Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement with the managers on this issue. The amendment offered on behalf of Senator Chafee and myself corrects language in the bill that creates overlapping authority in the EPA and the FAA, conflicting regulations, and fiscal waste. The result of the Commerce Committee's proposal contained in S. 1994 would have been confusion and uncertainty for the airline industry, and unnecessary burdens for the taxpayers. Let me explain the situation briefly. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require the EPA to set emission standards for new aircraft engines. The bill before us, however, grants the FAA the very same authority. Thus, two different agencies would have the same authority. With all the effort by this administration and Congress to downsize the bureaucracy and trim agency budgets, I don't think the committee intended this duplication. The Secretary of Transportation acknowledges that, if this provision became law, the FAA would have had to develop the expertise and capacity to set emission standards. So this bill would have required an entirely new office, with a new budget and new workers all to do a job already being done by the EPA. This just didn't make sense. The FAA is now straining to meet its basic responsibilities in aviation security and safety. We should not divert them from those critical missions by forcing them to duplicate work already being performed by another agency. Mr. President, this amendment corrects the situation by eliminating the provision in S. 1994 which creates the FAA's duplicate authority over emission standards. I'm pleased that the compromise we reached with the managers also requires greater cooperation between the two agencies by directing the EPA to consult with the FAA prior to setting new emission standards for aircraft engines. The amendment also allows the FAA Administrator to include representatives from the EPA on advisory committees that deal with issues of aircraft standards. This should facilitate coordination between EPA, the FAA and interested parties early in the development of any future regulations. In conclusion, I believe this amendment makes good sense all around. It protects the taxpayer by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication. It encourages better dialogue between government and industry. And it avoids any weakening of our environmental standards. I'm pleased the managers of the bill have accepted the amendment and I thank them for their willingness to work with us on this important issue.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President; I submit an amendment to H.R. 3662, the fiscal year 1997 Interior appropriations bill. From 1961 to his retirement from the Senate in 1977, Montana's Mike Mansfield served as Senate majority leader. It was the longest term as majority leader in American history. During these years, the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act, created Medicare, passed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, debated the Cuban missile crisis and the war in Vietnam. On all these issues and more, Mike was a respected national leader. Yet when Mike was asked to reflect back on his years in the Senate and identify his single proudest accomplishment, he responded, ``saving Flathead Lake from the Army Corps of Engineers.'' If you don't know Montana; and you don't know Flathead Lake; and you don't know Mike Mansfield, this answer may come as a surprise. But for those of us who know all three, this is perfectly easy to understand. Located in western Montana, between Missoula and Kalispell, Flathead Lake is the largest fresh water lake in the United States, outside of the Great Lakes. Surrounded by the Mission Mountains and the Swan Range to the west, it is a place of spectacular beauty. And it is also a place that is very much a part of so many Montanans--including this Senator. From boating, water skiing, fishing, or just sitting around a bonfire along the Lake's shore, Flathead Lake is a very special Montana place. The corps had a plan to radically raise the level of this lake, transforming it forever and drowning many of the coves, shorelines, and fishing spots Montanans know so well. Montanans liked it just the way it was--and we still do today. Yet some folks outside Montana just don't get it. They think they can improve Flathead Lake. And that brings me to the amendment now before us. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for approval to construct an 8,700-foot-long retaining wall, at the cost of $10 to $14 million, near the north shore of the lake. In theory, this great wall would prevent shore erosion and restore waterfowl habitat. These are commendable goals. But the cost of this proposal outweighs any possible benefits. The view of the lake from the town of Bigfork, for example, would be ruined. Boaters would see a neo-industrial monstrosity instead of a peaceful shore. It is a bad idea, and my amendment would nip this weed in the bud by prohibiting construction of this wall. Frankly, the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't need to mandate lowering the level of Flathead Lake. And it doesn't need to mandate a big concrete slab in the lake to stem shoreline erosion. If erosion is proven to be an ongoing and significant problem, the Fish and Wildlife Service needs to find unobtrusive remedial measures that respect Flathead Lake and the people who enjoy it. I believe this is just simple common sense. One Great Wall of China is plenty. None of us will ever improve on what the Good Lord did when he created Flathead Lake. Let us admit that right now and pass this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to make a short statement on my strong disappointment that the energy and water conference report does not include the Senate-passed amendment giving the States and the cities the right to say no to the importation of out-of-State garbage. I must say, and I think you remember, Mr. President, this is not a new issue. This has been around since 1989. Essentially, it is a battle between those States who want to export their trash to another State and those States on the receiving end who do not want it. Not long ago in my State, the city of Miles City faced a prospect that was practically a Noah's flood of garbage imports. Fortunately, that plan fell through, but the really crazy and humiliating part of it all was that the 5,000 citizens of Miles City could only sit and wait. They had no say at all and no way to stop the waste from coming in. Why? Very simply, because the Supreme Court has struck down attempts by States to limit importation of garbage, saying it violates the commerce clause of the Constitution. So we in the Congress have to act and pass Federal legislation that enables States and enables local communities to say no. It is obviously wrong, Mr. President. It is