Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. This is basically a discussion here on the bill. Obviously, it is the goal of the committee and the Senate to come up with a fair highway bill. That is what the Senator from Rhode Island is attempting to do and the Senator from Virginia, who was on the floor, the Senator from Montana, and the two Senators now speaking seek that same goal. It is also true that we are in a transition. This country is changing. The country, in 1997, is not what it was in 1987, not what it was in 1980. The fact is that, in 1991, in an ISTEA bill, the highway bill, this Congress essentially did not update data. It just took the 1980 data. That is, lane and miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled. We even used a postal roads component which was enacted maybe at the turn of the century. We used very old data when we wrote the ISTEA bill that we are now currently operating under. It is just unfortunate. At the same time, in the earlier ISTEA bills--not the one before us, but current law and the earlier one--the main effort was to complete construction of the interstate system. That was the main purpose of the program in the first place. The current ISTEA bill--not the one on the floor, but current law--based its formula essentially, as I said, on old data and upon completion of the interstate program, and that is what we did. In 1991, we just built upon the earlier data, which was data for the completion of the interstate. And in this last ISTEA, we then apportioned more dollars to States which were completing their interstate system, compared with States that were not completing their interstate system. And the current law basically completes construction--not maintenance, but construction--of the interstate system. And so now, in 1997, the new transportation bill we are writing is one that recognizes that the interstate system has been completed. We are now moving toward maintenance and intermodal systems, intelligent highway systems, and other programs to modernize, update, and make sure that the current transportation bill is no longer based upon older data, but rather is based upon current data. That means that those States that got a lot of interstate completion money in the last several years are not going to get the same additional dollars in this bill for the very simple reason that their interstates are completed. On top of that, many States built their interstates financed with tolls. That is, Federal dollars were not sent to those States; rather, those States charged their motorists tolls and they built their own interstates, feeling that either they wanted to do it earlier or that way was a better way to do it, et cetera. A lot of these States, after completing construction of their interstate systems, based upon tolls, have now come back to the Congress--in fact, in the last ISTEA bill, they were able to convince this Congress that they should get reimbursed again, even though those interstate systems were paid for by tolls. This Congress paid Federal money again on top of the completion of the interstate. So we have some States with lots of dollars in the last several years of the interstate system--that is, States with lots for interstate completion and States with what is called interstate reimbursement dollars going to those States. I know this is not a comfortable position for some of these States to be in when they look at only the dollars because, obviously, those States would like to have a percentage increase again in the current years over the past dollars they have been receiving, even though their interstate construction, which is more expensive in maintenance, is complete, and even though those States got interstate reimbursement dollars on top of interstate systems that were financed by toll roads. So here we are trying to write a bill which recognizes, again, the completion of interstate construction and rather moves toward the current new era which, as I mentioned, recognizes the completion of the interstate construction. Now, the Senators make a very good statement and point when they talk about congestion and the number of miles--the amount of congestion on I-95 or on the eastern corridor. In fact, as the Senator from Maryland said, Maryland ranks second in the Nation in urban congestion. That is a fact. The State that ranks No. 1 is California. New Jersey is not too far down the list. My thought here is that we have the challenge before us of trying to address what I think are legitimate concerns and that is the congestion factor that the Senators talk about. We are operating under very severe constraints; that is, the amount of dollars in this ISTEA bill is pretty tight, based upon the budget resolution, the President's proposal to Congress, and the increase in ISTEA dollars in this bill is not as much as was the increase in ISTEA dollars in the last ISTEA transportation bill. So it would be my thought that we find a way to amend this bill so that, in effect, if not this year, at least next year, there are potentially more dollars available, and in a way that certainly it may recognize the concerns of the Senators. I am not prepared at this point to say what that might be. There needs to be more discussion to determine that. But I think that if the amendment that we know is going to come up is passed, there might be a way to address that. You certainly have the assurance of this Senator to work in the context of that amendment to see if we can potentially address some of the concerns the Senators have. But the main point is that we are trying to work this all out. We hear what you are saying. There are many opportunities: there are amendments, there is a conference, and it is my hope that we can pass a bill which is fair to all regions of the country. You have my assurance that I will do all I can to achieve that goal.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I would love to hear the speech by the Senator from Oklahoma. I wish I could have heard the speech of the Senator from Rhode Island. Very respectfully, I must object.