Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has become a dominant force in developing, marketing, and managing assets for American investors. Since 1990, assets under management by U.S. mutual funds have grown from $1 trillion to about $3.5 trillion today. Yet, while direct foreign investment in U.S. securities is strong, foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds has remained relatively flat. Mr President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Gorton and Murray, the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1997. This legislation, which I have had the honor of cosponsoring in each of the last three Congresses, would eliminate a major barrier to attracting foreign capital into the United States while improving the competitiveness of the U.S. mutual fund industry. This legislation would remove a barrier to the sale and distribution of U.S. mutual funds outside the United States. The bill would change the Internal Revenue Code to provide that foreign investors in U.S. mutual funds be accorded the same tax treatment as if they had made their investments directly in U.S. stocks or shares of a foreign mutual fund. Under current law, most kinds of interest and short-term capital gains received directly by an investor outside the United States or received through a foreign mutual fund are not subject to the 30- percent withholding tax on investment income. However, interest and short-term capital gain income received by a foreign investor through a U.S. mutual fund are subject to the withholding tax. This result occurs because current law characterizes interest income as short-term capital gain distributed by a U.S. mutual fund to a foreign investor as a dividend subject to withholding. The Investment Competitiveness Act would correct this inequity and put U.S. mutual funds on a competitive footing with foreign funds. The bill would correctly permit interest income and short-term capital gain to retain their character upon distribution. Current law acts as a prohibitive export tax on foreign investors who choose to invest in U.S. funds. That is why the amount of foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds is small. Mr President, it is time to dismantle the unfair and unwanted tax barrier to foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds. The American economy will benefit from exporting U.S. mutual funds, creating an additional inflow of investment into U.S. securities markets without a dilution of U.S. control of American business that occurs through direct foreign investment in U.S. companies. Moreover, the legislation will support job creation among ancillary fund service providers located in the United States, rather than in offshore service facilities. Mr President, I very much appreciate the efforts of Senators Gorton and Murray in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has become a dominant force in developing, marketing, and managing assets for American investors. Since 1990, assets under management by U.S. mutual funds have grown from $1 trillion to about $3.5 trillion today. Yet, while direct foreign investment in U.S. securities is strong, foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds has remained relatively flat. Mr President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Gorton and Murray, the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1997. This legislation, which I have had the honor of cosponsoring in each of the last three Congresses, would eliminate a major barrier to attracting foreign capital into the United States while improving the competitiveness of the U.S. mutual fund industry. This legislation would remove a barrier to the sale and distribution of U.S. mutual funds outside the United States. The bill would change the Internal Revenue Code to provide that foreign investors in U.S. mutual funds be accorded the same tax treatment as if they had made their investments directly in U.S. stocks or shares of a foreign mutual fund. Under current law, most kinds of interest and short-term capital gains received directly by an investor outside the United States or received through a foreign mutual fund are not subject to the 30- percent withholding tax on investment income. However, interest and short-term capital gain income received by a foreign investor through a U.S. mutual fund are subject to the withholding tax. This result occurs because current law characterizes interest income as short-term capital gain distributed by a U.S. mutual fund to a foreign investor as a dividend subject to withholding. The Investment Competitiveness Act would correct this inequity and put U.S. mutual funds on a competitive footing with foreign funds. The bill would correctly permit interest income and short-term capital gain to retain their character upon distribution. Current law acts as a prohibitive export tax on foreign investors who choose to invest in U.S. funds. That is why the amount of foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds is small. Mr President, it is time to dismantle the unfair and unwanted tax barrier to foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds. The American economy will benefit from exporting U.S. mutual funds, creating an additional inflow of investment into U.S. securities markets without a dilution of U.S. control of American business that occurs through direct foreign investment in U.S. companies. Moreover, the legislation will support job creation among ancillary fund service providers located in the United States, rather than in offshore service facilities. Mr President, I very much appreciate the efforts of Senators Gorton and Murray in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Mrs. Lois Palagi, a third grade teacher at West Elementary School in Butte. I want to recognize Lois because she has distinguished herself as one of the best and most beloved teachers in the community of Butte. In Montana we pride ourselves on providing our children with a top notch education. And we do a great job. But that success doesn't happen by accident. All Montanans shoulder part of the responsibility. One key component of our success is Montana's dedicated and hard-working teachers. Lois is a prime example of how teachers help our youth become some of the most competitive minds in the country. She has served her students for over 35 years. And in that time, she has taught her children the importance of discipline, respect, knowledge and wisdom. So many people have grown up under her watchful eyes to become responsible, hard- working adults because she led by example. And now she leaves behind a legacy of dedication, caring and love for teaching. She has brought great honor to her noble profession. At the end of this school year, Lois will begin a new undertaking-- retirement. She will be able to spend more time with her husband Larry, son Mark, and daughter-in-law Linda. And devote more of her time to her three grandchildren: Bob, Jessica, and little Andie Elizabeth. She will be dearly missed at West Elementary School. But I'm certain she will be heartily appreciated as she spends more time with her family. Mr. President, it is impossible to count the number of lives that one person touches during his or her life. But I do know that in 35 years of teaching, that number is sure to be a mighty sum. I would just like to add my voice to all the others and say ``Thank you, Lois.'' And good luck in your retirement.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object. I am sorry. I did not hear the request.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much time is remaining on the amendment?