unfair for any city, whether Miles City or any other city in the United States, to not have the right to say no to garbage coming into their State. As you recall, we in the Senate have done our part. Way back in May of 1995, we passed a bill to let Montana and other States say no to the importation of out-of-State garbage. The House of Representatives, however, has a different story. They have stalled. They have stalled on any action in this measure for a couple of years. I say that the people of Montana, the people of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and other States affected by the deluge of garbage coming into their States cannot afford to wait any longer. They are anxious. They are concerned. They feel the Government ought to be able to do something to address this situation. Some of these States are already importing millions of tons of garbage, and they do not want to import more. Now it appears that New York City may add 10,000 tons or more of trash every day--10,000 tons of trash every day--when it closes its Fresh Kills landfill on the outskirts of New York City. That should drive home to everyone, and especially the House, how important it is to act and to act quickly. We talk a lot around here about local control, about letting States decide their own destiny, letting local communities decide their own destiny. By saying no to the Senate amendment on this conference report, the House is preventing the people from controlling their own destiny. By saying no, States cannot stop out-of-State garbage from being dumped in their own backyard. Obviously, the Senate bill we passed is not perfect. It is a compromise. It is a compromise between the importing States that take garbage and do not want the garbage and the exporting States that, frankly, want to export more. It is a compromise. It is a compromise we can live with. Now, the House, apparently, does not want to act. It is not compromising. I say the House should pass something which at least they think makes sense for them. That way, we can work another compromise that is between the House and the Senate, and we can finally solve this problem--it is not the perfect way, but in a way that generally resolves the problems so that today more local communities can say no to the importation of garbage coming into their States. That is only fair. I ask the House to act quickly. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will send an amendment to the desk. This amendment deals with the Park Services management of Glacier National Park in the State of Montana. As you might know, Mr. President, the Park Service is beginning a new general management plan for Glacier Park. It will be a blueprint for the next 20 years. I must say, that we in Montana are quite concerned about this blueprint. I ask that everybody watching take note of what is going on here and to come and visit us in Montana, particularly at Glacier Park. Glacier has some of the most stunning real estate in the world. The Going to the Sun Highway, mountain goats scaling the rocks, Grinnell Glacier and Iceberg Lake, which is just a small sample of what we have in Glacier. It is truly a national heritage, one that we must preserve forever. So on its face, Mr. President, an updated management plan seems like a pretty good idea. After all, we want to protect Glacier in the long term. It does not make much sense not to protect a resource as precious as this. Full campgrounds, crowded roads, aging infrastructure, and many other challenges face the Park Service today. Because Glacier has been discovered, people are coming to visit Glacier, as well they should. It is so magnificent. So we do need a management plan that does meet these challenges and preserves the quality of Glacier National Park. But so far, the National Park Service, it seems, is doing a better job at scaring people, at frightening people, particularly those who use Glacier, than in making citizens full partners in the plan which protects the park for future generations. The Daily Interlake, a Kalispell newspaper, editorialized: The Park Service has come up with a document that by accident or design manages to offend just about everyone one way or another. I might say, that is an understatement. Most people I talk to are, if not outraged, quite upset. And given the conversations I have had with them, and others who have visited Glacier Park over the last couple weeks, I can tell you that something has to be done. For decades visitors have had a truly first-class experience when they visit Glacier. Radical changes could make these experiences a thing of the past. I want to believe that the Park Service has merely had a clumsy beginning, a clumsy start, which will soon lead to a very productive process that reflects public sentiment concerning proper Glacier management. But up to now, the Park Service has done very little to reassure Montanans about where they are heading. I think we need an insurance plan, an insurance policy, something that guarantees that the new management plan will not go haywire. So my amendment provides that protection. It allows the Park Service to go ahead, but it requires them to submit the final Glacier general management plan to the Senate Energy Committee and the House Resources Committee. These committees will then have 90 days to review the plan before it goes into effect. That, I think, will guarantee public input and a final management plan that preserves the Glacier Park experience. This amendment is a final line of defense against illogical or unresponsive decisionmaking by the National Park Service, not that I expect them to be unresponsive or illogical, but I think it is important to have an insurance plan. I think this amendment will help make that happen. Beartooth Highway Mr. President, on another matter, I will also offer an amendment to ensure the proper management of one of the most spectacular highways in the United States, that is called the Beartooth Highway. Highway 212, better known as the Beartooth Highway, begins just outside Red Lodge, MT. It climbs a mountain to Line Creek Plateau looking out over the Absaroka-Beartooth wilderness area of Wyoming and Montana. It then proceeds on to Cooke City and the northeastern entrance of Yellowstone National Park. It is truly magnificent. Anyone who has ever taken a vacation in that part of our country, put it on your calendar, the possibility of driving the Beartooth Highway. I guarantee you will not regret it. It is named for a spectacular rock spire, capping a mountain ridge, carved by ancient glaciers into the shape of a bear's canine tooth. That is why it is called Beartooth. When traveling up Beartooth Highway, travelers often see wildlife from moose to the bighorn sheep, black bear, and golden eagle. High meadows in the spring are covered with alpine wildflowers, while snowdrifts often last all summer long. It is