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, no objection.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr President, I rise today in opposition to the Treasury, Postal, and general Government appropriations bill. I do so with respect for the managers of the bill, my good friends Senator Campbell of Colorado and Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. They have done a fine job of bringing divergent interests together, crafting a bill that takes care of essential Government functions. Clearly, there is much that is right with this bill. One thing that is right is funding for the Global Trade and Research Program at the Montana World Trade Center in Missoula, MT. This vital program is the only world trade center housed in a university. This important link will allow new global business markets to be identified and targeted to create new jobs in Montana. But, Mr. President, I will vote against this bill because it contains a pay raise for Members of Congress. Look, I'm not against pay raises. Who couldn't use a few extra dollars in every paycheck. The question is: who needs the raise. Clearly, Montanans do. And I think with this bill we are missing the point and sending the wrong message. The message this bill sends is simply ``we are going to protect ourselves instead of creating an economy that protects average families.'' That just doesn't make sense. A vote to raise Members' pay is the wrong priority for Congress. This is not the kind of leadership the Congress needs. I believe that we will be as effective as leaders as the level of confidence vested in us. Clearly, voting to raise our pay will undermine public confidence in Congress. Particularly when we have an economy that isn't protecting average Americans. It is clear that income for the average Montanan is not rising. Just Monday, the Census Bureau released consumer income statistics for 1994 to 1996. The numbers are startling and, I hope, a call to action for this Congress. Let's look at Montana. Median household income in Montana from 1994 to 1996 was $28,838. That's household income, money that an entire family has to spend for the year on bills, groceries, education, health care, and all the other expenses that take a bite out of their wallets. Montana's median income for those 3 years is over $6,000 lower than the national average and ranks 43d in the Nation. And, compared to our regional neighbors, our median income ranks as the lowest. Now, we have all seen the stock market rise over the last few years. And clearly, a healthy percentage of Americans are making significant money. But it hasn't trickled down, to borrow a phrase, to the average Montanan. I grew up on a ranch where it was a day's work for a day's pay. Americans work hard. And we in Congress work hard, but let's not lose sight of who we work for. We work for the citizens of our States and our country. We have a responsibility to protect them and to advance their ability to get a fair wage for a fair day's work. That should be the job of this Congress, not whether we in this Chamber are getting a raise. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the administration's request for new trade negotiating authority. Now, any discussion of trade policy should begin not with talk about new agreements. It should begin with a review of the basic facts, and of what we need to change in the international trade system to create jobs, raise wages, guarantee fairness, and create opportunities for Americans.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman. electrochromic research

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a colloquy to bring to his attention the need for repairs to the Twin Reservoir Dam located near Polson, MT.

Mr. BAUCUS. The dam is in need of $50,000 in repairs, and I would like to know if the Chairman would support the Bureau of Indian Affairs if the BIA could allocate funds within existing resources to make these much-needed repairs.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first I want to thank my very good friend and colleague, Senator Bumpers, for yielding the time. It is very gracious of him. He has waited a good period of time to offer his amendment. Mr. President, I rise today to call on Congress to complete the New World Mine acquisition and protect Yellowstone National Park. Now that the administration and congressional leadership have reached a budget agreement that allows for the acquisition of the New World lands, we need to move decisively. We have belabored this matter much too long and now is the time to finish the job. Yellowstone National Park was created 125 years ago. ``For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.'' Indeed, this is the entrance at mammoth Yellowstone Park. You probably cannot read the inscription over the arch but it says ``For the Benefit and Enjoyment of the People.'' And of course, immediately to my right is the Old Faithful geyser. Every year, Mr. President, 3 million people visit the park, bringing their children and grandchildren to enjoy the unspoiled beauty that is Yellowstone--from the Roosevelt arch, which I am pointing to here on my right, at the original entrance, to the breathtaking grandeur of Old Faithful, to the spectacular wildlife which calls this unique place home. During the month of August, I was fortunate to be present to celebrate Yellowstone's 125th anniversary with Vice President Al Gore. As I entered the park, I remembered my first trip to Yellowstone many years ago. The noble and majestic geysers, the boiling paint pots, and the vast scenery were the stuff of magic to a small child--and remain so today. These wonders cannot be seen anywhere else in the United States or, for that matter, in the world. I guarantee you there is not one Montanan, young or old, that does not fondly remember his or her first visit to the park, or anybody in our country for that matter. Finishing the New World acquisition is critical so our children may witness the wonders