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you. No objection.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to first commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, the President, and negotiators for putting together a bipartisan agreement. I know it was not easy. It was difficult. But I think the American people are very gratified that the President and the Congress put together the outlines of a budget agreement which brings the budget deficit down to zero. One of the provisions in that agreement is the amount we will spend on highways and transit for the next 5 years. Under the budget agreement, the highway and transit programs will receive funding levels equal to the estimated revenue collected each year. But Mr. President, I would suggest we need to do better. That is why the Senator from Virginia and myself are offering this very simple amendment. Under the amendment, whatever comes into the trust fund through gasoline taxes and diesel fuels, et cetera, plus interest on what is earned on the balances in the trust fund, is available to be spent. In otherwords, whatever revenue comes in, will go out. This is truth in budgeting. It is a very modest amendment. Mr. President, current balances in the highway account of the highway trust fund is $14.3 billion. If you look at this chart, you will see that the balances in the highway account will almost double by the end of the 5 years covered by the budget resolution. Under the resolution, the balance in the highway trust fund will grow to almost $27 billion. It just seems to me, Mr. President, and to all of us who are concerned about the balances in the highway trust fund, that it is wrong for that balance to continue to grow or double when those are dollars being contributed by motorists who expect to see transportation benefits. I might add, Mr. President, that motorists are already paying 4.3 cents a gallon which goes to deficit reduction. Over the 5 years of the budget resolution will amount to about $35 billion. If our amendment does not pass, there are serious consequences. If our amendment does not pass, I must tell Senators that they are not going to receive funding levels close to the highway funds or the mass transit funds that their States expect. That is what is shown in this chart. I apologize for the small print on this chart, but we have after all 50 States and it is difficult to get every State on the single chart. This chart shows what will happen to a State's anticipated funding under the various highway bills that have been introduced, such as STARS 2000, STEP 21, NEXTEA and ISTEA Works. Senators have signed onto those bills anticipating certain funding levels. If the Warner-Baucus amendment does not pass, each State will receive a reduction in funding. I look at the Presiding Officer. New Hampshire--as an example, New Hampshire signed up for the ISTEA reauthorization bill. If New Hampshire thinks it is going to get $142 million a year, that is wrong. If my amendment does not pass, New Hampshire is going to receive $30 million less. If my amendment passes, New Hampshire will get the $142 million. That same example holds for every single State. So it is very clear that Senators are not going to get the money they think they are going to get if this amendment does not pass. I want to also add that there are other reasons to increase transportation spending. Our Department of Transportation says that we need about $50 billion dollars annually to maintain our highway system. The $26 billion provided for under this amendment is a little more than half of that. That is all. Think of the competition in the world. The Japanese spend four times what we do as a percentage of GDP than the United States. The European Union, spends twice as much. We are hurting ourselves in not keeping our transportation system up to snuff. In addition, if the budget resolution becomes the law, areas that are experiencing growth or areas with an aging infrastructure will not get the money they need. And programs that mean a lot to Members, such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, or enhancements and bike trails, will not have the money they need. Our proposal is very simple: That we pass this amendment, which will increase the deficit in the last year from a $1 billion surplus to about a $2 billion deficit. That is all. Over all 5 years, $12 billion. It does not go to the core of the agreement. It does not touch Medicare or Medicaid and does not touch taxes. It does not touch any of the provisions that Senators have been arguing about over the past few months as to what should or should not be in the bipartisan agreement. It doesn't touch those at all. It just says let's spend the interest, plus what comes into the trust fund as revenue each year. That way we can prevent further deterioration of our highways and bridges. If this amendment should pass,--the Senator from Virginia and I will work with the managers of the Budget Committee and with the administration to try to find some way to accommodate this $12 billion increase in conference. I want a balanced budget. I think every Senator wants a balanced budget. Fifty-seven Senators have written the Budget Committee asking for more money in transportation. In fact, what they asked for was a full $26 billion every year for 5 years. We are only asking for a ramp up to the $26 billion level over the 5 years. This is very modest and nowhere close to the request made by 57 Senators who have asked for a full $26 billion to be included in transportation for every year. This is a very small change in the agreement which the budget and administration negotiators put together. It can very easily be accommodated in conference. I might add, to those Senators from the Northeast who are concerned about mass transit, this amendment also--the $12 billion increase in outlays I mentioned--includes increases in mass transit. So, Mr. President, it is really very simple. I grant that it is technically an increase in the deficit by $12 billion. I am also saying that we as Senators