably not have a highway bill until September. And in the meantime, we will be hamstrung with formula fights and other issues on short-term extensions. As I said before, we all know the closer we get to the end of this year, to elections, the more difficult it is because then the formula fights among States become more real. I think there are ways to work this out. Basically, we have to sit down with people on both sides of the argument here and find some way to resolve this to get the highway bill up. I also might add that this is not just a highway bill. It is a mass transit bill. For those people in our country who live in the more populated States where mass transit is more important than it is in more rural States like Montana where I come from, they must know the transit legislation is an integral part of the ISTEA bill. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements and accomplishments of my fellow Montanans and good friends, Dennis and Phyllis Washington. Dennis was born July 27, 1934, in Missoula, Montana. As a young boy, he moved to Bremerton, Washington, where he shined shoes and sold newspapers to supplement the family income. At the tender age of 8, he was diagnosed with polio and given little chance of survival. Miraculously, he survived and went back to Missoula to recover and live with his grandmother. From this point on in his life, Dennis has fought and struggled against all odds to survive and succeed. Years later, this struggle and dedication has become Washington Corp., which, according to a recent article in USA Today, ``consists of 15 businesses, employs 14,000, and generates $2.5 billion a year in revenue.'' However, Dennis has never forgotten where he came from. Dennis and Phyllis have strived to make Montana a better place. They have been instrumental in ensuring that the university of Montana maintains its ``tradition of excellence.'' In her position as chairperson of the University's capital campaign, Phyllis led the 5-year effort to a record level of $71 million, over $7 million of which came from her own pocket. That will mean a higher quality of education for our students helping more of our children to find good jobs in Montana. From his humble beginnings in a house next to the railroad tracks to his present good fortune, the drive to help others has characterized Dennis Washington's life. He is a model for America, personifying the American dream that someone with big dreams can make those dreams a reality with a little intelligence and a lot of hard work. I have great respect and admiration for Dennis. He is a Montana original whose story provides inspiration to me and many other Montanans. He has overcome tremendous adversity to become one of the most successful businessmen in America. However, the one thing surpassing his business acumen is his generosity to his fellow man. Dennis and Phyllis Washington are true philanthropists that are deserving of our recognition.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of one city in Montana in addressing the issues of gangs, violence and kids. On September 29, 1997, a historic town hall meeting took place in Billings, Montana. This cooperative and coordinated effort involved the media, school officials, and community leaders. It also involved a critical component: experts in addressing gang activity from Los Angeles. Together this effort created an hour-long video conference called ``Gangs, Violence and Kids'' and aired it on every major media outlet in the Billings area. This presentation incorporated a panel and studio audience format which brought in a cross-section of the population, including teenagers, represented in the region. Concerns were raised, perceptions were addressed, and issues were confronted in an honest and straightforward manner. By no means an end to itself, this town hall meeting has launched a series of follow-up gatherings, a foundation, a mentoring connection and a pipeline of support for ongoing programs like the U.S. Department of Justice's Weed and Seed program for Billings and surrounding communities has been established. Beginning last week, a series of 30-second public service announcements were aired to address the issues raised in the town hall meeting. This campaign will contribute to the community's understanding of how these important issues affect all our neighborhoods. I especially appreciate the significant commitment by those who have agreed to continue in their role as advocates for change. I am extremely proud of what Billings has accomplished and how its residents strive to respond to important issues. I hope my colleagues will agree that this successful effort in Billings is a model that can be duplicated in their community.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation for Montana. This bill is titled ``the Gallatin Range Consolidation Completion Act of 1997.'' Mr. President, this legislation is similar to a bill introduced earlier today by my colleague from Montana. While I am glad he has at last staked out a public position in favor of this exchange, I believe his approach is too little, too early. So I am introducing a bill which more accurately reflects where discussions on this exchange have progressed since Senator Burns' earlier involvement. Completing the Gallatin Land Exchange is a top priority for me. The land considered in this legislation is key wildlife habitat and is among some of the most beautiful anywhere. When completed, this exchange will result in improved habitat and will improve recreation opportunities in the region. But, as with many land exchanges this will not be a simple process. The company involved, Big Sky Lumber has been pursuing this matter for nearly 4 years. The Forest Service has collected public comment and has worked to see that concerns of all parties affected, the recreation interests, conservation groups, homeowners, and the business owners are all addressed. I have been working with these groups drafting legislation with the help of the Forest Service. I was surprised that Senator Burns introduced a draft bill today without notice. Contrary to an agreement among the State's congressional delegation that no bill be introduced until we reached agreement among ourselves and with other interested groups. The bill I am introducing today is an updated version of the earlier draft I gave to Senator Burns for his review. I look forward to working with Senator Burns and all interested parties to get this process back on track so that we can pass a fair and balanced bill soon after we convene the next session of Congress. Over the next 2 months, my staff and I will be meeting with people about this exchange. My goal is to prepare a consensus bill that can be introduced by the entire Montana delegation when Congress convenes come January. Soon after the introduction of that consensus bill, I will hold public hearings in the state to hear what people think about our efforts. I am hopeful that in the future the entire Montana delegation will work together to protect the Taylor Fork and other important Montana lands in the Gallatin. 