magnificent. Travelers driving the Beartooth Highway see some of the most unusual and spectacular scenery in our country. And maybe that is why Americans have treasured this region--according to archaeological evidence--for the past 12,000 years. That is about as long as human beings have lived on our continent. Since the Beartooth Highway was built in the 1930's, the National Park Service has kept it plowed to make sure it is open for tourism by Memorial Day weekend. This has guaranteed access for Americans who want to appreciate this part of our heritage. And it has helped to ensure prosperity for towns along the road, in places like Red Lodge, Cooke City, Silver Gate. But this year the Park Service did not open the highway on Memorial Day. It did not plow the road on time. And small businesses in the gateway communities--already reeling from the Congress' blundering decision to shutdown the Government at the height of the winter tourist season--felt the impact. To make matters worse, these towns can expect the same thing to happen in the future. Because soon after Memorial Day, the Superintendent of Yellowstone announced that after 1997, the Park Service will no longer make sure the Beartooth Highway is open at the start of the tourist season. The Superintendent's reason for this policy change stems from the budget squeeze that Yellowstone is feeling. That is not a frivolous decision, and I am sympathetic to the challenges the Park Service faces in managing Yellowstone. But walking away from responsibility to Beartooth Highway and these gateway communities is not acceptable. Rather, I believe we have to find a solution now. And I think it is clear. The responsibility for the Beartooth Highway rests jointly on the Park Service and on the Forest Service. Visitors use this road to get both to Yellowstone and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area. The former, of course, is managed by the Park Service and the latter by the Forest Service. So both agencies should share equally in the cost of opening the Beartooth Highway. My amendment requires the Park Service and the Forest Service to enter into a memorandum of understanding by April 1, 1997, to split the cost of opening the Beartooth Highway between the two agencies. It also requires these agencies to make sure that the Beartooth Highway is open to traffic by Memorial Day each year. I think this is fair. It is a good, common sense solution. It will help ease the Park Service's concerns over funding. It will make sure Americans can drive this highway in the spring. And it will make sure small businesses in Red Lodge, Cooke City, and others, who depend on the Beartooth Highway opening at the beginning of the tourist season, can look to the future with confidence.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the managers of this bill, Senators Bond and Mikulski, for providing the first-time capitalization grant for the long awaited safe drinking water revolving loan fund. The much needed $725 million for the recently established drinking water loan fund will provide assistance to those drinking water suppliers who are trying to comply with the Federal law. There are so many communities, especially small communities, that need the funding and have been counting on Congress to act. Small communities lack the economies of scale to spread the cost of compliance among their customers, even though they have to comply with the same regulations as large systems. The bill signed into law last month recognizes these differences by, among other things, providing a funding source. I appreciate the manager's recognition of this need and look forward to working with them in the future to ensure that this new loan fund meets the needs of the Nation's drinking water suppliers.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield all of our remaining time to the very distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who, I might say, Mr. President, although he is not a member of the committee, has been so deeply active in this issue to make sure that we get to the Safe Drinking Water Act that I at times thought he was a member of the committee. He is one of the main reasons why we are here today. I very much tip my hat to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know the distinguished chairman of the committee will join with me in also thanking Administrator Browner; Bob Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator; and Cynthia Dougherty, and a former administration official who worked very hard on this legislation, Jim Elden. This administration has shown leadership on this issue by making it an environmental priority back in 1993. Today, we have made that priority a reality. We have a divided Government, as we all know. It takes cooperation to get things done. They were an integral part of the solution. We are all very thankful.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jan Harrington and Mike Burton, both fellows in Senator Bob Kerrey's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the conference report on this subject.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I, like my good friend and chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, strongly support the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. We all know that the Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be reformed. We have heard all kinds of stories. They are largely true. We have had problems in many of our cities, our large cities. We heard about Milwaukee, Washington, DC, and the cryptosporidium problems, as well as some problems in small communities. It is basic, it is fundamental: Americans should be able to drink their water and rest assured that the water they drink is safe, that they will not get sick, whether they are in the comfort of their own home or whether they are visiting the Nation's Capital or wherever they might be in our country. The current version of the Safe Drinking Water Act, is helpful in this direction, but, in many respects, it produces more paperwork than it does progress. It is my belief that this conference report helps change that. What does it do? First, it reforms the regulatory process. This is very important. It makes it much more streamlined, and reduces redtape. It cuts monitoring costs. This is extremely important. The monitoring costs for some contaminants are extremely high, and Americans would be amazed at how expensive it is. The bill also creates a new revolving loan fund so communities will have the resources to get the technology they need. It also requires water systems to give the people they serve more information about the quality of the drinking water the system provides. Consumers will have more notice and more information. And the bill addresses operator training. It is important to have operators who know what they are doing. Overall, it cuts redtape and, at the