should not be caught in a box. We should not be rigid. We should not be knee-jerked. We are elected to be thoughtful. We are elected to do what is right. We are elected to be creative. What do the American people think is right? First, balance the budget; second, do it in a way which is fair to our country and our country's needs. It is clear that we can balance the budget, including the framework agreed to by the budget negotiators, the administration, and the leadership, and still meet our States' infrastructure needs. It is a very modest amendment. Again, it just says spend what comes in, plus interest, to the trust fund. In fact, even under our amendment we end up with a $17 billion balance in the trust fund. So under our amendment, we are not spending anywhere near the amounts the trust fund could sustain. But the Senator from Virginia and I are trying to be modest. So, I again urge Senators, just go the extra mile. Vote for this. We will all work together to balance the budget in a way which also does not hurt the core provisions of the agreement but addresses the very serious transportation needs of this country. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA. If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget resolution.

Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for transportation?

Mr. BAUCUS. I understand.

Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent upon us--

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the leadership. They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they will need for their State's infrastructure. The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 6 years. Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in for 6 years to inadequate numbers. We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the bipartisan agreement. So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we know is right.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to explain my vote on the Gramm sense-of-the-Senate amendment. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment calls for the return of 4.3 cents of the Federal gas tax currently used for deficit reduction to the highway trust fund. I have long argued for the return of these revenues to transportation programs--approximately $7 billion annually. In fact, I recently introduced legislation to transfer the 4.3 cents to transportation programs--3.8 cents to the highway account of the highway trust fund and 0.5 cents to be used to maintain this Nation's national passenger rail system or Amtrak. While this sense-of-the-Senate amendment unfortunately does not address Amtrak, I feel it is important for the Senate to express its support for redirecting the 4.3 cents to transportation purposes. That is why I have voted for this amendment. As this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is nonbinding, it is important to ensure that the transfer of the 4.3 cents for transportation actually takes place. As a member of the Finance Committee, I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that I intend to pursue my legislation to make the transfer--again, 3.8 cents for the highway account and 0.5 cents for Amtrak. Transportation investments are the key to this Nation's economic future. Our ability to compete in today's global economy is tied to an efficient and safe intermodal transportation system--highways, transit, Amtrak, and other modes. The Gramm amendment is the first step to reaching that outcome. By putting the Senate on record in support of transferring the 4.3 cents for transportation purposes, we will be able to work during the reconciliation process and the reauthorization of ISTEA to see that additional investments are made in our transportation system. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, and others to transfer these revenues as we develop reconciliation legislation. Amendment No. 323, Withdrawn

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today because yesterday I introduced the Baucus-Kerrey-Landrieu substitute amendment to the comptime bill. This amendment will give working men and women the choice between earning overtime pay or taking that time off to spend with their families. As I travel around my State, I get the chance to meet with a lot of decent, hard-working people. In Montana, we know how to put in an honest day's work. And in exchange for that work, we ask only for an honest day's pay. But lately, that pay isn't stretching as far as it used to. That means working longer hours, and sometimes holding down two jobs. Whether it is a single-parent household, or a home where both parents have to work, people are finding less and less time for their families. Mothers and fathers are finding themselves caught in a costly juggling act, where they are trying to balance the demands of their work with the needs of their families. I believe that this trend has very serious consequences on our families and our society as a whole. I know most of the Senators in this body agree with me. As our society changes, so must our labor laws. They must reflect the needs of our current work force. And that is why I offered this amendment. Because America's working men and women need flexibility in their jobs--so they can spend more time with their families. And that is what S. 4, in its current form, proposes to do. Regrettably, I believe this legislation takes the wrong approach. Under the current bill, mothers and fathers do not have the final say in how their overtime will be used. Their hands are tied by the decisions of their employer. Under my amendment, if a worker puts in overtime, he or she can be paid time and a half, just as the law stands now. Or if that person wants, he or she can take that payment in the form of vacation--an hour and a half for every hour of overtime. Quite simply, workers can choose money or time, and not be penalized for their choice. This choice would allow a parent the flexibility to attend their child's soccer game. Or it would let that worker earn a little extra money for Christmas