of nature, much as we have over the past 125 years. For the past 8 years, America has lived with the threat that a large gold mine could harm Yellowstone, our Nation's first national park. This mine, on the park boundary, could irreparably damage the park by polluting rivers and devastating wildlife habitat. In 1996, local citizens, the mining company itself, and the administration, reached a consensus agreement that would stop the proposed mine--they all agreed; the administration, the local community, and the company--and it would protect Yellowstone and surrounding communities. This agreement provides for the Federal Government to acquire the mine property from Battle Mountain Gold in exchange for $65 million. The balanced budget agreement calls for this money to be appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The New World agreement, I think, is very important for two reasons. First, it protects Yellowstone National Park for future generations. What could be more important? Second, it protects my State of Montana. It protects Montana's natural heritage, but it also protects Montana's economy. Many of the local communities surrounding Yellowstone depend on the park for their economic well-being. If the mine had been built, Yellowstone would have been harmed, and with it the communities and the families that depend on Yellowstone for their livelihood. It is for this reason that a majority of local citizens and businesses oppose the mine and support the agreement. In addition, the agreement obligates the mining company to spend $22.5 million to clean up historic mine pollution at the headwaters of the Yellowstone River. This will create jobs and clean up the environment, thereby benefiting the regional economy and improving locally fisheries. As a Senator representing Montana, I will fight to ensure that Montana receives these benefits. The bipartisan budget agreement provides an increase of $700 million in land and water conservation funding. Of this increase, $315 million has been designated as funding for priority land acquisitions. It is my understanding in speaking with the administration and with others that the New World and Headwaters acquisition were specifically discussed as the projects that would be funded by the $315 million designation. It would be unconscionable for Congress to violate the spirit and the intent of the budget agreement by failing to appropriate the funding necessary to complete the New World acquisition. In addition, placing further restrictions such as requiring authorization is both unnecessary and unwise. We need no additional authorization. The agreement has been agreed to already. New legal procedures, on the other hand, would just stall an already reached agreement, one that is widely supported and one that protects the park. Every year, numerous land acquisitions that are not individually authorized take place utilizing Land and Water Conservation Funds. By attaching strings to this acquisition--it is an authorization--Congress will have done nothing but endanger Yellowstone National Park. Indeed, the President's senior advisers strongly object to attaching any strings to this funding, and if Congress insists on stalling and delaying this agreement, the President may well veto the Interior appropriations bill upon the recommendation of OMB and other agencies. Because Yellowstone is at stake, he would be right to do so. I pledge here today to help lead the charge to uphold that veto if necessary. When Yellowstone and Montana's heritage is threatened, I will not sit idly by. We can and we must protect Yellowstone National Park. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Arkansas, and I yield the floor. excepted committee amendment beginning on page 123, line 9

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, it is a real pleasure for me to join my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works, Senators Chafee, Reid, and Kempthorne in introducing the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997. The bill we are introducing today represents a real victory for bi-partisan, commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act has been an important tool in our fight to conserve ecosystems and to prevent the extinction of species. But over the years, experience has shown that the act can be improved, both for the species it is designed to protect and for ranchers, farmers, and other private landowners. Senators Chafee, Reid, Kempthorne, and I have been working, along with the administration, for the better part of 2 years to find agreement on changes that will improve the ESA on the ground, where it really counts. The bill we are introducing today incorporates several major improvements to ESA. Let me just reiterate a few that I think are particularly noteworthy. First, it improves the use of good science in our decisions on listing species. It's important that we elevate the role of scientific information in our decisions on whether to put species on the endangered list. An error at this stage in the process can mean extinction for a species. Second, the bill really turns the focus of the ESA to conserving and recovering species. It puts real deadlines on development of recovery plans and gives States a greater role in developing those plans. And it insists that we have benchmarks for measuring progress toward recovering the species. Third, the bill opens up the process to the public. More public hearings will be held on critical issues, such as whether to list a species and what actions should be taken to recover the species. And, most important, these hearings can't be just in Washington. They must also be in the States most affected by the issue. Fourth, the bill takes important strides in cooperating with landowners to conserve species. It encourages landowners to take voluntary steps to improve habitat and protect species on their property. And it seeks to conserve species before they become endangered, thereby avoiding the need to list them. The bill also provides landowners