same time, increases the protection of public health. Senator Chafee has described some measures in detail. I agree with his assessment. I think this bill is a solid compromise. In praising it, I would like to emphasize two points. First, as has been stated, this bill is especially important to rural States, to small communities. In my State of Montana, we have over 900 separate drinking water systems. Almost all of them serve fewer than 10,000 people. Some of the systems serve trailer parks and remote clusters of homes. They are operated part-time by folks who are just trying to be good neighbors. They are very small systems. The current version of the law requires small drinking water systems to install the same treatment technology as large urban water systems that serve hundreds of thousands of people. In some cases, this doesn't make sense. Small systems do not benefit from what economists call ``economies of scale.'' That is, they cannot spread their costs among a large number of ratepayers. The same high cost of technology has to be spread among fewer ratepayers, resulting in a much higher cost to the ratepayers. If we force smaller systems to use big-city technology, not only can they not afford the cost, but they will go under. What will that mean? That means people in the area have to revert to using unhealthy well water, not water which is treated, but well water which is untreated. This point was hammered home to me by the head of the Montana Rural Water Association, Dan Keil. I will never forget meeting with Dan about 6 years ago. He told me about legitimate problems with the Safe Drinking Water Act. We were in the Heritage Motel in Great Falls, MT. He made a very deep impression upon me. I know Dan Keil is very happy today, now that the Senate is finally, 6 or 7 years later, dealing with the problem that needed to be addressed. At that time, he explained to me how impractical some of the present requirements are. I looked into it, and I agreed with him, they are impractical. We are now dealing, I think, with most of those problems. One of the most important issues is the variance provision in this conference report. Here is how it works. If a system has 10,000 people or fewer, they may request a variance to install special small-system technology identified by EPA. That is important. That means that a small system that cannot afford to comply with current regulations through conventional treatment can instead comply by installing affordable small-system technology. The States review the variance to ensure the technology adequately protects the public health. In those cases where the system serves between 3,300 people and 10,000 people, the variance must be approved by the EPA. That is going to help. It is going to help address the twin objectives of protecting public health and using cost-efficient technology. Second, over the last few years, there has been a lot of talk about reforming our environmental laws. No doubt about it, although our laws are quite good--they help make the water in our country cleaner and more pure and the air we breathe more healthy--they need some reform. They are a bit outdated. One noteworthy provision in this bill is transferability. What does that mean? Essentially, the provision allows a State to transfer dollars from the revolving loan fund in the Clean Water Act to the new revolving loan fund in the Safe Drinking Water Act. A State can loan the funds to a community that can use those dollars to pay for technology that it needs to address some of the problems in the drinking water. A State can do the opposite, too. They can transfer from the Safe Drinking Water Act loan fund to the Clean Water Act loan fund. This provides more flexibility to allow a State to meet its needs, or a community to meet its needs. Washington, DC, is not passing something on to the States that has been described in the past as a one size fits all, view, but rather giving a lot more flexibility to States. This is extremely important. Another innovative provision is radon. Radon has been a vexing problem because, the proposed radon standard for water is tighter than the amount of radon that occurs in outdoor air. Radon affects people in their homes. We have basically come up with a multimedia. It allows States to set a lower standard for radon in drinking water only if the State has an alternative indoor air program that achieves just as much public health protection as the drinking water standard would achieve. In conclusion, Mr. President, no legislation is perfect. This one is not perfect. It contains some flaws. It has a series of special projects, commonly known as pork, which will draw resources away from the new drinking water loan fund. I think those projects should not be in the bill, but we could not get the bill passed, incredibly, without some of them. But it is a good bill nevertheless. We have made some progress. It is going to help move the ball forward. In closing, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee. I must say that all of us who have worked with the chairman of our committee are very impressed with him. He is basically a down-to-Earth, commonsense fellow. He calls them as he sees them. He is very generous with his time, very generous with his compliments and very generous with the people he is working with. In addition, he keeps his eye on the ball; that is, moving the environmental ball forward in a commonsense way. It has been kind of tough the last couple of years. We have not passed environmental legislation that is solid, commonsense and balanced. Senator Chafee has done a good job to help advance this legislation. I also want to acknowledge the excellent work of the staff, particularly Jimmie Powell. I don't know anybody who knows this issue better than Jimmie, with the possible exception of my two staff, Jo- Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans, who know it just as well. They have been just terrific. I am particularly appreciative of Jo-Ellen. When they were trying to wrap this bill up 2 or 3 days ago and they wanted to quit, Jo-Ellen said they were not going to leave until they wrapped it up that night. They didn't leave, and they wrapped it up. That is a testament to Jo- Ellen's hard work. I pay particular thanks to Senator Kempthorne, chairman of the subcommittee. Senator Kempthorne, like Senator Chafee, is a commonsense fellow. Maybe that is because he is from a Western State like Montana. Also, Senator Reid from Nevada. He is not out there to try to harm anybody, does not have a political ax to grind. He is trying to get the job done in a very balanced way. I see Senator Boxer on the floor. There is nobody more tenacious and hard working and a greater champion for environmental causes. And in the case, she was particularly strong on the right-to-know provision, which was her brainchild. I know that Senator Boxer is very pleased we included that provision in the conference report. People worked hard on this. I am very grateful for the time and effort they put into it. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey. I know no one who fights harder for the environment, who is more tenacious with a greater bulldog tenacity than the Senator from New Jersey. That is meant as very high praise from me.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the past 2 years, the House of Representatives has made some good decisions, but I must say they have also made some rather questionable ones that is, from the two Government shutdowns not too long ago to the attempted cuts in school lunches, Medicare, and college loans. I think it has left a lot of us not only in the Senate but across the country shaking our heads. But the great water raid they pulled off under Speaker Gingrich's leadership last Tuesday may be the worst decision yet. Let me sum up the water raid very simply. The House, operating under a procedure that allowed no vote in the Chamber, passed a water resources development bill that takes 30 days' worth of water out of Montana, out of Wyoming and the Dakotas and sends it downstream. This was done to give bargeowners downstream 1 month's worth of extra navigation, bypassing the Army Corps of Engineers, putting scientific and environmental analysis in the trash basket, and ignoring basic economics. For many years--in fact, ever since Fort Peck Dam went up 60 years ago--the Army Corps of Engineers has discriminated in favor of downstream navigation and against the far more economically valuable recreation and tourism industry upstream. They have done it by draining water out of the Upper Basin States, leaving farmers and dockowners high and dry. Only in the last 3 years has the Army Corps of Engineers finally begun to make decisions on sound science and good economics rather than special interest pleading. They have limited the navigation season and allowed higher pool levels in our upper reservoirs, and that is good. I hasten to say that the system is still grossly biased against our part of the country. I think the corps need to do better, but we have made some progress. That was up until last Tuesday, when the House decided to take an extreme step backward and steal 1 month's worth of water from us. That is the water we drink. It is the water farmers use to grow their crops. It is the water ranchers need for their stock. It is the water families, tourists, and sportsmen use for fishing, swimming, and rafting. It is our water. And the House has used a rigged procedure-- what my colleague, Pat Williams, called a midnight slam dunk--to take it away. This great water raid, I might hasten to add, is not a done deal--far from it. The Senate, acting with considerably more fairness, much more clear thinking, did nothing of the kind. In the overall bill that is now headed to the conference committee, we will iron out the differences between the good bill we passed here--and to use a charitable term--flawed bill passed in the House. There is a good chance that the conference committee will strip out this water raid provision. As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a member of the conference, I will do all I can to assure that we take it out. And I, certainly, will strenuously oppose any conference agreement that contains the water raid. But I must tell my colleagues that if worse comes to worst, I want to put all of them on notice that there could well be a full discussion of all the ramifications of the Missouri River issue. It is very complicated. It requires a lot of background and a lot of study. So to prepare the Senate fully, I may read aloud the entire Army Corps' ``Master Water Control Manual.'' This was published in July 1994, and it gives the corps present view of the optimal way to manage the Missouri River. This manual, even in its present form, is inadequate and unfair to the Upper Basin States--that is, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. But it is a crucial document if one hopes to first understand the genesis and present state of the Missouri River debate and, second, to grasp what management changes we need. That is why I will most likely read the entire manual to the Senate. Now, for the curious who may be listening in on this little discussion, I must say that the manual comes in nine parts. I will just read off the entire front cover to let Senators know what the manual contains and to give them a little preview. Volume 1: ``Alternatives Evaluation Report.'' Volume 2: ``Reservoir Regulation Studies: Long-Range Study Manual.'' Volume 3A: ``Low-Flow Studies: Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis, Missouri.'' Volume 3B: ``Low-Flow Studies: Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis, Missouri,'' including Appendix A on ``Ice Impacts'' and Appendix B on ``Water Quality Impacts.'' Volume 4: ``Hydraulic Studies: Upstream from Gavins Point Dam.'' Volume 5: ``Aggradation, Degradation and Water Quality Conditions.'' Volume 6A: ``Economic Studies: Navigation Economics.'' Volume 6B: ``Economic Studies: Water Supply Economics.'' Volume 6C: ``Economic Studies: Recreation Economics.'' Volume 6D: ``Economic Studies: Hydropower Economics, Flood Control Economics, and Mississippi River Economics.'' Volume 6E: ``Economic Studies: Regional Economics.'' Volume 7A: ``Environmental Studies: Reservoir Fisheries,'' including the main report along with Appendix A, ``Description of Resource,'' and Appendix B, ``Reservoir Fish, Reproduction Impact Methodology.'' Volume 7B: ``Environmental Studies: Reservoir Fisheries,'' including Appendix C, ``Coldwater Habitat Model.'' Volume 7C: ``Environmental Studies: Riverine Fisheries,'' including the main report, and Appendix A, ``Description of Resource.'' Volume 7D: ``Environmental Studies: Riverine Fisheries,'' including Appendix B, ``Physical Habitat Analysis Upstream of Sioux City,'' and Appendix C, ``Physical Habitat Analysis Downstream of Sioux City.'' Volume 7E: ``Environmental Studies: Riverine Fisheries,'' Appendix D, ``Assessing Temperature Effects on Habitat.'' Volume 7F: ``Environmental Studies: Wetland and Riparian,'' including the main report along with Appendix A, ``Field and Mapping Methods,'' and Appendix B, ``Plant and Wildlife Species List.'' Volume 7G: ``Environmental Studies: Wetland and Riparian,'' including Appendix C, ``Fate of Wetland/Riparian Types,'' Appendix D, ``Diversity,'' Appendix E, ``Backwater Analysis,'' and Appendix F, ``Value Function Testing.'' Volume 7H: ``Environmental Studies: Least Tern and Piping Plover, Historic Properties, and Mississippi River Environment.'' Volume 8: ``Economic Impacts Model and Environmental Impacts Model.'' And Volume 9: ``Socioeconomic Studies.'' I know my colleagues must be wondering. They must be wondering, ``That is an awful lot of volumes. If the water raid boils down