presents. Under the changes proposed in Senator Ashcroft's bill, the employer has the last word. Mothers and fathers could find their employer deciding whether they get time off or whether they get overtime pay. And I believe that is wrong. It is our duty to protect America's workers. When it comes to the choice between comptime and time off, we need to make sure the employee has the last choice. We have a tremendous opportunity to do something great for America's working men and women. We have a chance to give our families a powerful tool in the struggle to find balance between work and family. They're not asking for much. They simply want an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. They also want a little time to spend with their families. The American people have made it clear to us that flexibility and choice are what they need. Under my amendment, that flexibility, and that choice, are what they will get. I urge my colleagues to join me, and vote in favor of this amendment when it comes to the Senate floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to join Senators Kempthorne, Chafee, Craig, and Reid in offering this amendment. I would like to briefly explain why Senator Reid and I strongly oppose section 311 of S. 672 and then summarize the alternative we worked out with Senators Kempthorne, Chafee, and Craig. We all sympathize with the victims of the recent floods in North Dakota and Minnesota, and also with the victims of flooding earlier this year in central California and along the Ohio River. These people have suffered terribly. This debate is not about whether they should receive assistance from the Federal Government. Of course they should. And the assistance should not be delayed. But that is precisely the consequence of the language that the committee included in section 311 of the bill. The President has indicated that he would veto the bill if it includes section 311. So, if section 311 remains unchanged, we would, at the very least, delay the delivery of urgently needed assistance. Another point. Section 311 doesn't belong in this bill. It is not a limitation on the use of funds, which is within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. Rather, it amends the authorizing statute, the Endangered Species Act, which is within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. As our colleagues know, Senator Reid and I have been working closely with Senators Chafee and Kempthorne for a number of months to write a bipartisan bill to reauthorize and reform the Endangered Species Act. it is complicated work, because we are trying to improve the conservation of species at the same time we make it easier for landowners to comply with the law. So far, it has been a bipartisan effort, including the administration. However, section 311 threatens our progress. If we start down the path of piecemeal changes, such as section 311, it may undermine the spirit and intent of those negotiations. Finally, section 311 would open up a large loophole in the Endangered Species Act. Let me put this argument in perspective. The heart of the Endangered Species Act is section 7, which provides that Federal agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or destroy the critical habitat of such a species. It's a sensible requirement that's central to our efforts to conserve species. But let's face it. There may be times when it's just not possible to comply with the ordinary consultation process. There's an emergency. A flood or a forest fire. Lives and property are threatened with imminent destruction. Federal agencies must react quickly. They may not have time to carefully consult to assure that their actions won't jeopardize a species. As things now stand, this is taken into account. A provision of the current regulations allows Federal agencies to dispense with the ordinary consultation process in emergencies. The regulation says: Where emergency circumstances mandate the need to consult in an expedited manner, consultation may be conducted informally through alternative procedures that the Director determines to be consistent with the requirements of sections 7(a)-(d) of the Act. This provision applies to situations involving acts of God, disasters, casualties, national defense or security emergencies, etc. To put it another way, when there's an emergency, the Forest Service, the Corps of Engineers, or any other action agency can initiate the emergency procedure, by calling the Fish and Wildlife Service and explaining the situation. Fish and Wildlife will then step out of the way, so that the action agency can concentrate on addressing the emergency. Later, after the danger has subsided, Fish and Wildlife will begin formal consultation to determine whether additional measures are needed to minimize the impact on the species. This provision has already been successfully invoked many times. It has been used to provide emergency assistance to victims of hurricanes, forest fires, and more recently, flooding in 46 counties in California. In fact, in February of this year, the administration issued a policy statement applying the emergency provisions, for the remainder of this year's flood season, to the 46 counties in California that had been declared Federal disaster areas. As a result, the Corps of Engineers can move quickly to repair or replace flood control facilities in those counties, without being impeded by the ESA. In short, we don't have to choose between flood protection and species conservation. Using common sense and existing procedures, we can ensure that agencies like the Corps of Engineers can do what needs to be done, quickly, to save human lives and protect property. Section 311 of the bill, however, would go much further. It provides a permanent exemption, from sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act, for operating, maintaining, repairing, or reconstructing flood control projects to the extent necessary to address public health or safety, in several different circumstances. The language is confusing. What's more, the language