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 an important piece of legislation for Montana. This bill is titled ``the Gallatin Range Consolidation Completion Act of 1997.'' Mr. President, this legislation is similar to a bill introduced earlier today by my colleague from Montana. While I am glad he has at last staked out a public position in favor of this exchange, I believe his approach is too little, too early. So I am introducing a bill which more accurately reflects where discussions on this exchange have progressed since Senator Burns' earlier involvement. Completing the Gallatin Land Exchange is a top priority for me. The land considered in this legislation is key wildlife habitat and is among some of the most beautiful anywhere. When completed, this exchange will result in improved habitat and will improve recreation opportunities in the region. But, as with many land exchanges this will not be a simple process. The company involved, Big Sky Lumber has been pursuing this matter for nearly 4 years. The Forest Service has collected public comment and has worked to see that concerns of all parties affected, the recreation interests, conservation groups, homeowners, and the business owners are all addressed. I have been working with these groups drafting legislation with the help of the Forest Service. I was surprised that Senator Burns introduced a draft bill today without notice. Contrary to an agreement among the State's congressional delegation that no bill be introduced until we reached agreement among ourselves and with other interested groups. The bill I am introducing today is an updated version of the earlier draft I gave to Senator Burns for his review. I look forward to working with Senator Burns and all interested parties to get this process back on track so that we can pass a fair and balanced bill soon after we convene the next session of Congress. Over the next 2 months, my staff and I will be meeting with people about this exchange. My goal is to prepare a consensus bill that can be introduced by the entire Montana delegation when Congress convenes come January. Soon after the introduction of that consensus bill, I will hold public hearings in the state to hear what people think about our efforts. I am hopeful that in the future the entire Montana delegation will work together to protect the Taylor Fork and other important Montana lands in the Gallatin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will not comment on the specifics of the short-term bill. They have been adequately described by the very distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, of Rhode Island, as well as the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Warner. I do have a couple of points I want to make which I think are very important. No. 1, this is a true compromise. We in this body suggested $500 million in new contract authority. The House originally suggested about $12 billion in new contract authority for next year. We have compromised on $5.5 billion in new contract authority, and we have done it in a way which does not get into new formulas. The Senate has its formula certainly in the 6-year bill it passed. The House has their formula approach. This short-term bill is a compromise in the amounts of the contract authority, but in a way that does not get into formulas. I think that is very fair, again reminding Senators that about $9.7 billion will be available May 1. The second point is this will allow States to have continuity in their highway programs. Contractors, highway commissions, employees, guys in the various labor unions, men and women who actually do the work here are very worried about whether we will have continuity, whether the program will continue, whether States will be able to let bids and accept bids and set up new projects. This bill, the short-term bill, maintains the continuity until we get over into a full 6-year bill, which I hope we pass early next year. Senator Lott suggested that we will take up the 6-year bill as the first order of business after the State of the Union Address next year, and I am very hopeful the House will also act very quickly. Another point is that even though we are somewhat congratulating ourselves in working with the other body in passing this short-term bill, we have to remember that the major challenge is still before us. It is passing that 6-year bill. I urge all my colleagues as well as Members of the other body to be ready to roll up their shirt sleeves the beginning of next year to work very hard to get this 6-year bill passed so then States will truly be assured of continuity. I particularly wish to thank Members of the other body, the chairman of the House Committee, Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania, also Mr. Oberstar, who is the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Petri and also Mr. Rahall. The four of them met with us, and I very much compliment them because they worked very cooperatively with Senators Chafee, myself, and Senator Warner in figuring out this short-term solution. Sometimes negotiations between this body and the other body get a little protracted and unnecessarily so. That was not the case here. The Members I mentioned worked very hard and worked very well together. I thank them very much for all that they have done. This is a good compromise. It provides flexibility and it is something we can proudly pass, so long as we remember that next year we have major work ahead of us. I particularly wish to thank our outstanding staff: Jimmie Powell, Dan Corbett, as well as Linda Jordan, and Cheryle Tucker, who are with Senator Chafee's staff, worked extremely effectively and hard, Ann Loomis and Ellen Stein with Senator Warner, and Tracy Henke, the voice of Senator Bond. She is very, very good. I was very impressed with her in these negotiations. And two members of my own staff, of course, Kathy Ruffalo and Tom Sliter. I will not say they are better than the others, but they are very, very good. We have a good team, and we work very well together. I was really struck with just how closely we have been working together. Senator Warner and Senator Chafee have alluded to it, but it is also at the staff level. It is cooperation and it is teamwork which I very much look forward to as we work out the 6-year bill next year. I thank the chairman and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.