with something they have never had before, technical assistance and financial aid for the new conservation agreements that are created by the bill. These are the kind of improvements that will make the ESA work better. That will better protect species and that will help landowners. It's been a long, hard road to reach this agreement. And I want to again thank Senator Chafee, Senator Reid, Senator Kempthorne and Secretary Babbitt for their persistence throughout this process. I look forward to taking this bill to the committee and to the Senate floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, it is a real pleasure for me to join my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works, Senators Chafee, Reid, and Kempthorne in introducing the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997. The bill we are introducing today represents a real victory for bi-partisan, commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act has been an important tool in our fight to conserve ecosystems and to prevent the extinction of species. But over the years, experience has shown that the act can be improved, both for the species it is designed to protect and for ranchers, farmers, and other private landowners. Senators Chafee, Reid, Kempthorne, and I have been working, along with the administration, for the better part of 2 years to find agreement on changes that will improve the ESA on the ground, where it really counts. The bill we are introducing today incorporates several major improvements to ESA. Let me just reiterate a few that I think are particularly noteworthy. First, it improves the use of good science in our decisions on listing species. It's important that we elevate the role of scientific information in our decisions on whether to put species on the endangered list. An error at this stage in the process can mean extinction for a species. Second, the bill really turns the focus of the ESA to conserving and recovering species. It puts real deadlines on development of recovery plans and gives States a greater role in developing those plans. And it insists that we have benchmarks for measuring progress toward recovering the species. Third, the bill opens up the process to the public. More public hearings will be held on critical issues, such as whether to list a species and what actions should be taken to recover the species. And, most important, these hearings can't be just in Washington. They must also be in the States most affected by the issue. Fourth, the bill takes important strides in cooperating with landowners to conserve species. It encourages landowners to take voluntary steps to improve habitat and protect species on their property. And it seeks to conserve species before they become endangered, thereby avoiding the need to list them. The bill also provides landowners with something they have never had before, technical assistance and financial aid for the new conservation agreements that are created by the bill. These are the kind of improvements that will make the ESA work better. That will better protect species and that will help landowners. It's been a long, hard road to reach this agreement. And I want to again thank Senator Chafee, Senator Reid, Senator Kempthorne and Secretary Babbitt for their persistence throughout this process. I look forward to taking this bill to the committee and to the Senate floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the importance of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, otherwise known as NEA. This endowment makes a tremendous impact on my State, and it worries me greatly that Congress is considering slashing it, or otherwise killing it through block grants. I think President John Kennedy said it best when he said--and I will quote him now: When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses, for art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment. The people of my State understand that. Montana boasts a rich cultural heritage which can be seen in the work of such notable artists as Charlie Russell and Kevin Red Star. Our love of the arts can also be seen in the rich crop of literary talent that blankets the State. I had a chance to witness that love of the arts firsthand last year when I worked with the National Symphony Orchestra on their trip to Montana. They broke into many, many groups--I think there were 120 different ensembles spread across our State--and I was fortunate to be able to conduct the National Symphony Orchestra in their encore performance in Billings, MT. I think it is even more instructive to look at a smaller, more constructive event where the NEA makes a real difference every year in Montana. Shakespeare in the Park is a group of talented actors who travel around the State every summer offering free productions of Shakespeare to the public. And every July, for over 20 years now, they have come, for example, to Birney, MT. Guess what the population of Birney is. Seventeen. The troupe of actors sets up their stage just outside of town on Poker Jim Butte. They perform two nights, and it is a big deal for the people of Birney. They hold their annual Birney Turkey Shoot for Spakespeare in order to help subsidize the productions. Every year they attract crowds of 100 to 200 people. Not bad for a town with a population of 17. The audience usually consists of farmers, ranchers, and native Americans. They are people who, without this event, might have to travel over 100 miles to see a Shakespearean play. This year's productions were Shakespeare's ``Love's Labor Lost'' and Moliere's ``Learned Ladies''--two classic works that everyone should have a chance to see. The Shakespeare in the Park program relies on the NEA grant they receive every year, and without it they would have to limit where they can go. That means that Birney might not get to see its yearly productions on Poker Jim Butte. I think the responses to the Shakespeare in the Park productions speak for themselves. One parent, for example, said: I want to thank you so much for coming