creates a loophole, by creating a permanent exemption for any flood control measures undertaken ``to comply with a Federal, State, or local public health or safety requirement that was in effect during 1996 or 1997.'' What does this mean? The phrase ``public health or safety requirement'' is very broad. Conceivably, it could be stretched to include almost any State or local law that conflicts with the Endangered Species Act. This could have major consequences for the operation of the act. At the very least, these consequences should be considered carefully, in the context of the overall reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, and not jammed into a supplemental appropriations bill. Because of the grave nature of the flooding this year, Senator Reid and I recognize the need for an immediate and effective emergency response. In doing so, we reserve judgment about whether any provisions of this amendment should be applied more generally. That question must be considered independently, in the contest of our negotiations on an ESA reauthorization bill. Drawing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's emergency regulations and their February 19, 1997 policy, the Kempthorne-Chafee-Craig-Baucus- Reid amendment would assure that people threatened by flooding could respond quickly to an imminent threat to lives and property. Specifically, our amendment would do two things. First, it would allow a Federal agency to defer formal consultation on repairs to flood control projects that the agency determines are needed to respond to an imminent threat to human lives and property in 1996 or 1997. Unlike section 311 of the bill, however, it would not exempt the agency from the requirements of section 7 of the ESA. It would simply defer formal consultation until the imminent threat to human lives and property had been abated. Second, our amendment would require that any reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of emergency repairs under this section must be related in nature and extent to the effect of the action taken to repair the project. Mr. President, the Kempthorne-Chafee-Craig-Baucus-Reid amendment was agreed to only after several days of difficult negotiations. Although the amendment represents a compromise, I believe it addresses the needs of Federal agencies to respond to flood emergencies without undermining important protections for threatened and endangered species. Without doubt, it is a significant improvement over section 311 of the bill. Like Senator Reid, I strongly opposed the endangered species provision that was included in the committee bill, and I will tell you the four reasons. First, the provision in the bill simply does not belong in the bill because it amends the Endangered Species Act. This is an appropriations bill, not a legislative bill. Second, the provision is unnecessary. Why? Because existing regulations and policies already allow agencies to respond to floods and other emergencies without getting tied up in red tape under the act. Third, the provision would undermine our efforts to provide badly needed disaster relief, because the President has indicated that he would veto the bill if the provision was included. Fourth, and most significantly, the provision would open a loophole to the Endangered Species Act. The amendment we are offering today, in contrast, is a compromise, that is the result of several days of hard negotiations. In contrast to the provision in the bill, this amendment by Senator Reid would not exempt agencies from the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Instead, it simply provides that, in certain emergency situations in which it is necessary to make flood control repairs, an agency can defer formal consultation until the imminent threat to human lives and property has been abated. By doing so, the amendment confirms that Federal agencies can respond to flood emergencies, but does not undermine protections for threatened and endangered species. It is a substantial improvement over the provision in the committee bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of Senator Bumpers' motion to strike section 310 from the Supplemental Appropriations Act. This section should be removed from the Supplemental Appropriations Act for two reasons. First, it could harm our Nation's wilderness areas, national parks, and wildlife refuges. Second, it is wrong as a matter of principle to tie controversial issues to flood disaster relief. We simply should not play politics when people's lives are in the balance. In 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Land Management Policy Act and thus repealed an 1866 statute that allowed practically unrestricted road construction across our public lands. Congress agreed, however, to recognize the legitimacy of highways constructed as of 1976. In essence, the appropriations rider reinstates a 1988 policy that broadly defined highways to include foot paths, pack trails, and even dog-sled routes. If these paths are recognized as highways constructed prior to 1976, then they can be upgraded and enlarged to full roads, even if they run through existing wilderness areas, national parks, or wildlife refuges. These areas are national treasures. They are visited by millions of Americans every year. We should not let them be roaded without careful thought and deliberation. This rider hits close to home for me. This provision could allow roads to be built through spectacular wilderness in Montana. Often, we have to speculate about what the effect of a piece of legislation will be. In this case, speculation is not necessary. An R.S. 2477 claim has been filed to build a road through the middle of one of Montana's most popular wilderness areas. Fortunately, that claim was recently rejected by the Department of the Interior. If this rider becomes law, this and other claims could be granted with devastating effect to our Nation's wilderness areas. Equally disturbing, this section could prevent Montana roadless areas from being designated as wilderness in the future. I have carried