to navigation and taking water from recreation uses, why doesn't the Senator from Montana just read Volume 6A and 6C on recreation and navigation?'' Well, I might say that is the reasonable question. But I believe the water raid issue is so important--it is such a basic, fundamental question of fairness and justice--that each Senator probably deserves the chance to hear the issue in its full context and have the benefits of the entire context of this issue. So I decided it probably would be more fair and probably more prudent to read the entire manual than it would be, in essence, to cheat Senators by skipping straight to Volumes 6A and 6C and calling it a day. I might say I have with me just two of the volumes, 6A and 6C. These are the ones that go straight to the heart of matter. They are just two of the total of nine volumes. As I said, I do not want to be unfair to my colleagues. So I feel that they should have the benefit of the entire reading of the entire list of all of the volumes. Altogether, the manual runs to 21 bound volumes. If we add all of appendices, it comes down to 21, several thousand pages. And having finished the manual, I will then move on to the point of discussing the errors that I believe are contained in the master manual. I might tell Senators that this probably would take some time. But the conference will be done in September. And if it contains the water raid clause, I will have no alternative. I will be down here each and every day so they can have the benefit of the entire context of all the volumes so they can make a good decision on this issue. And I am pretty confident. I think I can get most of the standards in by September. I may need a couple of weeks in October to get Senators fully informed. But it is, I think, important that we have that. So I might say, Mr. President, in concluding, I thank my colleagues for allowing additional time. It is my fervent hope and strong intention that the water raid provision will be out before the conference ends, so that it will be in the Senate here and not taking all of this time to learn the full issue, the ins and outs of it all. I do not look forward to reading it in its entirety, but I am taking this step, Mr. President, because it is very simple. This provision was put in totally unfairly, it is totally wrong, and in a procedure that is totally out of the question. I might remind Senators that water is our lifeblood in Montana. It does not rain very much west of the 100th meridian. We very much want to stand up for what we think is right. I want Senators to know this issue may come up. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield myself 5 minutes. I first want to very much thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Dodd of Connecticut for very generously and graciously yielding me their time and allowing me to proceed ahead of them. I thank the Senators. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of welfare reform. The welfare reform debate is emotional, we all know that. It is complex, that is clear. But I must say I find almost universal agreement that today's Federal welfare program does not do what we would expect of a welfare system. It does not help people get back on their feet and back to work. It does not promote worth or promote personal responsibility or self- sufficiency. Most of us envisioned a different system, a welfare system that encourages personal responsibility, one that encourages work and self-sufficiency, one that lets States like Montana create their own systems that make sense to their State's own unique problems, one that protects children, helps keep families together, prevents communities from deteriorating, and is fair to taxpayers. The Nation's welfare problems took a long time to develop, and they will take some time to solve. Our solutions will not come overnight. We have to work on them. I believe this proposal is a clean break with the past and a good start for the future. It is based on two essential elements that encourage work and self-sufficiency. First, there will be a time limit on welfare assistance to make sure that people have an incentive to leave welfare and move to work; second, we will remove some obstacles that now deter people on welfare from moving to work. They will have more help available for child care, and Medicaid will still be there to provide basic health care. I might add, Mr. President, that the imminent passage of the increase in minimum wage will be a big boom, will be a big part of the solution to welfare reform. On the whole, I believe this effort reflects the views and values of Montanans and of Americans. Undoubtedly, it is not perfect, and we can learn from experience. We can and will improve it as time goes by. However, it is a good start and a step we have to take. Finally, I am glad that the President has chosen to sign it. It was not an easy decision. But it is time that the system reflects the consensus now existing in America for welfare reform. I believe this bill is a good start. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But we cannot let perfection be the envy of the good. It is a good start, and I believe we will have many opportunities to improve upon it as days, months, and years go by. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. The 1995 determination affects the 1997 allocation, 2 years later.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Environment and Public Works Committee made. I understand the Senator's position, namely that although a mistake is made, and there is not anybody who disputes that a mistake was made, the point is the mistake could be corrected next year when Congress takes up reauthorization of the highway bill, the so-called ISTEA. The problem with that is very simple. First of all, this is a mistake. This is not a formula question. When ISTEA comes up next year, this Congress will deal with the formula under which the highway funds are disbursed. This is not a formula question--not a formula question. This is correcting an administrative error the Department of Transportation and, more precisely, the Department of Treasury made. It is a simple correction. I might also say the mistake that was made, and nobody disputes the mistake was made, is not a donor-donee question. The mistake distributes the dollars inappropriately to some States and does not distribute dollars inappropriately to other States, irrespective of the donor-donee question. This has nothing to do with donor-donee issues. It has nothing to do with the formula. One more point which I think is even more salient is this. The States in question here would not receive this money, if the mistake is not corrected, until fiscal 1997. So they are not going to be receiving any money this year, calendar 1996. They are not going to be receiving any money next year until after the fiscal year begins on October 1, 1997. So this is the appropriate time to correct the mistake, that is, before States would otherwise receive their money. It is a lot easier to correct a mistake before a State or somebody receives money than it is afterward. I know full well the States that receive their money, if they were to receive their money incorrectly next year, they are not going to be very likely to give it back. I think, therefore, for all those reasons, the appropriate place to correct the mistake--nobody disputes the mistake was made--is right now. Just do it quickly and easily. Then, next year, this Congress will engage in a full battle royal, I know, over the allocation of highway funds. For those reasons, I think this is more appropriate that the correction be made here and now, simply, rather than putting it off to next year.