to Richey. We are a small community with a total enrollment, grade and high school, of 91. It was great to introduce our children, especially the high schoolers, to Shakespeare and acting. It is rare for them, and us, to attend something other than a sports event. Or listen to what another student had to say: I have never had an interest in Shakespeare until I saw your program. Madam President, I think this last quote is particularly insightful, particularly in this day and age when many people are afraid that the value of our great works has been diminished. Funding the NEA shows our commitment to the classics like Shakespeare, and it helps make sure that our kids can learn firsthand about these valuable works. There are some in this body, however, who believe that Federal funding for the arts should end. These people believe that Federal funds can be replaced by contributions from private citizens and corporations. While this might be true in populated areas like New York and California, States like mine would have no way of making up the loss. I make that very clear. It just is not possible. Quite simply, without the NEA, there are no arts in places like Birney, MT, or countless other communities across the country. There are some who argue that we cannot afford to fund arts programs while we are cutting the budget. But when one looks at the total amount of money we spend in our budget, the figures for the NEA are rather small. The $99 million the NEA received last year was merely a small fraction of the total budget. That comes to less than 40 cents per person. But when one looks at all the great returns from our investment in the NEA, I believe it is money very well spent. Finally, there are others who say the NEA should be defunded, eliminated, because it funds obscenity. I believe those are valid concerns, and I have to admit there have been a few poor choices in the past. But I believe that those problems have been addressed, and it would be a shame to focus on a few mistakes when there are so many good, worthwhile projects that the NEA has made a reality. A complete list of Montana projects, museums, and artists who benefit from the NEA grants would be too long to give, but the following is a small example of the recipients: Eight symphony orchestras in cities like Billings, Bozeman, Butte, and Missoula; over 20 nonprofit art museums and galleries such as the Liberty Village Art Center in Chester, the Jailhouse Gallery in Hardin, and the Hockaday Center for the Arts in Kalispell; and nearly 20 performing arts groups like Shakespeare in the Park and the Vigilante Players who tour to communities all across Montana. In addition, the NEA funds go to organizations which make an effort to reach out to children, to educate them on the importance of arts in our society. Without a doubt, NEA funding has made a real, positive difference in Montana. That is why I believe we should continue funding this worthwhile program. My basic philosophy toward the budget is this. We must have a budget that reflects our values. To have no funding for the arts truly takes away some of our humanity, some of what makes our Nation great. Those are not the values I want my budget to reflect. That is why I urge my colleagues to support full funding, with no block grants, for the National Endowment for the Arts. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator who now has the floor has led the way in developing a very balanced, very fair way to spend our highway dollars over 6 years. My staff has worked long, long hours along with his staff and that of Senator Chafee. I want all Americans to know just how much I appreciate the very, very hard work of the Senator from Virginia who has led the way among the three of us in developing, I think, a terrific bill. I compliment him, and I want all Virginians to know all that he has done, as well as all Americans.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me start by thanking the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for their fine work on this bill. Their efforts have produced a bill that will build upon and improve the current transportation bill, ISTEA. The bill we will introduce shortly is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is a national bill. And while it may not be everyone's idea of the perfect bill, it is a solid start for the Senate debate. When we began developing the legislation, I had three principal goals. I am pleased that this bill meets all three: First, the bill is fair to all regions of the country. It recognizes the diverse transportation needs of all regions of this country-- Western States, Southern States and Northeastern States. And it includes programs and funding to meet those needs. Second, the bill streamlines today's complex transportation programs while still retaining the integrity of ISTEA. We have consolidated funding categories--yet maintained funding requirements for all portions of the transportation system, including interstate highways and our bridges. Third, the bill gives State and local officials back home greater flexibility to deliver transportation services efficiently. I also am pleased that the bill retains an emphasis on the National Highway System, which includes the Interstate System. These are the most important roads and bridges in the country and they deserve the priority this bill gives them. Finally, we have retained important programs on air quality and enhancements. The chairman rightly points out that the bill does not bust the budget. Under the bill, spending for transportation will increase substantially over the next 6 years. Yet it is consistent with the budget resolution. But as I have said before, I believe those levels are too low. They simply cannot meet today's very real transportation needs. So as we move forward in the Senate, I hope we can identify ways to attain a more appropriate level of funding. In conclusion, this bill will keep our economy growing, while it improves the safety of our roads and bridges, and protects our environment. I look forward to moving this bill through the Senate and I again thank my colleagues for their hard work on this measure.