bills in the Senate to designate Montana's spectacular Rocky Mountain Front as wilderness. This is an area of soaring mountain peaks, crystal clear streams, and untrammeled meadows. Bills to designate this area as wilderness have received bipartisan support and have passed the Senate. If section 310 becomes law, the Rocky Mountain Front and other roadless lands in those bills could be denigrated. If section 310 becomes law, the Senate may lose its right to decide whether to designate those lands as wilderness. And section 310 applies to more than wilderness lands. Section 310 would even affect our national parks and wildlife refuges. But this vote is about more than the roads that could be built across our Nation's wildlands. This vote is also about people who have suffered through an unusually harsh winter in Montana and are seeking disaster relief. This vote is about people in North Dakota who have suffered devastating floods. Let me read what the paper in my State's capitol wrote yesterday about Section 310. In an editorial entitled ``An Ugly Kind of Politics,'' the Helena Independent Record writes: This sort of thing might be business as usual in Washington, but we think the specter of Clinton being forced to veto a flood-relief measure because of tacked-on skulduggery is way out of line. We suspect it wouldn't sit too well either with flood victims in the Dakotas--and, perhaps, potential flood victims in Montana as well. Politics is seldom pretty, but this is downright ugly. Mr. President, I agree with this assessment, and I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the American people are losing faith in our political system. And they are losing faith because of the way that politics is played. Because of this type of rider. How will the disaster victims in the Dakotas feel if their aid is delayed because some want to play a game of poker where the stakes are incredibly high? Where the stakes are the blankets that flood victims need to stay warm or where the stakes are pumps that are needed so that people can drink clean water? And what of the people in other states? Oregon stands to receive almost $140 million from the Supplemental Appropriations bill. Louisiana, $116 million. For other states such as Maine, Vermont, and Virginia, the amount of the funds is somewhat smaller, but the need is no doubt just as great. People in all fifty states receive funds from this bill. People in all fifty states will be affected if we allow politics to delay this bill. This money will help Americans who have lost their homes, their businesses, and all of their earthly possessions. To block this funding or to delay it through the use of these types of riders is just plain wrong. To force the American people to accept new roads through their national parks or wilderness areas, just to get their disaster relief is equally wrong. Mr. President, the Supplemental Appropriations bill is the wrong place to play politics. I ask my Senate colleagues to vote to strike these riders as a matter of policy and as a matter of principle.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very proud today to tell my colleagues in the Senate about four students from my home State of Montana: Ariel Overstreet, Amber Overstreet, Lindsey Hauge, and Taylor Gray. These young Montanans won first place in two separate NASA- sponsored national contests. Ariel took first place in the Intergalactic Art Contest in which she had to draw an original piece of art. Amber, Lindsey, and Taylor made up a team that took first place in the Future Aircraft/Spacecraft design competition. I congratulate them on their achievements. These students have proven what most of us in Montana have known all along. Montana students are some of the brightest and best educated students in the country. And while we are proud of our students, we know that a lot of the credit must go to devoted teachers like Rolland Karlin and concerned parents like Anne Overstreet. These are the people behind the scenes who make sure that the education our children receive is top-notch. Ariel, Amber, Lindsey, and Taylor are now visiting Washington, as part of their award. I was pleased to have a chance to meet them. They are fine representatives of Montana and their community of Big Timber. Later on in their trip, these four youngsters will be visiting NASA's space camp. I hope that the opportunity to view NASA technology up close will feed their active minds. Congratulations Ariel, Amber, Lindsey, and Taylor. I hope you enjoy your trip. And that you never lose your desire to achieve your dreams.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to acknowledge the recent retirement of a long-time congressional staff member, a dedicated public servant and a loyal friend. On April 2, 1997, Judy Campbell, who for the past 10 years served as the financial clerk of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, completed 36 years of congressional service. This institution is a better place because of her faithful service. I first met Judy Campbell late in 1974, shortly after my election to the U.S. House of Representatives. She was one of the first individuals I hired on my congressional staff. Judy's ability and exceptional organizational skills were first brought to my attention by one of the most able and respected legislators of his generation, the late Congressman Richard Bolling of Missouri, for whom Judy had already worked for over a decade. Judy served as my office manager, first in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, for 12 years. In 1987, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Quentin N. Burdick of North Dakota, hired Judy and she soon became the committee's financial clerk. Judy served the committee and the Senate in that capacity under four chairmen--Senators Quentin N. Burdick, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John Chafee, and myself. The hallmark of Judy's congressional service was always her professionalism. She worked with Democratic and Republican Members and staff with similar dedication