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

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Fine.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very simple technical correction amendment. Very simply, it corrects a mistake that the Department of the Treasury made. The administration tells us, incredibly, they need legislative authority to correct the mistake. This amendment simply does that legislatively, it corrects that mistake. Nobody disputes that a mistake was made--nobody. The administration admits it, and the Senators who have spoken on this issue also admit it was a mistake. What was the mistake? The mistake is very simple. Essentially, in 1994, the Treasury failed to credit the Highway Trust Fund with about $1.5 billion, an administrative error, a bureaucratic error. The Treasury then corrected that error in 1995, credited the Highway Trust Fund with the 1994 mistake, that is, the $1.5 billion and also continued to collect revenues in 1995, as they should. The problem is the extra bump, the additional revenue in 1995, that is not only the revenue to be collected properly in 1995 but also the additional $1.5 billion credit because the mistake was made in 1994, that additional bump skewed the formulas, because the formulas are based upon the revenue that was received in 1995; that is, the formula's distribution for future years is based upon the 1995 receipts. The Department of Transportation has written us a letter saying that they cannot correct this mistake administratively and cannot, by their own administrative procedures, correct this error. They say it has to be made by legislation. It is a pure and simple error, pure and simple mistake. I think it is appropriate at this time to correct the mistake. I might say, Mr. President, this is not a donor-donee question. This has nothing to do with the claim that some States have that they are so-called donee States, that is, their citizens are contributing more dollars in gasoline taxes in the Highway Trust Fund than they are receiving in highway formula distributions. This is not that issue. In fact, the mistake that the Treasury made results in a misallocation which is totally independent of the donee-donor issue--totally independent; it has nothing to do with it. I remind my colleagues who might think this is an allocation question, that this might be, ``Oh, here we go again, one of those battles where States are trying to get more money for themselves,'' this is not that issue. We will have an opportunity to deal with that question next year. Why next year? Because next year the Congress is due to reauthorize the highway bill, ISTEA. The States have been dealing with the formula under ISTEA for the past several years. The last ISTEA was passed in 1991. Here we are in 1996. The next ISTEA 6 years later will be passed in 1997. That is the opportunity and the place to figure out what the proper formula is in distribution of highway funds. There will be a lot of good arguments made by a lot of Senators as to what that formula should be. A lot of factors go into it. Obviously, population density, miles traveled, population growth--a whole host of factors. And next year the Congress will dig down deep, try to figure out which factors, which indicators make the most sense, and we can deal with that issue then. That is the time, next year, to deal with the formula. It certainly is not here on the floor of the Senate at the end of July, this is not the time to deal with the highway allocation formula. This is not a formulation, this is simply correcting a mistake which everyone agrees was a mistake and should be corrected. Some might ask, ``Gee, why don't we take up this mistake and correct this mistake next year when we take up the highway bill?'' The answer to that is very simple, Mr. President. It is this: The maldistributions, the unjust-enrichment distributions that will be allocated under this mistake will not occur this year in 1996, they will occur in the next fiscal year, 1997. So those States who unjustly are enriched by a clerical bureaucratic mistake will not be receiving any funds until after October 1 of next year, 1997. So now is the time to correct the mistake; that is, before States receive money they should not receive and before States do not receive money that they should receive. Now is the time to correct the mistake. Sure as we are here tonight, Mr. President, we know next year after October of 1997--and ISTEA will certainly come up later than October of next year, that is the new highway bill as we deal with the new allocation formula--States are not going to want to give back money they improperly receive. They already will have received the dollars. So now is the time in 1996 to correct the mistake so States are in a lot better position to deal with what is proper here. I might say, too, Mr. President, that 19 States benefited by this mistake; 31 States were injured, harmed by this mistake. The amendment I am offering simply returns us to the status quo. It does not tilt the formula any way, one way or the other. It is totally a restoration of the status quo; that is, a total correction of a mistake that was made, which means under this amendment 31 States will be better off, 19 States will be worse off, compared with where they would be if the mistake were not corrected. The amendment here simply again is to correct the mistake. I would like to read the names of the States, Mr. President, which will benefit under this amendment, that is, returned to the status quo, that is, States which will then be receiving what they are supposed to be receiving under the ISTEA bill, the highway bill. Here are the States: Alabama, Alaska--so if you are one of these States, you are a State that is being unjustly, unfairly harmed by a bureaucratic error. This amendment would add dollars back to correct that mistake so we are back to the status quo. Again: Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. I might also add, Puerto Rico would be in that list as well. Very simply, I will sum up, Mr. President, by saying this is an attempt to correct a mistake. Everyone admits it is a mistake. This is not a donee-donor question. Now is the proper time to correct the mistake because funds have not yet been allocated. They will not be allocated--under the mistake--until 1997, fiscal 1997. That is beginning October 1 of next year. So now is the time to correct it. The issue of how we allocate disbursements should be addressed when we take up the highway bill next year. I have given the names of the States that will be benefited under this amendment. Again, they are States who are harmed by the mistake but to be returned to the status quo. Thirty-one States in that category. Mr. President, I see the chairman of the committee, my very good friend, John Chafee on the floor. And he also supports this amendment for the correction for the States. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to enter into the Record a couple of letters from the administration which document that a mistake was made. The first is a memorandum from the Department of Treasury. I would like to read several portions of it without reading it in detail. In fiscal 1994 an accounting error, described in greater detail below, resulted in a $1.590 billion misallocation of excise taxes against the Highway Trust Fund. This misallocation of excise taxes was corrected in fiscal year 1995. Another portion reads: This change led to a misinterpretation of the information provided to FMS on the IRS Quarterly Certification and resulted in a misallocation of excise taxes between the Highway Trust Fund and General Fund in Fiscal Year 1994. This misallocation of excise taxes was corrected in Fiscal Year 1995, debiting the General Fund and crediting the Highway Trust Fund in the amount of $1.590 billion. Procedures have been implemented to assure that future adjustments to the Highway Trust Fund occur in an accurate and timely manner. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very clearly, the Department of Treasury admits the error, a $1.590 billion miscalculation. To review this, so that Senators understand how this procedure works, by law, there is a 2-year time lag, which means that because a mistake was made in 1994, by definition, 1996 allocations were not made in advance of what the formula would otherwise require, because in 1994, almost $1.6 billion was not credited to the highway trust fund. In 1996, the formula was based upon the amount that is in the 1994 account. Since the 1994 account was deficient by $1.6 billion, by definition, States were not overpaid in 1996. So no States were overpaid in 1996. Again, as I said, by law, the allocation is made 2 years after the account is so-called certified. Well, in 1995, after the mistake was discovered, not only were normal 1995 accounts received from States and the highway trust fund credited with the usual amount it should have been, but in addition to that, the mistake--the $1.6 billion--was added on top of the 1995 account, which overstated 1997 payments. So the correction we are trying to make here today is a combination of 1994 and 1995, the underpayment in 1994, as well as the overpayment in 1995, which determine the State allocations in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. I might add, Mr. President, I have another letter from the Department of Transportation--actually, from the Federal Highway Administration, signed by Rodney Slater, Administrator. It states in part that it is unable to administratively make the correction. I can read portions of that, but Senators may read the letter. It is a little bit technical and bureaucratic. But the long and short of it is that they admit the mistake and explain what would have happened had the mistake not occurred. They state that it has to be corrected by legislation. I listened with great curiosity to the arguments of the Senator from Texas. He, in a sense, was saying that because the 1994 allocation was determined as it was, and the mistake was made, we should close our eyes and be blind to any mistake that might have been made. He is saying, by law, the 1996 allocation should be determined by what the 1994 receipts are, and a mistake was made, but do not look at the mistake because that is what the law said in 1994. Mr. President, we are only saying that everyone admits it was a mistake. The Department of Treasury documents it was a mistake, as does the Department of Transportation. Senator Warner was on the floor not long ago and also admitted the mistake. I guess the real question is, if it is a mistake, do we correct it or not? That is the issue. Very simply, if a mistake is made, should it be corrected, or should it not be corrected? I submit, Mr. President, to ask the question is to answer it. Of course, we should correct the mistake. That is what normal, civilized human beings do--correct mistakes. The other argument I have heard is, well, gee, even if a mistake was made, don't correct it now, correct it next year. Well, we all know, Mr. President, one of the greatest problems that we as human beings have is procrastinating, putting off what we can do now. Here we are tonight. Let us correct this mistake. We could, I suppose, take it up next year when ISTEA comes up. But ISTEA is the highway bill. The highway bill battle is to determine what the allocation should be. We are not arguing what the allocation should be. That is an argument that Senators will engage in next year, in 1997. I might also say--repeating myself--if we don't correct the mistake now, next year the States will receive dollars they should not receive, and they are not very likely to want to send the dollars back, even though they know they should. We are really put to a test here, Mr. President. The real test is: Are we going to live up to our word or not? I might say, particularly, as Senators, that is really the issue here. Sure, if a State is unjustly enriched, it is kind of fun to get the extra dollars. But if it is unjustly enriched because of a mistake, we all know we should not accept those dollars, and we should correct the mistake, according to the formula and understanding that we all had when we passed the highway bill in 1991. So that is really the deeper underlying question here tonight. Are we Senators going to live up to our word? Or are we going to be greedy and take advantage of a mistake that was made, even though we know that is not fair, that is not the right thing to do? That is the deep underlying question here tonight that we have to ask ourselves. I say, Mr. President, that it is very clear. I am surprised that we are debating this. I am surprised that this amendment was not automatically accepted. It was a mistake. We are not in a highway allocation fight tonight. This is not a donor-donee issue. We all know it is better to correct something sooner than later. So let us correct it tonight. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question?