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we Americans are very lucky. We live in the most beautiful place on Earth. Our mountain chains, our Great Plains, our national parks, our coasts and forests are a heritage no other country can match. It is our responsibility, through this annual bill, to protect our heritage, to manage it so ranchers and the natural resource industry workers prosper and, as much as possible, to hand it down to the next generation At the same time, in this bill, we have a responsibility to keep our promise to our more than 500 Indian tribes and an opportunity to support and stimulate the creativity of our artists and authors. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short. If we act now, in the coming debate--if we adopt some good amendments, we can create a very good bill, something we can all be proud of and, just as important, something President Clinton can sign, so we are not just wasting our time over here. But if we fail to improve this bill, we will have a bill that doesn't measure up and will not become law. Let me begin by saying that this bill is quite good in some areas. For example, one of the West's real glories is its fishing. Norman Maclean spoke for quite a few Montana families when, in the opening lines of his book ``A River Runs Through It'' he writes, ``In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing.'' Today, this way of life is under threat. A parasite now found in many western rivers threatens the fish with whirling disease, and the Interior budget makes a commitment to protect these fish. It funds the Fish Technology Center in Bozeman, MT, as well as the Creston fish hatchery in the Flathead Valley. As well, this bill contains crucial research dollars for the nationally recognized Wild Trout Research Laboratory at Montana State University. It also provides $1 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund the western Montana project, which will acquire conservation easements to protect land in Montana's Blackfoot Valley, where Norman Maclean grew up, the basis for his book and movie, ``A River Runs Through It.'' These are just a couple of important projects that I believe help both Montana and the country. I would like to address a few sections in this bill which I think must be improved. The first crucial issue is the New World Mine. Of all our country's natural treasures, the finest might be Yellowstone National Park. It is America's first national park, home to the world- famous Old Faithful geyser, Yellowstone Lake and its wild trout, paint pots, mountain streams, and America's only free-ranging buffalo herd. Several years ago, a Canadian company filed a patent to mine land in the mountains just north of Yellowstone Park. Such a mine, nearly 2 miles in the air, would have been a permanent threat to the park's water resources. Every generation of Montana children and every American child would have lived with it. Last year, the Clinton administration worked out an agreement to buy out the New World Mine, using the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Congress agreed to do that when we passed the balanced budget amendment. I am very pleased that the Senate followed up with $700 million in new funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund; a wise investment in the conservation of our prized natural resources. I am disappointed, however, that the House of Representatives failed to live up to its end of the bargain when they failed to appropriate the necessary funds. I must say, I am disappointed that the Senate appropriated the money but then attached language requiring authorization. There is no reason for that. The deal is done. It is fair to the company and it will protect the park forever. To add an extra hurdle to an already tortuous process is unnecessary, and, in fact, it is foolish, because it may put the whole New World Mine deal at risk. I will work in this debate to change that. gallatin land exchange A similar, although less well-known, example is the Gallatin land exchange. For 10 years, we have been working to complete this critical land exchange, protecting some very special wild land for future generations. In this bill, we can complete the acquisition, blocking development in sensitive wildlife areas, and preserving access for our sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts who use our public lands. Instead, we shortchange and drag out the process with an appropriation of only $1 million, paying for only part of the exchange. We must act swiftly, and decisively, if we are to preserve this special part of America. This exchange has broad public support in Montana. I call on my colleagues to provide the necessary commitment to this exchange. native american tribes I am also concerned with the portions of this bill which address our relationship with native American tribes. Section 120, for example, requires tribal governments to waive their sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving tribal priority allocations [TPA's]. These moneys fund local reservation programs, like housing, adult vocational training, and law enforcement, all desperately needed, and anyone who visits reservations can tell you that. Anyone who has visited Indian country knows that reservations are not always rich places and tribal governments don't have money to throw around. Section 120 would require tribes to choose between meeting the basic needs of their members or defending against frivolous lawsuits. And I believe that is wrong. Equally troublesome is section 118, which would require the more than 500 federally recognized tribal governments to submit reports of business income to the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a condition of receiving TPA, since it is under the program I mentioned. Section 118 would create more bureaucracy by requiring the BIA to analyze income records, compile