and equal enthusiasm. Judy has also been an invaluable resource to her colleagues on my personal staff, the committee and around the Hill. The process of hiring new staffers always involves a certain amount of coaching and training. Judy was particularly good in this role, and I know she was always willing to provide counseling and support to other committee financial clerks and office managers around the Hill. Longevity was only one aspect of Judy's career. Through her work she epitomized dedication in public service. For 36 years, Judy has been one of the selfless and nameless individuals who, day in and day out, make the congressional branch of government function effectively, year in and year out. Judy's detailed knowledge of congressional operations and finances is legendary. She took seriously the public trust for the millions of dollars which were her responsibility over the years. To say Judy was prudent with taxpayer funds would be an understatement. In the mid-1970's, when America's ultimate tightwad--Jack Benny--died, the joke in my office was that Judy Campbell took his place. Mr. President, this institution is a better place because Judy Campbell toiled here. She made a difference. Her many friends on Capitol Hill and I will miss her. I personally wish Judy and her husband Denny nothing but the best in retirement. As they complete construction of a new home this summer, we wish them many years of good health and enjoyment. On April 3, 1997, Judy realized a longtime dream. On that day she started a new career--that of a full-time grandmother. Thank you, Judy, and good luck. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for passing a piece of legislation this morning that designates today, National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day. The legislation we passed this morning also calls on President Clinton to issue a proclamation urging all Americans to use each day as an opportunity to take a stand against racism and hate. In 1964, Mike Mansfield of Montana, then majority leader of the U.S. Senate, ushered through this body the landmark Civil Rights Act. His national foresight and courage in those years was widely praised in the press and by his peers. As one colleague said upon Senator Mansfield's retirement, ``The distinguished majority leader votes his convictions and lets the chips fall where they will.'' In the last several years, however, Montanans of a different generation have come under the microscope of less favorable scrutiny. The reputation of Montana as a State of forward-thinkers and tolerant individuals was marred by the standoff between the FBI and the so- called Freemen outside Jordan, and a series of hate crimes in some of our cities. Make no mistake, it is important for the media and others to focus on these events, whether they occur in Montana or elsewhere. But equally, if we are to learn from them, then we also need to listen to the stories of hope, of the people who are willing to stand up to bigots and hate groups. Because those stories are happening all the time in Montana. Whether it is a community like Billings that stands up to a group of skinheads, or a Missoula high school class that devotes an entire project to studying the Holocaust. It was in this spirit and with the strong support of the YWCA of America, the Anti-Defamation League, and the USA Network, that I cosponsored the legislation that designated today as National Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism Day. There is no doubt that we have come a long way as a nation. But with 8,000 hate crimes reported to the U.S. Department of Justice each year, it is clear we still have much more work to do. In addition to taking a day to recognize the importance of the fight, we must continue to support groups like the Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment, the Montana Human Rights Network, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the many other groups and individuals who continue this work every day. In fact, many of those involved in this arena are now urging President Clinton to convene a White House conference on the issue. They have my strong support in their request. Surely, what we can do to encourage voluntarism, we must do to end hate. I know a simple Senate resolution, or even a national conference, will not end the problems we still have. A piece of paper alone cannot teach a child that hate is wrong. But I do believe a piece of paper can make people think. A conference will not end intolerance. But it can make people talk about hate crimes. Designating today as a day to address these important problems is a first step and it can light a spark of hope in people's hearts and minds. Again, perhaps our predecessor in the Senate, Mr. Mansfield, when speaking about the task in 1964, said it best when he noted, What we do here in the . . . Congress will not, of itself, correct these faults, but we can and must join the wisdom-- the collective wisdom of this body--to the efforts of others in this Nation to face up to them for what they are--a serious erosion of the fundamental rock upon which the unity of the Nation stands. Tolerance and respect are our nation's bedrock. Today we can join together to renew the fight for a better America. And if we continue to look at the good, courageous, decent things our neighbors are doing, the sparks of hope we light just might catch fire, in Montana and all across the country.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my firm support of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty. I have thought long and hard on this issue. And I believe that my colleagues--both for and against this treaty--have shown patience, diligence and understanding during this important debate. I also believe the time has come for us to lead the civilized world in signing this treaty. And to remember why, we need to look back to our history. On October 30, 1918, 12 days before the end of the First World War, the 362nd Infantry Division received orders to attack German positions outside the city of Audenarde in France. Many Montanans served in this division. During this battle, German troops lobbed several gas shells toward the Montana troops. The wind that morning just happened to be blowing to the east, and the gas carried over the American area. The men of the 362nd fought valiantly that day. And in the end, they overtook the German positions with a minimal loss of life. But they, and hundreds of thousands of other World War I veterans, carried scars in their lungs for the rest of their lives. It made breathing difficult and left many of them invalids. Chemical weaponry has come a long way in the 79 years since that battle took place. Modern technology has made this type of warfare more devastating and more deadly. It can now kill instantly as well as scar and maim the lungs. Chemical warfare is an indiscriminate killer. It cannot tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, a bunker from a subway, or a barracks from a school. And worst of all, some chemical weapons are relatively easy to create. As we have seen in recent news reports, if the substances used to create chemical weapons are freely available, terrorist groups and cults can make them and use them against civilians. This, of course, often makes them hard to detect. So the critics of this Convention have a point when they say it will be hard to verify. But this agreement will make it much easier than it is now for us to find out when rogue states try to create or stockpile chemical weapons. We will have the right to inspect the factories and defense installations of those we suspect are creating these weapons. And we will be able to block those who do not sign from buying the substances they need to create chemical weapons. That is why this treaty has wide support. If we choose not to ratify it, we cast ourselves with such countries as Iraq and Libya--one which used chemical weapons against Iran and its own Kurdish citizens, another suspected of clandestine efforts to create a chemical weapons program. And we make it more likely that some day, another generation of American servicemen and servicewomen will suffer the same kind of outrageous attack that the Montanans in the 362nd went through in 1918. That must not happen. And the Senate must pass this Convention. If we ratify this treaty now, we allow the United States to participate in its administration from the outset. To fail to ratify the treaty is to lose our seat at the table. I want to make sure that we put American inspectors on the ground to ensure the eventual end of these horrible weapons. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this treaty. And I look forward to the day we remove chemical weapons from the face of the earth.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution which will designate this April 30 as a National Day to Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism. In the last couple of years, we Montanans have seen our state come under the microscope of considerable media scrutiny. We've had the arrest of the alleged ``Unabomber,'' the standoff between the FBI and the so-called Freemen outside Jordan, and a series of hate crimes in some of our cities. And it's appropriate for the press to take a look at these things, while recognizing that many of these incidents are repeated on a larger scale throughout the rest of the country. What has frustrated me, and many other Montanans, however, is the lack of attention to the vast majority of Montanans--the people who are willing to stand up to bigots and hate groups. For example, take what happened in Billings, Montana, a few years ago. People in Billings enjoy a high quality of life that only Montana can provide. It is the largest city in Montana, but it still has the feel of a small town. Folks say hello to strangers in the street. Families go to the symphony in Pioneer Park in the summer. And neighbors go out of their way to help someone when they need a hand. That placid life was shattered in November 1993, when a group of ``skinheads'' threw a bottle through the glass door of the home of a Jewish family. A few days later they put a brick through the window of another Jewish family's home--with a five-year-old boy in the room. Then they smashed the windows of a Catholic high school that had a ``Happy Hanukkah'' sign on its marquee. The people of Billings were horrified. But they did not sit at home and try to ignore the problem. They did not let the hatred take root. The community banded together. Thousands of homes put Menorahs in their windows. They showed the skinheads that the people of Billings were united against hate. And that year, Billings held the largest Martin Luther King Day march ever in Montana. And all over Montana, we see more of the same. Whether it is a county attorney who stands up to militia groups in Jordan. Or the unsung people who work in their communities, such as Helena, to stamp out racism and hatred through the Montana Human Rights Network. These are all stories that need to be told. Recently, the USA Network aired a movie called ``Not In This Town,'' which told the story of these events to the country. I commend the network for bringing this story to the world because it sends two powerful messages. First of all, Montana is no home for bullies and hate-mongers. And second, wherever you live, violence and bigotry do not have to be accepted in your community. That is why today I am submitting, with my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, and many others from across America, a bill which will designate April 30, 1997, as a National Day to Erase the Hate and Eliminate Racism. I know a simple bill like this one will not end the problems we still have. A piece of paper alone cannot teach a child that hate is wrong. But I do believe a piece of paper can make people think. It can make people talk about hate crimes. And it can light a spark in people's hearts and minds. And if we continue to look at the good, courageous, decent things our neighbors are doing, that spark just might catch fire, in Montana and all across the country.