reports, develop formulas for allocating TPA funds, and submit the formulas back to the Appropriations Committee. That is bad enough. But still worse is the breach of faith this provision implies. Mr. President, payments to tribes are the result of treaty obligations--I repeat, treaty obligations. The Federal Government agreed to make these payments in exchange for land and resources that the tribes ceded. Section 118 violates both the letter and the spirit of our American treaty obligations. We have a basic idea in America that you ought to keep your word, and that is a good ideas. We should keep it here, too. national endowment for the arts My final concern is the way that this Congress intends to treat the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA. The NEA represents a modest, but very important, commitment to the arts in America. In Montana, for example, NEA supports eight symphony orchestras in cities like Billings, Bozeman, Butte, and Missoula. Over 20 nonprofit art museums and galleries such as the Liberty Village Art Center in Chester, the Jailhouse Gallery in Hardin, and the Hockaday Center for the Arts in Kalispell. And nearly 20 performing arts groups like Shakespeare in the Park and the Vigilante Players who tour communities all across Montana, from the towns to the most remote rural areas. This is a great service. Through the work of NEA, children all over Montana come to understand our cultural heritage, meet and talk with artists and authors, and get an appreciation of much of the best and most creative work Americans can do. It is a small investment but a good one. Yet, every year we hear almost hysterical attacks against any commitment to the arts at all. NEA has certainly picked a few clunkers, I admit, but nothing to justify the rhetorical flights that some of our colleagues direct against it. The House this year, by one vote, eliminated all commitment to the arts in America. I repeat, eliminated all commitment to the arts in America. That means a great loss for our children, and particularly those in rural America where there are no offsetting private resources to fund the arts. I am hoping that the Senate will do better. I asked that the NEA be funded at administration's request of $136 million. So far, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has seen fit to fund the NEA at $100 million. I believe that is a start, but I will oppose any actions taken on the Senate floor to lower that funding level. conclusion As you can see, this bill needs a great deal of work, but we should see that as an opportunity rather than a disappointment. This bill is our chance, this year, to protect America's natural heritage for our children. To give renewed vitality to our artistic and cultural life, and to show that, in relations with America's sovereign Indian nations, that we are people who keep our word. I commend the members of the Interior subcommittee for their hard work. I know they have devoted a lot of time to dealing with these contentious issues. They have done some good work. I applaud them for it. We can build on that as we debate the bill on the floor. I hope that the result will be an Interior bill in which we can all take great pride. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me start by thanking the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for their fine work on this bill. Their efforts have produced a bill that will build upon and improve the current transportation bill, ISTEA. The bill we will introduce shortly is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is a national bill. And while it may not be everyone's idea of the perfect bill, it is a solid start for the Senate debate. When we began developing the legislation, I had three principal goals. I am pleased that this bill meets all three: First, the bill is fair to all regions of the country. It recognizes the diverse transportation needs of all regions of this country-- Western States, Southern States and Northeastern States. And it includes programs and funding to meet those needs. Second, the bill streamlines today's complex transportation programs while still retaining the integrity of ISTEA. We have consolidated funding categories--yet maintained funding requirements for all portions of the transportation system, including interstate highways and our bridges. Third, the bill gives State and local officials back home greater flexibility to deliver transportation services efficiently. I also am pleased that the bill retains an emphasis on the National Highway System, which includes the Interstate System. These are the most important roads and bridges in the country and they deserve the priority this bill gives them. Finally, we have retained important programs on air quality and enhancements. The chairman rightly points out that the bill does not bust the budget. Under the bill, spending for transportation will increase substantially over the next 6 years. Yet it is consistent with the budget resolution. But as I have said before, I believe those levels are too low. They simply cannot meet today's very real transportation needs. So as we move forward in the Senate, I hope we can identify ways to attain a more appropriate level of funding. In conclusion, this bill will keep our economy growing, while it improves the safety of our roads and bridges, and protects our environment. I look forward to moving this bill through the Senate and I again thank my colleagues for their hard work on this measure.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator who now has the floor has led the way in developing a very balanced, very fair way to spend our highway dollars over 6 years. My staff has worked long, long hours along with his staff and that of Senator Chafee. I want all Americans to know just how much I appreciate the very, very hard work of the Senator from Virginia who has led the way among the three of us in developing, I think, a terrific bill. I compliment him, and I want all Virginians to know all that he has done, as well as all Americans.